I did not see you, not see me, corrolary

Background Reading


The ChainLink is vastly improved from its former self. But one trait persists both there and in the psyche of each and every Urban Cyclist alive on the planet: ‘A strong sense of victimhood‘.

Take for instance the discussion that is depicted below:



Incredulity is always the singular emotion when a cyclist gets hit by a motor vehicle. But we already know of studies that indicate a bias towards singular events called ‘selective attention‘. The video below gives an illustration of the problem:

But what happens when the cyclist is the distracted party? That is often the case when a cyclist focuses on slithering through traffic in a particularly dangerous fashion and then this happens:

And as you might imagine most cyclists would look at this video clip and insist that the party who was wronged was the cyclist, not the pedestrian.

We always insist that whenever we collide with someone they were the ones who lacked attentiveness, they are to be indicted by their admission that they did not see us.

A Teachable Moment

But if you notice in this discussion the cyclist is aware of the pedestrian, and yet he manages to collide with said pedestrian. How is that even possible?



It happens because the cyclist in not being attentive. He is probably the kind of person who upon seeing a child or a pet venture near some danger will himself remain immobile wondering to himself why they are doing something so dangerous. But what he should be doing is springing into action. He should be advancing toward the child or the animal to prevent it from doing something that it probably does not realize is quite dangerous.

Likewise in this situation the cyclist is locked into a selfish and arrogant stance that ‘his ground is his ground‘. He does not want to be the one who gives way. He is in desperate need of a 3 Feet Law that makes it clear to him that when a faster moving vehicle advances on a slower moving one (e.g. a pedestrians or a person in a wheelchair or one of his sidekicks lying immobile on the ground following their drunk-fest) he must be the one who gives way.

You Cannot Hit A Pedestrian If You Allow 3 Feet

There is something rather eerily similar between this situation with a pedestrian and what happens when cyclists ‘play chicken with automobiles‘. Neither one has the decency to determine that the outcome is lethal enough not to be played to its logical conclusion.

Cyclist decided that the only real solution was to mandate that cars allow them 3 Feet when passing. Fine! But the same thing needs to happen to cyclists.

The sun doth not shine from our anuses!

We need to eradicate cyclist stupidity before we spend a single farthing on two separate walkways on the Chicago Lakefront Trail for cyclists and pedestrians. Segregating the two groups will solve one problem and no doubt create others.

The Lance Wannabes are still gonna want to speed. Having their own lane to themselves will mean that suddenly Divvy riders and casual riders will be dive-bombed by Strava™-Idiots hell-bent on beating out some unknown asshole on a circuit that is entirely the wrong place to display your speed.

But cyclists are idiots of a special sort when it comes to their ‘victimhood‘ and before long there will be some lackey from the Active Transportation Alliance who will have convinced one of the StreetsBlog lapdogs to write a piece stating that the public wants a third lane to separate the faster riders from the slower ones. Yeah, that makes a great deal of sense.


If you cannot find the muscle control to avert an impending collision with someone else on foot (assuming that you are both in motion) then consider yourself an idiot. As with the situation of riding in the Door Zone it is incumbent on the cyclist (not the motorist or his two year old daughter) to watch out for your safety. Dammit, get your lard ass over several feet (hows ’bout 3 Feet) and avoid the collision in the first instance:

© urbanistdispatch.com

© urbanistdispatch.com

And while you are at it leave the whining to those who have a legitimate right to the practice. That means only those who are younger than 5 years of age.