cross-posted from: https://rss.ponder.cat/post/116914
He dreamed of a cycling revolution. Then an SUV crushed him
There’s a lot of hate and anger here directed against the driver, who was of course himself full of hate and anger. He should rot in hell etc etc, it’s all very American. None of that will solve anything. This is about systems. Paris is too dense for cars, let alone SUVs, but humans like their cars and will buy them and use them if we don’t decide collectively to prevent it. The tragedy here was not that one entitled guy blew a gasket and did something he surely regretted instantly, it’s that we all, together, allowed this situation to occur. A rush-hour boulevard crammed with too-big cars, in a city which is already as dense as a hothouse, in a country with increasingly angry and polarized politics. The problem is not individuals, it’s systems.
I’m sorry if if this is too sophisticated an argument for this community, but I speak with direct experience of the subject at hand and I would like to see the problem actually solved. Anger directed at this individual miscreant is IMO an almost irrelevant distraction that will not solve anything.
This seems to fit with the vibe of this community. A lot of us advocate for physical and systematic changes to the transportion system to reduce and prevent incidents like this. Protective infrastructure like protected lanes, lane narrowing, raised crossings and bollards are frequently mentioned alongside speed reductions and transit alternatives. We know people are humans and they are just existing within the systems and biases created, we want to build a better world where those systems are safer for everyone, not just the people enclosed in their high speed metal boxes.
A driver murdered him, not a sentient SUV.
Probably not far from the latter and regardless, the widespread presence of these vehicles in cities makes everyone less safe no matter the intentions of the drivers.
Then a murderous entitled driver in an SUV crushed him.
Was the title edited? Cuz it clearly says ‘driver in an SUV’.
Yes: I had to edit the title to add the driver part, because the deliberately minimizing and car-supremacist loaded language in the original title mentioned only the SUV and not the driver at all.
But, point taken that I should’ve edited it even more.
As a concept SUVs should not exist.
They are unstable, heavy and slower to react than normal cars, also the proportions of the design of the SUV are ugly.
So should my family of 7 be forced to sell our 7-seat SUV because you personally don’t like it?
Think about things before you say them.
That’s missing the point. The point is that this inhuman prick felt entitled to drive in the bike lane, ran over a cyclist’s foot, then killed the cyclist for having the audacity to object to having his foot run over.
None of that had anything to do with SUVs. Trying to make it about SUVs is, in my view, often a derailment tactic to distract from the real issue of driver entitlement. Fair warning, I will have very little tolerance for that in this thread.
I won’t argue that the driver’s behavior is the main issue, however smaller and lighter vehicles with lowers hoods are more forgiving in accidents involving pedestrains and cyclists. The design of trucks and SUVs are more dangerous, which then makes agressive drivers even more dangerous as well. We’ll never be able to fully eliminate entitlement and roadrage, but we can limit the designs of vehicles on our streets and the lisencing requirements for them.
Ok, first of all, I fully agree with you, this is a horrible tragedy regardless of what type of car or bike was involved.
I didn’t try do shift blame or derail anything, calm down, I just woke up when I wrote that.
Don’t treat people don’t confess their undying support for your cause as the enemy, that is letting perfect be the enemy of good.
Maybe you weren’t trying to do anything, but I’ve seen too often what happens when comments like yours get posted. The result is not productive, and I’m sick of it to the point that it’s become kind of a pet peeve. My goal was to head that off as gently as possible but also as unequivocally as necessary.
Anyway, being calm and giving you the benefit of the doubt is why you got a reply and not a mod action. Well, that and the need to mention the “fair warning” part, which was directed at everybody, not just you.
Edit: by the way, “horrible tragedy” carries a connotation of it being an accident. This wasn’t that. This was a monstrous purposeful act by someone whose mind had been corrupted by driving.
“horrible tragedy” carries a connotation of it being an accident.
Since there are no connotative dictionaries I cannot definitively say you are incorrect, but I’m willing to climb out on that limb anyway. You are incorrect.
The “horrible tragedy” is the loss of a 27yr old that was completely unnecessary. A murder is still a horrible tragedy.
This was 100% murder how do you accidentally: drive in the bike lane over a curb, run over his foot, back up, then run over the rest of him, and drive away before police arrive. I hope they throw the book at the driver.
With his daughter in the car… And then he comes crying saying he didn’t meant it? I hope he rot in jail
He murdered someone in front of his daughter?! God damn, she’s gonna need a lot of therapy.
Poppop dindu nuffin mate
is this meant to be racist?
Yes, I hate rich people 🐸
The SUV was the murder weapon. the driver murdered him.
