Are you afraid?

[Cobblestoned]

I am never afraid when riding - actually I spread trepidation

Maybe advantageous that ze Germans love their cars, Kääsköpp and Frittenköpp little bit less.
He who has only one outside mirror left, or a shoe print in the carbody, might be more careful next time.
Glad that bikes don't have numberplates, but cars do.

I had better experience with offensive riding, meaning for example to ride into middle of street when there is an obstacle on side, or when turning off.
People may always scream then, but they think 2-3 times whether they shall hit you - a vulnerable cyclist. When it goes to courtroom, they always lose or get a huge portion of the guilt in the end, cause they have a "powerful car" and are stronger. They know that and me too.
If you ride too defensive, they may hit you, because of dreaming or just because they don't take you serious, or don't notice you.
Netherlands is somehow paradise for bikeriders (red marked cyclepaths everwhere) and you have a even huger problem when hitting or hurting a bikerider. At the moment Germany (at least at part where I live) is doing a lot for bikeriders and biketourism.

This is not a call for biking like a hooligan, its just my long time experience that little bit "offensive" riding is less dangerous.

 

[flicker]

I am never afraid when riding - actually I spread trepidation

Maybe advantageous that ze Germans love their cars, Kääsköpp and Frittenköpp little bit less.
He who has only one outside mirror left, or a shoe print in the carbody, might be more careful next time.
Glad that bikes don't have numberplates, but cars do.

I had better experience with offensive riding, meaning for example to ride into middle of street when there is an obstacle on side, or when turning off.
People may always scream then, but they think 2-3 times whether they shall hit you - a vulnerable cyclist. When it goes to courtroom, they always lose or get a huge portion of the guilt in the end, cause they have a "powerful car" and are stronger. They know that and me too.
If you ride too defensive, they may hit you, because of dreaming or just because they don't take you serious, or don't notice you.
Netherlands is somehow paradise for bikeriders (red marked cyclepaths everwhere) and you have a even huger problem when hitting or hurting a bikerider. At the moment Germany (at least at part where I live) is doing a lot for bikeriders and biketourism.

This is not a call for biking like a hooligan, its just my long time experience that little bit "offensive" riding is less dangerous.

We used that tactic riding in the inner city of San Francisco. I always rode large, and if an offending vehicle chose to crowd us we would always have a rebuttel(and we rode vehicle code.) It almost always worked.

 

[Archibald]

I can't believe that, until today, I missed this thread about my favorite topic by my favorite poster.

My point is this... can you name even 5 of the 10 most common types of bike-car crashes?

I did wonder how you hadn't seen this one yet!

I'll try for the points:

- driver/passenger opens car door into path of cyclist
- parked vehicle pulls out from kerb without looking
- cyclist rear-ending a car through sudden braking of the vehicle
- cyclist rear-ending a car through inattention
- vehicle rear-ends cyclist (have received a nudge like this at traffic lights myself)
- vehicle makes a turn across cyclist (left in UK or right elsewhere) cutting them off
- vehicle enters/crosses intersection and either gets t-boned by cyclist or t-bones the cyclist
- cross traffic turn by vehicle (right UK/left US) when there's a gap left by motorist, but doesn't see cyclist who's obscured by "courteous" car
- unsafe lane changes by cyclist/motorist

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Easy on poor biff. You never know what kind of car driving / cycling practices exist in some other countries. I don't know about Japan, but take for instance some places in the Arab world or India, where lines painted on the streets are just viewed as "guidelines" and you'll see cars criss-crossing the lines every which way. How could anyone possibly anticipate anything in situations like that.

And yet, they do.

It might seem chaotic if you come from a place in which traffic is more orderly, but the fact is that vehicles only move in two dimensions, and an excellent predictor of what the driver will do in the next 10 seconds (which is all that matters, if that much) is whatever he is doing now. After all, all a driver has control over is changing velocity, and changing heading by a relatively small amount in one direction or another. So you might not be able to predict exactly what a driver will do, but regardless of what the rules are, physics limits the possibilities to a pretty narrow range of possibilities to which all drivers are confined. So, if nothing else, you can always predict he will remain confined to those limitations, because physics requires it.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I did wonder how you hadn't seen this one yet!

I'll try for the points:

- driver/passenger opens car door into path of cyclist
- parked vehicle pulls out from kerb without looking
- cyclist rear-ending a car through sudden braking of the vehicle
- cyclist rear-ending a car through inattention
- vehicle rear-ends cyclist (have received a nudge like this at traffic lights myself)
- vehicle makes a turn across cyclist (left in UK or right elsewhere) cutting them off
- vehicle enters/crosses intersection and either gets t-boned by cyclist or t-bones the cyclist
- cross traffic turn by vehicle (right UK/left US) when there's a gap left by motorist, but doesn't see cyclist who's obscured by "courteous" car
- unsafe lane changes by cyclist/motorist

Very good, though you're missing the one we call "left cross" in the U.S.... Left (right in UK) turning vehicle enters intersection right in front of, or right into, cyclist who is riding normally across the intersection and was simply overlooked (not necessarily obscured by a courteous driver's vehicle).

Now,can you (or anyone else) order these in approximate order of likelihood? Which are most common? Also consider what crash types might be skewed the most by crashes involving cyclists riding at night without proper lights/reflectors.

 

[fatsprintking]

And yet, they do.

It might seem chaotic if you come from a place in which traffic is more orderly, but the fact is that vehicles only move in two dimensions, and an excellent predictor of what the driver will do in the next 10 seconds (which is all that matters, if that much) is whatever he is doing now. After all, all a driver has control over is changing velocity, and changing heading by a relatively small amount in one direction or another. So you might not be able to predict exactly what a driver will do, but regardless of what the rules are, physics limits the possibilities to a pretty narrow range of possibilities to which all drivers are confined. So, if nothing else, you can always predict he will remain confined to those limitations, because physics requires it.

Your ****ting me right. How about we add in multiple variables. I.e. a number of cars. Your example is looking at a situation where you have one car to deal with and you are only predicting its movements.

How about this one - you are travelling down a hill at 40kmph and the road is wet. Out of a side street a car that was obscured by a fence appears, its driver looking down the road past you tries to cut in front of what it percives is the next vehicle behind you. Physics if you want to call it that demands that you will not be able to brake in time, but you are confident and calm and simply swerve to miss the car - only problem is that the driver was a a complete *** and has misjusdged the the car behind you which you swerve in front of and it collects you from behind.

The close calls I was talking about involve much less than ten seconds and involve multiple vehicles and factors. Yes you can mitigate risks to an extent but to not understand that there are inherent risks in riding in traffic is stupid.

I have covered over 500,000 kms on bikes and motorcycles in the last 25 years. I have had one collision with a car while on my motorycycle, when a driver swerved from the left lane in front of me (australia) to try and grab a park on the right hand side of the road. That was 20 years ago and I have learnt a lot since then, but I still have a very healthy respect for the fact that there are risks and that while my judgement, experience and skill give me an advantage - no one is perfect.

 

[The Hitch]

I can't believe that, until today, I missed this thread about my favorite topic by my favorite poster.

Cheers.
.......

 

[Archibald]

Very good, though you're missing the one we call "left cross" in the U.S.... Left (right in UK) turning vehicle enters intersection right in front of, or right into, cyclist who is riding normally across the intersection and was simply overlooked (not necessarily obscured by a courteous driver's vehicle).

Now,can you (or anyone else) order these in approximate order of likelihood? Which are most common? Also consider what crash types might be skewed the most by crashes involving cyclists riding at night without proper lights/reflectors.

i'll take a punt at the motorist cornering with the cyclist between them and the curb will be the highest
drivers aren't taught to check their left when turning left (UK)
and it's the most common killer here in london when cyclists get "squashed" by turning trucks and busses

pretty much anything where folks don't pay attention at intersections or when turning will be the most common.

unless your 'lack of lights' comment is for cars just sideswiping riders on open roads by not seeing them and therefore allowing enough room?

 

[Burnette]

Death is a part of Life, Ha!

Statistics, palying the odds, whatever you want to call it, will get you nothing or worse, turn you into a hermit.
Air Planes,Tractor Trailers, Buses, Suvs, Autos, Motorcycles, bicycles, they all have been involved in an accident somewere recently. Hell, even the big ginormuous Airbus 380 (can carry 525 passengers) ***** slapped a smaller jet and spun it around on the tarmac Monday night.
Hey, I ride my bicycle on the road and have a healthy amount fear/respect for the enviornment that I choose to engage in. I also know that I have no control over what may or may not happen. That's the real issue, we as humans can't get over the fact that we can't control our own fate. Sure, take precautions, ride safely but know that in the end, what will be will be.
Another thing about this is age/maturity. I am old enough to have seen life's lessons happen in my life an others. Someone minding their own business somehow still gets killed, a person running in a marathon dies of a heart attack. Just look at Japan, imagine riding your bicycle on the coast of Japan that day. Eight people I have known at work have died of cancer, all under the age of sixty.
Respect your comfort zone too though, if something in you says that riding out there is more fearful than fun, stop riding on the road. If it's not fun anymore, end it now. Let the big fears change you because that's were your center is. I wouldn't ride in certain places for that very reason.
If it is a small fear, get over it and have fun, live your life, challenge it. I am blessed that I live/ride in an area that I feel comfortable in and that I get so much enjoyment out of riding out there that I can't wait to suit up and go everytime. Live your life, don't just exist.
One associate would brag about how much money he had in his 401k. He fell ill and died of massive organ failure due to complications of surgery and an unkown condition. He shouldn't have blown all that money, but he should have lived more with some of it.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

How about this one - you are travelling down a hill at 40kmph and the road is wet. Out of a side street a car that was obscured by a fence appears, its driver looking down the road past you tries to cut in front of what it percives is the next vehicle behind you. Physics if you want to call it that demands that you will not be able to brake in time, but you are confident and calm and simply swerve to miss the car - only problem is that the driver was a a complete *** and has misjusdged the the car behind you which you swerve in front of and it collects you from behind.

1) Are you going too fast for the wet conditions and obscured visibility situation?
2) Are you positioned too close to the outside edge of the road? There, sight lines are shorter (the car in the side street remains obscured, and you remain obscured to its driver, until you're almost there - move well out into the traffic lane, especially at that speed, to improve sight lines, conspicuousness and buffer space to roadside hazards).
3) Are you using your mirror to extend your situational awareness from just in front of you to behind you as well?
4) Have you issued the slow arm signal to the car behind you due to approaching an obscured side street?
5) Have you slowed down and moved even further way from the road edge, like to the inside tire track of your lane, due to approaching an obscured side street?

Cars don't come out of nowhere. They do show up from obscured side streets, and from behind you. But that is predictable.

The close calls I was talking about involve much less than ten seconds and involve multiple vehicles and factors. Yes you can mitigate risks to an extent but to not understand that there are inherent risks in riding in traffic is stupid.

Of course you can't mitigate all risk. But I do think you can mitigate about 99% of the risk to which the average cyclist is exposed. That is, by learning about crashes and learning and adopting the habits and practices that avoid them, you can be about 100 times less likely to be hit than the average cyclist who is clueless about all this. But it starts by accepting responsibility for anything and everything that happens to you, no matter who might be primarily at "fault". This, again, is just defensive driving applied to bicycling.

I have covered over 500,000 kms on bikes and motorcycles in the last 25 years. I have had one collision with a car while on my motorycycle, when a driver swerved from the left lane in front of me (australia) to try and grab a park on the right hand side of the road. That was 20 years ago and I have learnt a lot since then, but I still have a very healthy respect for the fact that there are risks and that while my judgement, experience and skill give me an advantage - no one is perfect.

No one said anyone is or can be perfectly safe. But you should be able to learn enough to mitigate enough of the risk so as to be confident in your safety, and not be scared, which is what this thread is about.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Statistics, palying the odds, whatever you want to call it, will get you nothing or worse, turn you into a hermit.
Air Planes,Tractor Trailers, Buses, Suvs, Autos, Motorcycles, bicycles, they all have been involved in an accident somewere recently. Hell, even the big ginormuous Airbus 380 (can carry 525 passengers) ***** slapped a smaller jet and spun it around on the tarmac Monday night.
Hey, I ride my bicycle on the road and have a healthy amount fear/respect for the enviornment that I choose to engage in. I also know that I have no control over what may or may not happen. That's the real issue, we as humans can't get over the fact that we can't control our own fate. Sure, take precautions, ride safely but know that in the end, what will be will be.
Another thing about this is age/maturity. I am old enough to have seen life's lessons happen in my life an others. Someone minding their own business somehow still gets killed, a person running in a marathon dies of a heart attack. Just look at Japan, imagine riding your bicycle on the coast of Japan that day. Eight people I have known at work have died of cancer, all under the age of sixty.
Respect your comfort zone too though, if something in you says that riding out there is more fearful than fun, stop riding on the road. If it's not fun anymore, end it now. Let the big fears change you because that's were your center is. I wouldn't ride in certain places for that very reason.
If it is a small fear, get over it and have fun, live your life, challenge it. I am blessed that I live/ride in an area that I feel comfortable in and that I get so much enjoyment out of riding out there that I can't wait to suit up and go everytime. Live your life, don't just exist.
One associate would brag about how much money he had in his 401k. He fell ill and died of massive organ failure due to complications of surgery and an unkown condition. He shouldn't have blown all that money, but he should have lived more with some of it.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but take issue with the wording, or at least what it seems to convey, of this one sentence: "Sure, take precautions, ride safely but know that in the end, what will be will be."

I think that wording is unnecessarily fatalistic and suggests bicyclists have less control over what happens to them than they really do. When people describe crashes they've been in, they seem satisfied with knowing the crash was not their fault, but, in my view, have insufficient interest in knowing that even though it wasn't their fault, they could have avoided it anyway.

Perhaps the most obvious case is being hit by a red light runner, or by someone who opens a door into your path without looking first. In both cases the crash is clearly not the cyclists's fault, though the cyclist also could have easily avoided either one, by habitually checking for red light runners before entering intersections on green, and by habitually tracking at least five feet from parked cars.

Less obvious cases are when a cyclist riding in a bike lane is hit by oncoming traffic turning across his path, or someone pulling out from a driveway or street on the side. What's often missed is that by riding in the bike lane as you approach a place where there could be cross traffic, you're choosing to ride in a place different from where most motorists are most likely looking for vehicular traffic... out in the traffic lane. By being relatively obscure in the bike lane, you're more prone to being overlooked, and hit. Sure they're supposed to be looking in the bike lane too, but are you going to trust them to do that, or move out into the space where you're much more likely to be noticed? (of course, that's no guarantee you'll be noticed, just a higher likelihood, so be prepared to be be overlooked in any case). Get out there and be conspicuous, in the traffic lane. But if "what will be, will be", why bother?

So, I suggest that someone who ultimately believes what your fatalistic statement says, won't really "take precautions" all that seriously - he won't always ride at last five feet from cars, he might often enter an intersection without checking for red light runners, he might choose to pass slowing or stopped motorists on the right, even where they can and might turn right. He'll stay in the bike lane even when he'd be better off out in the traffic lane. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but, to me, that wording, "Sure, take precautions, ... but..." just seems to be suggesting that cyclists leave significantly more responsibility with others than necessary. I advise against that.

I leave you with a quote from Robert Hurst that I suggest is the antidote to the fatalistic "what will be will be" attitude:

"The urban cyclist's best chance is to gather all the responsibility that can be gathered. Hoard it from those around you. Have faith that you will do a better job with than they will, and make it so. Don't trust your fate to the police, the planners, the pedestrians, or the paramedics. Don't leave your fate to the stars, or to luck. Definitely don't leave your fate to the drivers."

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

And yet, they do.

It might seem chaotic if you come from a place in which traffic is more orderly, but the fact is that vehicles only move in two dimensions, and an excellent predictor of what the driver will do in the next 10 seconds (which is all that matters, if that much) is whatever he is doing now. After all, all a driver has control over is changing velocity, and changing heading by a relatively small amount in one direction or another. So you might not be able to predict exactly what a driver will do, but regardless of what the rules are, physics limits the possibilities to a pretty narrow range of possibilities to which all drivers are confined. So, if nothing else, you can always predict he will remain confined to those limitations, because physics requires it.

Well, that'd make me feel real safe considering relatively small objects like cyclists often go unnoticed, especially in blind spots.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Well, that'd make me feel real safe considering relatively small objects like cyclists often go unnoticed, especially in blind spots.

Right... so you:
1) know blind spots
2) stay out of blind spots whenever possible
3) when you're in a blind spot, either speed up or slow down quickly to get out of it
4) while you're in a blind spot be extra vigilant
5) look for evidence of being noticed (just looking at you doesn't mean they noticed you!) before you put yourself in a position where you need to have been noticed to not be hit. For example, someone that is 10 seconds behind does not necessarily need to have noticed you to not hit you, not yet, but some time before they are about 4 seconds back you need evidence of being noticed (they slow down because of your presence). Same thing with intersections, don't enter an intersection when someone across from you might enter and turn into your path unless they've clearly indicated that you've been noticed.
etc.

This might seem complicated, but the bottom line is that there is a moment 10 seconds prior to almost any crash where you should be able foresee the potential crash and take appropriate action to avoid even becoming vulnerable to it, or at least take evasive action to not get hit.

If you don't feel you can "keep up" with all the potential conflicts, then you're probably in a situation more complicated than you're ready to handle... back off and get more experience riding in less intense traffic situations, and build up to the more complex situations as you get quicker at processing and evaluating everything. Once you learn to pay attention and take responsibility, it comes quickly. If instead you're obsessed with "staying out of the way", you're just going to get frustrated.

 

[barn yard]

i think everyone has second guessed going for a ride and stayed home instead at least once in their life

 

[Burnette]

Wow

Ninety5rpm, you assume meanings that are there and fashion asssumptions to meet your ideas and extrapolate way too far which brings you to conclusions that have no data to back them.
I read your response and it is clear you have an agenda, no foul there, free country, but you couldn't have understood what I was saying and come back with such a post. You didn't get it.
For reason, clarity and the fact that I believe that you totally missed it the underlying meaning of my post, I ask that you go back and read it objectively, without an argument in your heart/mind.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Ninety5rpm, you assume meanings that are there and fashion asssumptions to meet your ideas and extrapolate way too far which brings you to conclusions that have no data to back them.
I read your response and it is clear you have an agenda, no foul there, free country, but you couldn't have understood what I was saying and come back with such a post. You didn't get it.
For reason, clarity and the fact that I believe that you totally missed it the underlying meaning of my post, I ask that you go back and read it objectively, without an argument in your heart/mind.

Yes, I have an agenda. It is to spread the message that cyclists are not sitting ducks in traffic; that we have far more control and influence on our safety than most of us, even the very experienced, realize, and it begins with personally accepting responsibility not only for avoiding crashes that we cause (cyclists are primarily responsible for about 50% of car-bike crashes), but also for avoiding crashes caused by the errors of others, including inattentive and careless motorists. Your post implies, albeit vaguely, something quite different from that, and I do take issue with that. If you don't see it, perhaps you should be the one who is doing some re-reading, of both of our posts.

It's certainly possible that I've misinterpreted your words, but I've reread it and I still see what I saw before. There is a clearly fatalistic feel to the "what will be, will be" theme underlying every sentence of your post which stands in stark contrast to, for example, Hurst's advice to "hoard [responsibility for your safety] from those around you". In other words, people who truly gather all the responsibility for their safety that they can do not make statements like that. They just don't think like that, and it's that thinking that makes them significantly less likely to be hit than cyclists who don't think like that.

By the way, bicycling already is quite safe. It is so safe that someone can get away with doing stupid and careless stuff for years, even decades, without getting hit (though not without encountering many close calls) and so can get a false sense of confidence about their own ability to stay safe (especially if they discount the significance of the close calls), and the need to take on the kind of responsibility and commensurate extra precautions I'm talking about. For example, most cyclists regularly ride within the door zone of parked cars, or close enough to have to swerve away (and possibly swerve in front of overtaking traffic) if a door suddenly opens, not realizing how far they have to be to really be clear, and yet it never happens. I can't tell you how many cyclists had to actually get hit by an opening door to learn that lesson. So many seem to believe it's not about just staying out of the door zone, it's about being careful and "watching out", not realizing the whole thing can go down in less time than they can even react, not to mention that the reaction is likely to be an instinctive swerve away from the threat and in front of overtaking traffic.

So what about a cyclist who regularly rides in door zones for years without incident, and then one day instinctively swerves to avoid one, and is killed by an overtaking bus? What will be, will be, right? I see no other message in your post about that, or any other kind of crash.

If there are specific meanings that you think I've assumed are there, but are not, please identify what you think those assumptions are. If you think I've reached a conclusion without basis, please let us know what you think that conclusion is.

 

[Hampsten88]

A healthy fear keeps you alive...in anything you do. As others have pointed out, if you let fear dictate what you do then you would do nothing in life.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Ninety5rpm, you assume meanings that are there and fashion asssumptions to meet your ideas and extrapolate way too far which brings you to conclusions that have no data to back them.
I read your response and it is clear you have an agenda, no foul there, free country, but you couldn't have understood what I was saying and come back with such a post. You didn't get it.
For reason, clarity and the fact that I believe that you totally missed it the underlying meaning of my post, I ask that you go back and read it objectively, without an argument in your heart/mind.

Perhaps this will explain the disconnect we seem to be having. Your post really has (at least) two main messages,

(1) the one you intended to convey, about not letting fear inhibit you from living, and
(2) the fatalistic one you apparently made inadvertently by implication.

I was responding to the second, the fatalistic one.

You read that, thought I missed the point, understandably because I didn't even acknowledge your intended message, and objected. Again, understandable.

Look, I get it. You're just making the old observation that over-concern with death or the future can inhibit one from living today. But you express this with the following statements:

* "Death is a part of Life, Ha!"
* "Statistics, palying the odds, whatever you want to call it, will get you nothing or worse"
* "I have no control over what may or may not happen."
* "we can't control our own fate. "
* "... know that in the end, what will be will be."

Could you be any more fatalistic?

Yes, sure, realizing that we might get hurt or die while riding should not keep us from riding, but is it really necessary to convey that in a manner that also conveys such extreme fatalism? Do you really have to characterize threats in traffic as being as unpredictable and unpredictable as tsunamis cancer, and marathon runners having heart attacks? Do you believe that they are?

And after all that, you still advise as follows, "if something in you says that riding out there is more fearful than fun, stop riding on the road. " That seems sensible on the surface, until you realize that people's senses of what is dangerous and what isn't when bicycling in traffic is often all twisted and contorted. In particular, they typically fear being hit from behind all out of proportion to that ever happening (relatively very rare compared to all other types of crashes), and give very little consideration to the much more common crashes at intersections, much less how to avoid them.

I applaud your encouraging of people to get over their small fears and get out there, but you seem to be suggesting nothing more than merely suppressing those fears, rather than identifying and addressing the underlying beliefs and ignorance that are almost certainly fueling them. Someone with trepidation about riding in traffic is likely to have concerns due to lack of knowledge and skills. He should not just ignore those feelings and get out there anyway; he should pursue the knowledge and skills required to truly extinguish the lack of confidence that is making him fearful.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

A healthy fear keeps you alive...in anything you do. As others have pointed out, if you let fear dictate what you do then you would do nothing in life.

Absolutely, but before deciding whether any given fear is healthy and should be heeded, or is irrational and should not be allowed to dictate, I suggest some examination might be warranted to ascertain which it is.

You also can't decide which it is - healthy or irrational - by the magnitude of the fear you experience. A completely irrational phobia like claustrophobia can be very intense, while a nervousness caused by ignorance might be easy to ignore.

 

[Hampsten88]

Absolutely, but before deciding whether any given fear is healthy and should be heeded, or is irrational and should not be allowed to dictate, I suggest some examination might be warranted to ascertain which it is.

You also can't decide which it is - healthy or irrational - by the magnitude of the fear you experience. A completely irrational phobia like claustrophobia can be very intense, while a nervousness caused by ignorance might be easy to ignore.

My point was that if you allow fear to decide what you do then you will sit in your house and stare at the walls and do nothing else. You can get injured or killed cooking, bathing, driving, flying, walking, running, eating just as you can riding a bike.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

My point was that if you allow fear to decide what you do then you will sit in your house and stare at the walls and do nothing else. You can get injured or killed cooking, bathing, driving, flying, walking, running, eating just as you can riding a bike.

Yeah, I get that, but that's so over-simplified it's useless.

I mean, fear is what presumably keeps you from climbing onto the roof of your friend's car for a thrill ride down the freeway, and that, I presume we agree, is a good thing.

While fear is not an ideal guide by any measure, you also shouldn't simply ignore it, by just not allowing it "to decide what you do".

Fear always comes from somewhere. Understand from where, and why, and then decide what to with and about it. That's what I'm saying.

This notion implied by such statements is that fear is just some randomly generated sensation that is to be dealt with the same ("don't let it decide what you do") regardless of its source or how valid it may be is not very helpful, it seems to me.

 

[Hampsten88]

Yeah, I get that, but that's so over-simplified it's useless.

I mean, fear is what presumably keeps you from climbing onto the roof of your friend's car for a thrill ride down the freeway, and that, I presume we agree, is a good thing.

While fear is not an ideal guide by any measure, you also shouldn't simply ignore it, by just not allowing it "to decide what you do".

Fear always comes from somewhere. Understand from where, and why, and then decide what to with and about it. That's what I'm saying.

This notion implied by such statements is that fear is just some randomly generated sensation that is to be dealt with the same ("don't let it decide what you do") regardless of its source or how valid it may be is not very helpful, it seems to me.

You seem to have the attitude that one must spell everything out for you in very specific detail, based on your response. If that's what it takes to get you to understand what is being said then you will have to simply get by without knowing.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

You seem to have the attitude that one must spell everything out for you in very specific detail, based on your response. If that's what it takes to get you to understand what is being said then you will have to simply get by without knowing.

Yeah, that's what's going on here. I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[Burnette]

Forrest For The Trees

Hampsten88, I think you have got it right, Ninety5rpm doesn't get it, he is not a bad guy and he has a right to pose his opinion, but he can't see out of his own box. Instead of reading and understanding another person's perspective, he turns inward back to his same program. You can't reach everybody, I'm sure many out there got what we were saying, I'm OK to let Ninety5rpm stay where he is. We made an attempt, but it is better to let him go on in a circle alone, no progress will be made here.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Hampsten88, I think you have got it right, Ninety5rpm doesn't get it, he is not a bad guy and he has a right to pose his opinion, but he can't see out of his own box. Instead of reading and understanding another person's perspective, he turns inward back to his same program. You can't reach everybody, I'm sure many out there got what we were saying, I'm OK to let Ninety5rpm stay where he is. We made an attempt, but it is better to let him go on in a circle alone, no progress will be made here.

I think one of the great aspects of these kinds of discussions is that we can have other people look at what we're saying (and, indirectly, what we're thinking), and give us feedback. Help us see things that we might not have realized were there.

Of course, one way to avoid dealing with the unintended implications of what we're saying when they're pointed out to us like this is to deny they exist and claim we're not being understood.