|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/
-- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
On 1/31/2018 2:48 PM, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/ Time for Spike Bike? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
On 2/1/2018 10:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/31/2018 2:48 PM, AMuzi wrote: https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/ Time for Spike Bike? This story has a lot of traction, in the headlines every morning. And yet here we are. Even yet: https://nypost.com/2018/01/31/mom-of...mands-justice/ -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 2:48:49 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/ -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 I'm curious why so many cyclists think death of a cyclist in an accident is a crime. Murder requires intent. Manslaughter requires "gross negligence.." Accidents are not a crime, even if there is negligence, even if people die. Unless the driver did something way out of the ordinary that caused the accident- no crime occurred. The lawyer is absolutely right, the lapsed license is utterly irrelevant to the cause of the injury. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
On 2/8/2018 6:13 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
How are most cyclists injured or killed in accidents? They are struck from behind by an overtaking motor vehicle. Sorry, that's not true. See https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE...f/swless04.pdf "10. The bicycle-motor vehicle crashes were divided into the three main categories as such: Parallel-path events 36 percent Crossing-path events 57 percent Specific circumstances 7 percent 11. The most frequent parallel-path crashes were motorist turn/merge into bicyclist’s path (12.2 percent), motorist overtaking the bicyclist (8.6 percent), and bicyclist turn/merge into motorist’s path (7.3 percent). The most frequent crossing path crashes were motorist failed to yield to bicyclist (21.7 percent), bicyclist failed to yield at an intersection (16.8 percent), and bicyclist failed to yield midblock (11.8 percent). These six individual crash types accounted for almost 80 percent of all bicycle-motor vehicle crashes." So motorist overtaking were just 8.6 percent of the total. And I'd bet that a majority of those were of two types: Totally Unlit cyclists at night, which legal lighting would prevent; and "I think I can squeeze by" events, which would have been averted by lane control by the cyclist. Recently, the now-useless League of American Bicyclist pulled a publicity stunt to try to promote segregated paths. They had interns scan news reports of bike crashes to see how the reporters described the crash details. From those, they tried to glean the percentage of hit-from-behind crashes, and came up with a wild overestimate. Needless to say, their methodology was terrible. But that's consistent behavior from an organization that has shifted from "cyclists' rights to the road" to "let's build cycle tracks everywhere." -- - Frank Krygowski |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 20:12:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 2/8/2018 6:13 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: How are most cyclists injured or killed in accidents? They are struck from behind by an overtaking motor vehicle. Sorry, that's not true. See https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE...f/swless04.pdf snip 11. The most frequent parallel-path crashes were motorist turn/merge into bicyclist’s path (12.2 percent), motorist overtaking the bicyclist (8.6 percent), and bicyclist turn/merge into motorist’s path (7.3 percent). Do you know if the first type were exclusively drivers and cyclists traveling in opposite drections? Or does this include situations where the driver had passed the cyclist and then turned, cutting the cyclist off? I would include that scenario in my original statement as they were struck by a vehicle coming from behind. Not that it would be likely to move that into the majority. Perhaps my information is out of date, past research had indicated being struck by a vehicle traveling in the same direction caused more fatalities. The most frequent crossing path crashes were motorist failed to yield to bicyclist (21.7 percent), bicyclist failed to yield at an intersection (16.8 percent), and bicyclist failed to yield midblock (11.8 percent). In what scenario does a vehicle turning or entering the road in the middle of the block have the right of way? These six individual crash types accounted for almost 80 percent of all bicycle-motor vehicle crashes." What are the other 20+%? Bicycists hitting parked cars? Drivers hitting stationary bicyclists (we had one of those incidents here a few years ago when a semi driver turned right on a red, crushing the cyclist in the bike lane waiting at the corner under the trailer wheels). So motorist overtaking were just 8.6 percent of the total. And I'd bet that a majority of those were of two types: Totally Unlit cyclists at night, which legal lighting would prevent; and "I think I can squeeze by" events, which would have been averted by lane control by the cyclist. I strongly suspect that 8.6% is a gross underestimate and that the real number is at least double that. It doesn't pass the smell test. As for you putative reasons, I think that certainly a percentage is the unlit cyclist scenario (since I see a lot of that around here and those riders can be hard to see especially in the glare of oncoming headlights). But I think the greater cause is inattentive, negligent and incompetent driving. The lane control is a red herring, it is the driver's responsibility to gauge that correctly and their fault if they don't- not that that helps the dead cyclist or injured, of course. As my Mom used to say about driving, "you can be right and you can be dead right." snip LAB's been useless for decades. Their devotees around here have managed to get bike lanes created that are more dangerous than the situation had been on the same roads without them. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
On 2/10/2018 5:22 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 20:12:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/8/2018 6:13 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: How are most cyclists injured or killed in accidents? They are struck from behind by an overtaking motor vehicle. Sorry, that's not true. See https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE...f/swless04.pdf snip 11. The most frequent parallel-path crashes were motorist turn/merge into bicyclist’s path (12.2 percent), motorist overtaking the bicyclist (8.6 percent), and bicyclist turn/merge into motorist’s path (7.3 percent). Do you know if the first type were exclusively drivers and cyclists traveling in opposite drections? Or does this include situations where the driver had passed the cyclist and then turned, cutting the cyclist off? I would include that scenario in my original statement as they were struck by a vehicle coming from behind. Not that it would be likely to move that into the majority. Perhaps my information is out of date, past research had indicated being struck by a vehicle traveling in the same direction caused more fatalities. The most frequent crossing path crashes were motorist failed to yield to bicyclist (21.7 percent), bicyclist failed to yield at an intersection (16.8 percent), and bicyclist failed to yield midblock (11.8 percent). In what scenario does a vehicle turning or entering the road in the middle of the block have the right of way? The PDF has illustrative diagrams of several common crash types. These six individual crash types accounted for almost 80 percent of all bicycle-motor vehicle crashes." What are the other 20+%? Bicycists hitting parked cars? Every examination of crash types I've read always had a sizeable "other" category. I've assumed this is because many bicyclists find very creative ways to get in trouble. So motorist overtaking were just 8.6 percent of the total. And I'd bet that a majority of those were of two types: Totally Unlit cyclists at night, which legal lighting would prevent; and "I think I can squeeze by" events, which would have been averted by lane control by the cyclist. I strongly suspect that 8.6% is a gross underestimate and that the real number is at least double that. It doesn't pass the smell test. IIRC, various studies have given different percentages to the relative crash types. This one from North Carolina http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat_nc/...types08-12.pdf says hits from behind are about 17%. An Orlando study ("Orlando Area Bicyclist Crash Study: A Role-Based Approach to Crash Countermeasures") says motorist overtaking accounted for 8.2%. Carol Tan's "Crash Type Manual" https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publication...pedbike/96104/ lists five sub-categories of crashes caused by "motorist overtaking." They total 8.6%, but maybe that's using the same data as the other study I linked. The Kenneth Cross study from the 1970s said "motorist collided with rear of cyclist" comprised 4.17% of crashes. It's at http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm Whatever the percentage, it seems hits-from-behind are a pretty small percentage of crash types. And it's been noted that many of those that do occur are rural, unlit cyclists riding at night. Now granted, when it does happen, it's a very bad thing. It's responsible for a disproportionate number of fatalities - but again, not "most" of fatalities, IIRC. It's a crash type that is excessively feared. There are more important things to watch out for. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
On 08/02/2018 4:29 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 2:48:49 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote: https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/ -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 I'm curious why so many cyclists think death of a cyclist in an accident is a crime. Murder requires intent. Manslaughter requires "gross negligence." Accidents are not a crime, even if there is negligence, even if people die. Unless the driver did something way out of the ordinary that caused the accident- no crime occurred. The lawyer is absolutely right, the lapsed license is utterly irrelevant to the cause of the injury. You don't think texting while driving is gross negligence? How about driving drunk? How about the recent discussion of the case in Boston with the professional truck driver turning right from a middle lane and killing someone? I agree that accidents happen but when the event is caused by a reckless disregard I don't think it's still an accident. As far as the suspended license, it shows a propensity to this behavior. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
"The police and prosecutors
do not want to ruin someone's life just for killing a cyclist, so they accept "I didn't see" him or her as a valid defense (instead of the admission of negligence that it really is. " Most of us drive too. It is damned easy not to see a cyclist. Other than a persecution complex, there is no reason to conclude "just a cyclist" as some kind of motive, when the easier explanation is that mere negligence is a just a civil case and there is simply insufficient evidence to prove a crime. When every juror is going to hear the facts and think "there but for the grace of god go I", there is basically no way it can constitute gross negligence and therefore isn't a crime. I just don't see the point of the many internet whines (and posting of newspaper articles) that a cyclist got hit and died, so there must have been a crime that isn't being punished. No. That is an unsupportable leap. You need more for it to be a crime. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"John "Cho" Gilmer keeps publishing his "Manifesto" over and over." | Hoodini | Racing | 0 | April 23rd 07 12:38 AM |
Vandeman calls mountain bikers "liars" and "criminals" then surprised by hate mail! | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 0 | June 1st 06 08:15 PM |
Vandeman calls mountain bikers "liars" and "criminals" then surprisedby hate mail! | ChainSmoker | Mountain Biking | 0 | May 27th 06 05:39 PM |
Vandeman calls mountain bikers "liars" and "criminals" then surprised by hate mail! | tom | Mountain Biking | 0 | May 16th 06 04:22 AM |
R.I.P. Jim Price (aka. "biker_billy", "sydney", "Boudreaux") | spin156 | Techniques | 15 | November 28th 05 07:21 PM |