Bicyclists Usually *NOT* At Fault

Ruben Safir wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:08:03 +0000, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:

[1] http://www.nysgtsc.state.ny.us/bike-vt.htm#sec1234


This is a good link. Is it up to date?

At the bottom it says "Revised: January 15, 2003".

Seems reasonable to me.

--
Steven O'Neill

"Ruben Safir" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 04:12:17 +0000, Pete wrote:

Often, but not *always*.
Dark sweatshirt, jeans, no lights, no reflectors, riding against
traffic,
going through a red light at a badly lit, but non-rural, intersection.

There is no excuse for Car to hit a bike, ever. Drive slower


You misunderstand me. I'm not saying it is an excuse. I ride daily.

However!

There are instances of cyclists bringing it upon themselves, no matter how
carefully a motorist (or other cyclist!) drives. When a completely black
object, on a dark night, appears right in your path, in violation of basic
traffic rules...the laws of physics take over. Doesn't matter if it were a
cyclist, or another car, or a pedestrian.

If a flat black car, with no headlights and no reflectors were driving the
wrong way in traffic, at night...who would be at fault in the resultant head
on collision? Why should a 'flat black' cyclist get a free pass? I almost
hit one of these clowns over the weekend, on my bike. Drive slower? Not an
issue in this case.

A moving object (bus/car/bike/ped) can easily cause a crash, by violating
basic rules, such as visibility, lane discipline, etc. Cyclists don't get a
free pass just because we'd like them to.

Unless of course you desire a 3mph national speed limit. Which might not be
bad, but that's not what we have, and not going to happen.

Pete

"Steven M. O'Neill" wrote


Cf. the "Toronto Coroner's Rule":

The concept of motorized vehicles yielding to non-motorized
vehicles, who in turn must yield to pedestrians seems to be a
common sense rule which should be accepted by all road users.
Entrenching this principle in the HTA would clarify the
situation, and likely significantly reduce risk of injury and
death.

http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/cyclin...tm#legislative

Good idea, but you can only yield to what you see. Too many POB's are
determined not to be seen.

Pete

Pete wrote:

"Steven M. O'Neill" wrote


Cf. the "Toronto Coroner's Rule":

The concept of motorized vehicles yielding to non-motorized
vehicles, who in turn must yield to pedestrians seems to be a
common sense rule which should be accepted by all road users.
Entrenching this principle in the HTA would clarify the
situation, and likely significantly reduce risk of injury and
death.

http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/cyclin...tm#legislative

Good idea, but you can only yield to what you see. Too many POB's are
determined not to be seen.

I don't know what a POB is, but try slowing down if you can't
see properly.

--
Steven O'Neill

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 01:02:15 -0400, Ruben Safir
wrote:

Often, but not *always*.
Dark sweatshirt, jeans, no lights, no reflectors, riding against traffic,
going through a red light at a badly lit, but non-rural, intersection.

There is no excuse for Car to hit a bike, ever. Drive slower

That's absurd. I've twice nearly hit cyclists that were riding the
wrong way through busy intersections at night. In each case they made
little effort to be seen.

A motorist scans logically to the area where traffic is supposed to
be. If you are turning left from a stop on a busy four lane roadway,
you are in no position to pick up a fast moving cyclist riding against
traffic into the intersection. When they enter the intersection as you
make your left turn, it is entirely the luck of the draw whether or
not the cyclist is hit.

There are two lucky individuals out there. Or maybe not. They could
easily be statistics by now.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 01:02:15 -0400, Ruben Safir
wrote:

Often, but not *always*.
Dark sweatshirt, jeans, no lights, no reflectors, riding against traffic,
going through a red light at a badly lit, but non-rural, intersection.

There is no excuse for Car to hit a bike, ever. Drive slower

That's absurd. I've twice nearly hit cyclists that were riding the
wrong way through busy intersections at night. In each case they made
little effort to be seen.

So you admit that you have a history of driving too fast to
avoid cyclists that are riding the wrong way and wearing dark
clothes?

--
Steven O'Neill

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 17:49:24 +0000 (UTC), (Steven M.
O'Neill) wrote:

So you admit that you have a history of driving too fast to
avoid cyclists that are riding the wrong way and wearing dark
clothes?

Your reading comprehension is as bad as your logic. I turned left from
a standstill, crossing the two on-coming lanes of traffic. The cyclist
was moving somewhere over 15 mph the wrong way on the far left curb.
You can't scan that area or see it adequately in your mirrors. And the
cyclist isn't supposed to be riding there. Period.

Your assinine logic would have the driver responsible for hitting a
cyclist that comes out from a downtown alley at full speed into a busy
roadway. And it trivializes all cyclists and makes them victims
instead of members of traffic.

You are not a defender of cyclists. You are part of the cohort that
provides motorists with the logic necessary to keep cyclists off the
road. If we have no responsibility for how we ride, if we are
irresponsible to the point that we have no impact on incidents on the
road but are always the victims, then we are no more than children and
should not be in traffic at all.

Your response has far more to say about your bicycle riding and
inability to take responsibility than it does about my driving.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 17:49:24 +0000 (UTC), (Steven M.
O'Neill) wrote:

So you admit that you have a history of driving too fast to
avoid cyclists that are riding the wrong way and wearing dark
clothes?

Your reading comprehension is as bad as your logic. I turned left from
a standstill, crossing the two on-coming lanes of traffic. The cyclist
was moving somewhere over 15 mph the wrong way on the far left curb.
You can't scan that area or see it adequately in your mirrors. And the
cyclist isn't supposed to be riding there. Period.

Your assinine logic would have the driver responsible for hitting a
cyclist that comes out from a downtown alley at full speed into a busy
roadway. And it trivializes all cyclists and makes them victims
instead of members of traffic.

You are not a defender of cyclists. You are part of the cohort that
provides motorists with the logic necessary to keep cyclists off the
road. If we have no responsibility for how we ride, if we are
irresponsible to the point that we have no impact on incidents on the
road but are always the victims, then we are no more than children and
should not be in traffic at all.

Your response has far more to say about your bicycle riding and
inability to take responsibility than it does about my driving.

So you won't deny you have a history?

--
Steven O'Neill

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:09:23 -0500, Name wrote:

Not my rule, but traffic law, and insurance
rule. So you were toast to start with.


So why do the cars now whissle when backing up? Because the freaken
drivers are dangerous

Ruben

"Steven M. O'Neill" wrote


But I also think that in the current environment the users who
are underwhelmingly held repsonsible for their actions are
motorists. So perhaps some over-compensation would be a good
start to equalization.

Reparations, as it were?

Pete
(i agree with you on the underwhelming penalties)