WHOOPS! While Mountain Bikers Dither, ANOTHER One of TheirBuddies Is Seriously Injured!

Regardless of which word you use, it doesn't apply to me. I have never been a felon, and I'm not a criminal, because I was innocent from the start, & also because all charges were DISMISSED (null & void). As a typical mountain biker, of course, you choose to LIE (assert what you don't know to be true). No surprize there! Mountain bikers all hate people who tell the truth about their sport, as I do. You aren't man enough to tell the truth.

And therein lies your problem. You are immune to the truth even when it hits you in the face and convicts you in a court of law.

You were NOT innocent ... you provided narrative in this newsgroup to verify your guilt. Your attempt to justify this using Right of Way Precedence is NOT legal ... you cannot detain someone unless duly authorised ... and you were not.

Any dismissal under a petition does not make you innocent, as you well know..

This childish "I didn't do it" is getting beyond a joke ... you did, man up, change the record, face the consequences of your actions and, by all means, campaign for what you think is right.

But, everyone who disagrees with you is not a liar and you have been caught in three proven lies this week alone ... so I suggest you grow up (high time given your age) and, if you wish to continue your campaign, you do it positively. Attack theory has been thoroughly discredited as I think you are also aware ?

BS. I don't need to know how long it is, to know that it is shorter than hikers'. The same for racecar drivers, miners, sailors, prostitutes, etc. Idiot. Still scratching at straws?

Please stop using the Phd moniker at once ... you are a disgrace to any form of science.

Firstly, you DIDN'T say that they had shorter lifespans than hikers ... you're changing your assertion. You said "This will follow you to the end of you days -- which will be pretty soon, given that you are a mountain biker. They tend to have a short lifespan, thankfully."

You make all kinds of assertions and then, when challenged to justify, all you can come up with is your own opinion ... which is worthless ... or you try and change the assertion. In this case, you're doing BOTH. What a liar !

I would bet, but don't know because I am open about NOT having done the research, that mountain bikers live a lot longer than average since they will tend to have better cardiovascular health. But, I wouldn't ever state that as a fact because I haven't done the research to prove it. You don't seem to have any such compunction about disseminating your baseless assertions.

On Friday, May 17, 2013 2:25:32 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
Regardless of which word you use, it doesn't apply to me. I have never been a felon, and I'm not a criminal, because I was innocent from the start, & also because all charges were DISMISSED (null & void). As a typical mountain biker, of course, you choose to LIE (assert what you don't know to be true). No surprize there! Mountain bikers all hate people who tell the truth about their sport, as I do. You aren't man enough to tell the truth.



And therein lies your problem. You are immune to the truth even when it hits you in the face and convicts you in a court of law.



You were NOT innocent ... you provided narrative in this newsgroup to verify your guilt. Your attempt to justify this using Right of Way Precedence is NOT legal ... you cannot detain someone unless duly authorized

I didn't detain anyone. As a pedestrian, I have the right to be anywhere on the trail. The biker, besides failing to yield right-of-way to a pedestrian, was also riding illegally. And of course, you don't know the facts, because you weren't there! So every assertion you make about it is a LIE!

... and you were not.



Any dismissal under a petition does not make you innocent, as you well know.



This childish "I didn't do it" is getting beyond a joke ... you did, man up, change the record, face the consequences of your actions and, by all means, campaign for what you think is right.



But, everyone who disagrees with you is not a liar and you have been caught in three proven lies this week alone ... so I suggest you grow up (high time given your age) and, if you wish to continue your campaign, you do it positively. Attack theory has been thoroughly discredited as I think you are also aware ?

I didn't detain anyone. As a pedestrian, I have the right to be anywhere on the trail. The biker, besides failing to yield right-of-way to a pedestrian, was also riding illegally. And of course, you don't know the facts, because you weren't there! So every assertion you make about it is a LIE!

Yes, Mike, you did ! Your own narrative makes it very clear ... you intentionally moved so as to detain the rider. Indeed, you can BE anywhere you wish on the trail but you may NOT use that right to detain someone. This is precisely why you are GUILTY of the offences as charged because you are simply misunderstanding the law.

It's exactly the same situation on a pedestrian crossing. You have a right to be there and can walk across as you wish ... but if you try and use such right to stop the traffic you will find that the right is not unfettered and you would be arrested and charged with obstruction.

Under law, very very few rights are unfettered ... you can't just cite one and pre-emptively declare that you're right ... as your conviction proved of course.

The legality or illegality of the rider being there is not your concern and therefore immaterial; you are not authorised to conduct any sort of enforcement. If you wanted to stop people riding there then you should have informed the owner of the land, if privately held, or the authorities if publicly. If, as seems likely, the landowner didn't really care very much about riding in that location it's not for you to decide that they HAVE to enforce a riding ban and try and do it yourself.

So, you will note, I'm not commenting on anything that is not either (a) something that you've written in this newsgroup or (b) a verifiable matter of law.

You convict yourself out of your own mouth ... as was probably the case in your trial.

On Monday, May 20, 2013 2:40:29 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
I didn't detain anyone. As a pedestrian, I have the right to be anywhere on the trail. The biker, besides failing to yield right-of-way to a pedestrian, was also riding illegally. And of course, you don't know the facts, because you weren't there! So every assertion you make about it is a LIE! Yes, Mike, you did ! Your own narrative makes it very clear ... you intentionally moved so as to detain the rider. Indeed, you can BE anywhere you wish on the trail but you may NOT use that right to detain someone. This is precisely why you are GUILTY of the offences as charged because you are simply misunderstanding the law. It's exactly the same situation on a pedestrian crossing. You have a right to be there and can walk across as you wish ... but if you try and use such right to stop the traffic you will find that the right is not unfettered and you would be arrested and charged with obstruction. Under law, very very few rights are unfettered ... you can't just cite one and pre-emptively declare that you're right ... as your conviction proved of course. The legality or illegality of the rider being there is not your concern and therefore immaterial; you are not authorised to conduct any sort of enforcement. If you wanted to stop people riding there then you should have informed the owner of the land, if privately held, or the authorities if publicly. If, as seems likely, the landowner didn't really care very much about riding in that location it's not for you to decide that they HAVE to enforce a riding ban and try and do it yourself. So, you will note, I'm not commenting on anything that is not either (a) something that you've written in this newsgroup or (b) a verifiable matter of law. You convict yourself out of your own mouth ... as was probably the case in your trial.

You are LYING again, as usual. I never "detained" him, and no one ever said I "detained" him. He was riding illegally, failed to yield right-of-way to a pedestrian, and ran into me. He was in the wrong, thrice over! You can't make it true by simply repeating the same lie over and over. DUH! Thanks for demonstrating for the millionth time just how dishonest mountain bikers are. You are your own worst enemies!

You are LYING again, as usual. I never "detained" him, and no one ever said I "detained" him. He was riding illegally, failed to yield right-of-way to a pedestrian, and ran into me. He was in the wrong, thrice over! You can't make it true by simply repeating the same lie over and over. DUH! Thanks for demonstrating for the millionth time just how dishonest mountain bikers are. You are your own worst enemies!

Counsel; "You intentionally moved into the path that he was moving in, right ?"

Mike Vandeman; "No, only my hand."

Counsel; "So, you moved your hand out into his path, as he was riding his bike, and it's your testimony that he ran into your arm and not the other way around ?"

Mike Vandeman; "Yes of course. I was stationary. All I had to do was walk two or three steps and I was, you know, approximately where he was coming ....."

Source; court reporting of the your trial by Peter Frick-Wright.

So, care to try again ... you DIDN'T intentionally move so as to force the rider to stop ???

Damn, it's a bugger this readily available information from the internet isn't it ? Keeps showing who's really the liar :-).

On Monday, May 20, 2013 9:14:27 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
You are LYING again, as usual. I never "detained" him, and no one ever said I "detained" him. He was riding illegally, failed to yield right-of-way to a pedestrian, and ran into me. He was in the wrong, thrice over! You can't make it true by simply repeating the same lie over and over. DUH! Thanks for demonstrating for the millionth time just how dishonest mountain bikers are. You are your own worst enemies! Counsel; "You intentionally moved into the path that he was moving in, right ?" Mike Vandeman; "No, only my hand." Counsel; "So, you moved your hand out into his path, as he was riding his bike, and it's your testimony that he ran into your arm and not the other way around ?" Mike Vandeman; "Yes of course. I was stationary. All I had to do was walk two or three steps and I was, you know, approximately where he was coming ...." Source; court reporting of the your trial by Peter Frick-Wright. So, care to try again ... you DIDN'T intentionally move so as to force the rider to stop ??? Damn, it's a bugger this readily available information from the internet isn't it ? Keeps showing who's really the liar :-).

What I did was absolutely within my rights as a pedestrian. You LIED, as usual, by claiming that I was "detaining" him. He ran into me and kept right on riding, so where do you see any "detaining" going on, LIAR?

What I did was absolutely within my rights as a pedestrian. You LIED, as usual, by claiming that I was "detaining" him. He ran into me and kept right on riding, so where do you see any "detaining" going on, LIAR?

Let's stop this. You are quite simply wrong under the terms of the law. You deliberately occasioned contact and attempted to detain him. In this case, he continued, in others, as per further testimony, you were successful in stopping (detaining) riders.

It is NOT within your rights as a pedestrian to MOVE so as to intentionally precipitate contact.

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:46:33 AM UTC-4, Blackblade wrote:
What I did was absolutely within my rights as a pedestrian. You LIED, as usual, by claiming that I was "detaining" him. He ran into me and kept right on riding, so where do you see any "detaining" going on, LIAR?



Let's stop this. You are quite simply wrong under the terms of the law. You deliberately occasioned contact and attempted to detain him. In this case, he continued, in others, as per further testimony, you were successful in stopping (detaining) riders.



It is NOT within your rights as a pedestrian to MOVE so as to intentionally precipitate contact.


Since Michael is referring to himself as a "pedestrian" in this scenario, it is likely that your point of view is supported by the California Vehicle code:

"21954. (a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard."

.... and even if he were on a crosswalk:

"21950. (b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk."

The takeaway, of course, is that being a pedestrian does not absolve Michael or relinquish his responsibilities for exercising some degree of common sense.

At the very least, this is infinitely more legal precedence than he has been willing to provide.

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:55:38 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:46:33 AM UTC-4, Blackblade wrote: What I did was absolutely within my rights as a pedestrian. You LIED, as usual, by claiming that I was "detaining" him. He ran into me and kept right on riding, so where do you see any "detaining" going on, LIAR? Let's stop this. You are quite simply wrong under the terms of the law. You deliberately occasioned contact and attempted to detain him. In this case, he continued, in others, as per further testimony, you were successful in stopping (detaining) riders. It is NOT within your rights as a pedestrian to MOVE so as to intentionally precipitate contact. Since Michael is referring to himself as a "pedestrian" in this scenario, it is likely that your point of view is supported by the California Vehicle code: "21954. (a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard." ... and even if he were on a crosswalk: "21950. (b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk." The takeaway, of course, is that being a pedestrian does not absolve Michael or relinquish his responsibilities for exercising some degree of common sense. At the very least, this is infinitely more legal precedence than he has been willing to provide.

Obviously, there are no crosswalks on a trail or fire road. So the pedestrian has the right-of-way EVERYWHERE on such a trail. The Highway Patrol confirmed that. Do your own research!