Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 12, 11:23*am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/12/2010 12:04 AM, DirtRoadie WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:



On Dec 11, 10:39 pm, T m Sherm n _ ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" *wrote:
On 12/11/2010 7:15 PM, DirtRoadie :

On Dec 11, 4:52 pm, "Duane * *wrote:
"T m Sherm n " * *wrote in
...

On 12/11/2010 4:18 PM, RobertH Who?:
[...]
It's particularly fun when he [Frank Krygowski] starts making
**** up, out of whole cloth, and gets called on it. [...]

Citation?

I presume you are "Goggle capable."
Find references in this group to *"Danger! Danger!" or claims that
cycling is "Extremely dangerous". Frank has repeatedly claimed that
others have said such things. It simply isn't so.
DR

This is rich, coming from a poster who has falsified quotes on multiple
occasions.

Really?
Link please.

Stop playing stupid. *The falsified quotes are in this very thread.
Link? Are you referring to the ones that include language like
"[fixed]?"

DR

On Dec 12, 10:44*am, Jay Beattie wrote:
Is the two lane road two directions?

Yes.

*If so, I would wonder if it's legal to
cross
an oncoming lane and park against traffic?

I believe it is not.
DR- Hide quoted text -

Not really enough info.

It is generally illegal to park or stop on the roadway outside a
business or residential area. There is usually an exception for
momentarily stopping to load/unload passengers or property. So the
question is whether this was more than a momentary stop. *The car is
also parallel parking (in a manner of speaking) and violating the law
requiring the proper position of the car -- its going the wrong way,
but that may not make a difference in determining fault (depending on
state law), since the orientation of the car did not cause the
accident. If the car is actually rolling down the left side of the
road to get to the mailbox, its clearly driving the wrong way in
traffic.

Yes, that is all probably accurate. The car would also have been
stopped in the traffic lane.

Apart from the statutes, a jury could determine that it was negligent
to stop going the wrong way when the driver knew or should have known
there was a race in progress -- maybe there were cones or the usual
sign "race in progress." *

No such markings. Low key, "unofficial" event Just a small group of
cyclists riding individually on open public roads.

There are lots of reasons why a jury could
determine that the driver should have exercised more care under the
circumstances.

Your points would still seem to apply substituting "when the driver
knew or should have known there was a cyclist legally traveling in the
opposite direction."

So, let's say the car is at fault in some respect, this is where the
timing issue comes in. If the guy ran in to the car when it was parked
or stopped for some length of time, then he failed to maintain a "look
out" and is at fault. *He ran *in to a parked car for gawd's sake! *If
the car just pulled over in front of him, then he got his right of way
violated and is probably not at fault (that would be a great case).

Yup. I don't know the precise details of timing or distances. Suffice
it to say that the road (straight and relatively flat) is such that
the cyclist COULD have seen the vehicle a long way off and also COULD
undoubtedly have seen all movements of the vehicle.

A jury would have to determine the degree of comparative fault --
which is never a good thing for the cyclists, because juries are
mainly/mostly motorists, and motorists think cyclists are idiots, and
if this guy ran in to a parked car, don't expect a jury to do him any
favors.

Yup. And as Duane suggested a TT rider may have his head down. That
probably was the case to at least some extent. That is not to say that
he was never looking ahead or taking steps to reasonably know what lay
ahead or to ride in his lane. He may have even seen the oncoming
vehicle (and the otherwise clear road) while it was still in the
opposite lane and (reasonably) not judged it to pose any risk so long
as everyone continued in the same manner.

So, next you look at how the state deals with comparative fault. *Is
it a "pure comparative fault" state, meaning that the plaintiff can
recover so long as he is less than 100% at fault. *Or is it like
Oregon where the plaintiff is barred if his/her fault is 51% or more.

Colorado = same thing.

This would be a loser in Oregon if the guy ran in to a parked car. So,
to answer your question, I think both driver and bicylist would be at
fault and that there would be an allocation of fault.
If the rider
ran it to a parked car, a jury would allocate a lot of fault to him --
maybe enough to bar his case in a state like Oregon.

Just to give the bottom line-
At the scene, both parties were cited, essentially for those things
you have described. There seems to be little basis for challenging
either of those citations although there might be incentive to do so
in anticipation of a civil action.
But AFAIK there is and will be no no civil case.

I was primarily trying to give a known (and unembellished) example
that the issue of fault is never as simple as cyclists vs drivers.

DR

On Dec 12, 12:28*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
DirtRoadie considered Sun, 12 Dec 2010 11:03:08
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:





On Dec 12, 11:23*am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/12/2010 12:04 AM, DirtRoadie WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:

On Dec 11, 10:39 pm, T m Sherm n _ ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" *wrote:
On 12/11/2010 7:15 PM, DirtRoadie :

On Dec 11, 4:52 pm, "Duane * *wrote:
"T m Sherm n " * *wrote in
...

On 12/11/2010 4:18 PM, RobertH Who?:
[...]
It's particularly fun when he [Frank Krygowski] starts making
**** up, out of whole cloth, and gets called on it. [...]

Citation?

I presume you are "Goggle capable."
Find references in this group to *"Danger! Danger!" or claims that
cycling is "Extremely dangerous". Frank has repeatedly claimed that
others have said such things. It simply isn't so.
DR

This is rich, coming from a poster who has falsified quotes on multiple
occasions.

Really?
Link please.

Stop playing stupid. *The falsified quotes are in this very thread.
Link? Are you referring to the ones that include language like
"[fixed]?"

Changing something in the quoted text is not dishonest if the poster
points out that they have done so.
Without any such notice, it is plainly so.
Ah I see! So it IS dishonest if the poster does not describe what they
have changed. So using the term "fixed" establishes that the poster is
dishonest, especially if there was no error that needed to corrected.
DR

On Dec 12, 1:32*am, Dan O wrote:
On Dec 11, 9:39 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/11/2010 7:15 PM, DirtRoadie WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:


I presume you are "Goggle capable."
Find references in this group to *"Danger! Danger!" or claims that
cycling is "Extremely dangerous". Frank has repeatedly claimed that
others have said such things. It simply isn't so.
DR

This is rich, coming from a poster who has falsified quotes on multiple
occasions.

Frank Krygowski was making a judgment about the implied meaning of what
others were writing, not claiming exact quotes that were never made.

Rather I think Frank is railing at us - because we're handy spoils -
about his perception of what other people somewhere else with no basis
to know what they're talking about seem to think. *Nobody here (except
Frank) is saying, "Danger! Danger!".

Dan, this is an informal discussion group. Writing for this is not
the same as writing an article for publication; among other things, we
try for more brevity. And like it or not, in standard English there
are no punctuation marks that concisely indicate a paraphrase.

So when Duane writes a paragraph saying that Quebec motorist will run
down from behind a cyclist on a pleasant country lane, I paraphrase
that as "Danger! Danger!"

When James writes a paragraph mentioning his car-bike crash, and
claiming that every bicyclist he knows has frequent near misses, I
paraphrase that as "Danger! Danger!"

And pardon me in advance if I mis-remembered any details just then, or
who exactly said what. I'm doing all this by memory, not taking
copious notes. The point is both of those posters have contributed a
LOT of warnings to this discussion.

Furthermore, when I gave data showing the dangers must not be extreme
(data on tremendous numbers ridden before bad events) nobody
acknowledged. James went on about the terrors of Melbourne. Duane is
still talking about choosing between the sidewalk and ... well, he
doesn't want me to repeat his words, because they've since become
offensive to him.

If someone spends so much time posting dire warnings, or vividly
describing potential crashes, their message certainly is one of
danger. If someone wants to rebut every possible claim that cycling
is reasonably safe, or that cyclists can do well using ordinary
vehicle techniques, then the message is certainly danger. (DR's
message is just falsification and abusive stalking.)

My message has been that cycling is NOT something to be afraid of.
Its risks are small on average, its benefits greatly outweigh its
average risks, and it's easy to be far better than "average" on a
bike.

My message has been backed up by data from many sources, by links to
articles, by citations of documents written by recognized experts, as
well as by descriptions of my experience. Discount the latter, if you
like; there's still a mountain of evidence in favor of what I've been
saying.

And I remain astonished that a person can say "Riding properly is
quite safe, and people shouldn't be scared away from cycling," and be
continually attacked for that by other cyclists.

- Frank Krygowski

On Dec 11, 1:06 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I tried mightily to get a non-Boolean answer out of several of you.
The question was: ten foot lane, 8.5 foot truck behind, where would
you ride?
[...]
...Neither Duane nor Dan nor DR nor Robert wanted to discuss
specifics. ...

That's simply not true.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...fe5153a10430c#

" So you seem to be saying you, too, would ride in the middle of that
lane when a truck is behind. Don't be shy about saying that.

"Read it again. That is most certainly not what I am saying, or even
what I "seem to be saying."

"To be clear what I am actually saying is that a fixation on a down-
the-
center lane position, when so many other 'positions' are open and
available, is questionable at best. In most situations a five-foot
buffer to right side hazards will be woefully inadequate. ..."

"Probably on such a street I would be riding close to the middle of
the
road, not the middle of the lane...."

I would add that a street with two ten-foot-wide 'lanes' can often
function for all practical purposes as a single 20-foot lane, in which
a cyclist often has the option of drifting rightward to enable an
easier pass by a following driver. That's the way it generally works
in practice, on real city streets.

You get a lot of 'depends' on this question because it does depend.

On Dec 12, 12:54 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

So when Duane writes a paragraph saying that Quebec motorist will run
down from behind a cyclist on a pleasant country lane, I paraphrase
that as "Danger! Danger!"

When James writes a paragraph mentioning his car-bike crash, and
claiming that every bicyclist he knows has frequent near misses, I
paraphrase that as "Danger! Danger!"

It seems to me that you cry "Danger! Danger!" every time you preach
the gospel of "controlling" lanes, ostensibly for safety purposes.
Most of the rest of us don't seem to feel the same threat-level from
passing drivers that you do.

And I remain astonished that a person can say "Riding properly is
quite safe, and people shouldn't be scared away from cycling," and be
continually attacked for that by other cyclists.

First of all, it is not certain that you understand what it means to
ride properly. Second, pointing out the flaws in your arguments and
interpretation of data is not attacking. It is you who does the
majority of attacking in these discussions.

(This is when we get into the Poor Ol' Frank phase of the thread.
Don't worry, folks, it's almost over.)

On Dec 12, 11:28 am, Phil W Lee wrote:
DirtRoadie considered Sun, 12 Dec 2010 11:03:08
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:



On Dec 12, 11:23 am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/12/2010 12:04 AM, DirtRoadie WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:

On Dec 11, 10:39 pm, T m Sherm n _ ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/11/2010 7:15 PM, DirtRoadie :

On Dec 11, 4:52 pm, "Duane wrote:
"T m Sherm n " wrote in
...

On 12/11/2010 4:18 PM, RobertH Who?:
[...]
It's particularly fun when he [Frank Krygowski] starts making
**** up, out of whole cloth, and gets called on it. [...]

Citation?

I presume you are "Goggle capable."
Find references in this group to "Danger! Danger!" or claims that
cycling is "Extremely dangerous". Frank has repeatedly claimed that
others have said such things. It simply isn't so.
DR

This is rich, coming from a poster who has falsified quotes on multiple
occasions.

Really?
Link please.

Stop playing stupid. The falsified quotes are in this very thread.
Link? Are you referring to the ones that include language like
"[fixed]?"

Changing something in the quoted text is not dishonest if the poster
points out that they have done so.
Without any such notice, it is plainly so.

I disagree. (Deliberately) changing is never okay. Omitting is
certainly okay if marked as such. Revised msg should not be
attributed to someone who didn't write it.

On Dec 12, 11:54 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 12, 1:32 am, Dan O wrote:



On Dec 11, 9:39 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/11/2010 7:15 PM, DirtRoadie WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:

I presume you are "Goggle capable."
Find references in this group to "Danger! Danger!" or claims that
cycling is "Extremely dangerous". Frank has repeatedly claimed that
others have said such things. It simply isn't so.
DR

This is rich, coming from a poster who has falsified quotes on multiple
occasions.

Frank Krygowski was making a judgment about the implied meaning of what
others were writing, not claiming exact quotes that were never made.

Rather I think Frank is railing at us - because we're handy spoils -
about his perception of what other people somewhere else with no basis
to know what they're talking about seem to think. Nobody here (except
Frank) is saying, "Danger! Danger!".

Dan, this is an informal discussion group. Writing for this is not
the same as writing an article for publication; among other things, we
try for more brevity. And like it or not, in standard English there
are no punctuation marks that concisely indicate a paraphrase.

So when Duane writes a paragraph saying that Quebec motorist will run
down from behind a cyclist on a pleasant country lane, I paraphrase
that as "Danger! Danger!"

When James writes a paragraph mentioning his car-bike crash, and
claiming that every bicyclist he knows has frequent near misses, I
paraphrase that as "Danger! Danger!"


Inflammatory hyperbole. Not what he meant at all, and you know it.

And pardon me in advance if I mis-remembered any details just then, or
who exactly said what. I'm doing all this by memory, not taking
copious notes. The point is both of those posters have contributed a
LOT of warnings to this discussion.

Furthermore, when I gave data showing the dangers must not be extreme
(data on tremendous numbers ridden before bad events) nobody
acknowledged. James went on about the terrors of Melbourne. Duane is
still talking about choosing between the sidewalk and ... well, he
doesn't want me to repeat his words, because they've since become
offensive to him.

If someone spends so much time posting dire warnings, or vividly
describing potential crashes, their message certainly is one of
danger. If someone wants to rebut every possible claim that cycling
is reasonably safe, or that cyclists can do well using ordinary
vehicle techniques, then the message is certainly danger.

**** you.

(DR's
message is just falsification and abusive stalking.)

My message has been that cycling is NOT something to be afraid of.
Its risks are small on average, its benefits greatly outweigh its
average risks, and it's easy to be far better than "average" on a
bike.

My message has been backed up by data from many sources, by links to
articles, by citations of documents written by recognized experts, as
well as by descriptions of my experience. Discount the latter, if you
like; there's still a mountain of evidence in favor of what I've been
saying.

And I remain astonished that a person can say "Riding properly is
quite safe, and people shouldn't be scared away from cycling," and be
continually attacked for that by other cyclists.


(You're probably not still reading this, but anyway... ) You just
don't get it, do you?

On Dec 12, 4:04*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Dec 12, 11:54 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

If someone spends so much time posting dire warnings, or vividly
describing potential crashes, their message certainly is one of
danger. *If someone wants to rebut every possible claim that cycling
is reasonably safe, or that cyclists can do well using ordinary
vehicle techniques, then the message is certainly danger.

**** you.

Oh, that's certainly impressive!

- Frank Krygowski

On 12/12/2010 2:58 PM, Dan 0vermªn wrote:
[...]
I disagree. (Deliberately) changing is never okay. Omitting is
certainly okay if marked as such. Revised m[e]s[sa]g[e] should not be
attributed to someone who didn't write it.

It is correct in English to indicate editorial changes in brackets ([]),
as I have done above.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.