|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#771
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Dead Right
On 2/5/2018 9:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 19:50:34 -0500, JQ wrote: On 2/5/2018 11:46 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/4/2018 9:31 PM, John B. wrote: Of course, to put a different slant on the story it is equally accurate to state that the average poster here is incompetent to discuss the legal system and its derivatives as used in the U.S. and its various states. Witness how many times when a bicycle and an auto come in violent contact the cry "Off with his head echoes through the realm. If one attempts to interject a little reality, like, "is there any evidence what took place? Any witnesses? Can a case be made? There is an immediate outcry, generally in the vein of "bicycle got hit it must be the auto's fault. No other possibility exists. ... The interesting thing is that although the cyclist is often found to be at fault - breaking traffic rules, drunk, etc., no one seems to admit that it is very possible that the major problem with the question of bicycle safety is the people that ride them. Nope, we argue that all we have to do is build another MUP and everybody will be safe as safe can be. Reality is a terrible thing to have to face. "Paint & Path" advocates are skilled at _not_ facing reality. But regarding the "off with his head" cries about motorists that kill or seriously injure bicyclists: I think the most common complaint is that the current U.S. system absolves drivers far, far too easily. There are countless examples of drivers who merely say "I didn't see the bicyclist" and thereby let off the hook. If a cyclist had legal equipment (IOW, legal lights and reflectors at night; you shouldn't need anything special to ride in daylight) then that statement should be taken as an confession of guilt. When you drive, it's your JOB to see where you're going; and that's true even if it's dark, if the sun is too bright, if it's foggy - whatever. And it's not only "I didn't see him."Â* No matter the details of a car-bike crash, the default assumption is that the motorist is a fine person who just made a mistake. Unless he was drunk, drugged or 20 mph over the speed limit, even if convicted the motorist who kills a cyclist or pedestrian will pay just a couple hundred dollars and do some community service. That's wrong, in my view. I'm in favor of changing the default assumptions. Let's assume that the person operating the obviously more deadly piece of machinery must exercise as much care as, say, a person carrying a loaded AR-15 into a shopping mall. Or an operator of a fork lift or an overhead crane in a busy factory. If one of those people hurts someone, the assumption is that _they_ screwed up. Their license was supposed to demonstrate sufficient training, and their training was supposed to prevent hurting an innocent victim, even if the victim made a mistake. If a bicyclist truly did something unavoidable - say, riding no-lights facing traffic on a dark night, or blasting through a stop sign directly in front of a moving car - then the motorist should be allowed to defend himself. But in other cases - "I didn't see him" or "He swerved in front of me" - the motorist should be assumed guilty. And I'm not asking for prison time. But I firmly believe those motorists should never, ever be allowed to operate a motor vehicle again. Legally, perhaps make that a condition of their parole. And if they are found to violate that parole condition, then yes, they do go to prison. - Frank Krygowski That will never happen, in the USA it's all about making money... if a driver loses his license he is not able to pay taxes and will go on public assistance taking money out of the system. I was hit 2 years ago and nearly killed, was in hospital for 9 weeks. I was legally riding on the shoulder of the road. I had front and rear very bright blinking lights and wearing very visible clothing. The driver was the middle car of 5 riding the shoulder. The only thing that happened to him was a $169 ticket for not staying in lane. Damage to his car from hitting me was covered... I have $750,000.00 plus medical bills and rising. Plus I haven't been able to work unless you consider $10.00 per hour job substitute teaching for the localÂ* school system when I am up to it. I am very blessed to be alive so I make the best of it and have made great improvements to get back to as normal as possible. All this to say, I am but one of millions of cyclist that have been hit and the laws has not changed to our favor when hit and it never will. We ride at our own risk whether it is on the road or off road, the best we can do is limit our exposure as much as possible and ride with joy in our hearts and a smile on our face! One more note if the driver was forced to pay "all" our medical bills, losses caused by the accident and financial support as needed the driver would be much more careful. As it is now insurance only pays so much then you are left on your own for the rest and the car driver is let off free except for the minor traffic violation. I described, in another post, how the system works in Thailand where, in simple terms, the largest vehicle is deemed, subject to evidence to the contrary, to be at fault and responsible for all costs. It certainly makes a difference in how traffic acts here :-) -- Cheers, John B. Sort of like my last sentence, the more financial responsibility larger vehicle has the more careful they will be. -- Ride fast, ride hard, ride for health and enjoyment... Coach JQ Dancing on the edge --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
Ads |
#772
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Dead Right
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 00:21:01 -0500, JQ wrote:
On 2/5/2018 9:15 PM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 19:50:34 -0500, JQ wrote: On 2/5/2018 11:46 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/4/2018 9:31 PM, John B. wrote: Of course, to put a different slant on the story it is equally accurate to state that the average poster here is incompetent to discuss the legal system and its derivatives as used in the U.S. and its various states. Witness how many times when a bicycle and an auto come in violent contact the cry "Off with his head echoes through the realm. If one attempts to interject a little reality, like, "is there any evidence what took place? Any witnesses? Can a case be made? There is an immediate outcry, generally in the vein of "bicycle got hit it must be the auto's fault. No other possibility exists. ... The interesting thing is that although the cyclist is often found to be at fault - breaking traffic rules, drunk, etc., no one seems to admit that it is very possible that the major problem with the question of bicycle safety is the people that ride them. Nope, we argue that all we have to do is build another MUP and everybody will be safe as safe can be. Reality is a terrible thing to have to face. "Paint & Path" advocates are skilled at _not_ facing reality. But regarding the "off with his head" cries about motorists that kill or seriously injure bicyclists: I think the most common complaint is that the current U.S. system absolves drivers far, far too easily. There are countless examples of drivers who merely say "I didn't see the bicyclist" and thereby let off the hook. If a cyclist had legal equipment (IOW, legal lights and reflectors at night; you shouldn't need anything special to ride in daylight) then that statement should be taken as an confession of guilt. When you drive, it's your JOB to see where you're going; and that's true even if it's dark, if the sun is too bright, if it's foggy - whatever. And it's not only "I didn't see him."* No matter the details of a car-bike crash, the default assumption is that the motorist is a fine person who just made a mistake. Unless he was drunk, drugged or 20 mph over the speed limit, even if convicted the motorist who kills a cyclist or pedestrian will pay just a couple hundred dollars and do some community service. That's wrong, in my view. I'm in favor of changing the default assumptions. Let's assume that the person operating the obviously more deadly piece of machinery must exercise as much care as, say, a person carrying a loaded AR-15 into a shopping mall. Or an operator of a fork lift or an overhead crane in a busy factory. If one of those people hurts someone, the assumption is that _they_ screwed up. Their license was supposed to demonstrate sufficient training, and their training was supposed to prevent hurting an innocent victim, even if the victim made a mistake. If a bicyclist truly did something unavoidable - say, riding no-lights facing traffic on a dark night, or blasting through a stop sign directly in front of a moving car - then the motorist should be allowed to defend himself. But in other cases - "I didn't see him" or "He swerved in front of me" - the motorist should be assumed guilty. And I'm not asking for prison time. But I firmly believe those motorists should never, ever be allowed to operate a motor vehicle again. Legally, perhaps make that a condition of their parole. And if they are found to violate that parole condition, then yes, they do go to prison. - Frank Krygowski That will never happen, in the USA it's all about making money... if a driver loses his license he is not able to pay taxes and will go on public assistance taking money out of the system. I was hit 2 years ago and nearly killed, was in hospital for 9 weeks. I was legally riding on the shoulder of the road. I had front and rear very bright blinking lights and wearing very visible clothing. The driver was the middle car of 5 riding the shoulder. The only thing that happened to him was a $169 ticket for not staying in lane. Damage to his car from hitting me was covered... I have $750,000.00 plus medical bills and rising. Plus I haven't been able to work unless you consider $10.00 per hour job substitute teaching for the local* school system when I am up to it. I am very blessed to be alive so I make the best of it and have made great improvements to get back to as normal as possible. All this to say, I am but one of millions of cyclist that have been hit and the laws has not changed to our favor when hit and it never will. We ride at our own risk whether it is on the road or off road, the best we can do is limit our exposure as much as possible and ride with joy in our hearts and a smile on our face! One more note if the driver was forced to pay "all" our medical bills, losses caused by the accident and financial support as needed the driver would be much more careful. As it is now insurance only pays so much then you are left on your own for the rest and the car driver is let off free except for the minor traffic violation. I described, in another post, how the system works in Thailand where, in simple terms, the largest vehicle is deemed, subject to evidence to the contrary, to be at fault and responsible for all costs. It certainly makes a difference in how traffic acts here :-) -- Cheers, John B. Sort of like my last sentence, the more financial responsibility larger vehicle has the more careful they will be. It certainly seems to work that way here. But then if the individual is liable to an immediate and severe penalty it does seem to attract his/her attention :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#773
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Dead Right
Frank Krygowski writes:
[...] But there are complications. Rather frequently, I encounter people who have deluded ideas about dangers. On one hand, the people Joy is addressing have no idea that they are putting themselves at risk. On the other hand, and ever more common, there are people who imagine that certain safe or even beneficial activities are dangerous. Those people will (for example) never ride a bicycle at all, because they think bicycling is very, very dangerous. As a consequence, they are much more likely to die of a variety of ailments triggered by being sedentary. Now that the routes I usually follow are either covered with ice or buried under snow, I'm not going to consider bicycling "safe," either. I don't think I'm going to get anything due to "being sedentary," though: I walk 15 minutes every workday to get to job and the same amount of time to get back, and I walk a few floors up and down regularly while there. (Both for necessity and health.) (Refusing to ride without a magic plastic hat is a variation on this theme.) Why, that hat saved my head from a lot of bruises I'd otherwise have got from all the low-hanging branches I've encountered while riding through local forests. I've come across a man - educated, recently elected judge - who said he would never walk in a forest while wearing earplugs, because there is such a high risk of a tree falling on a person. (Seriously!) Yep; it was the last summer (or the summer before that) when a Scots pine broke due to strong wind a few meters from me. Thankfully, it fell pretty much the opposite direction to what I've been standing at. But what I'm really not going to do while wearing earplugs is crossing a road. [...] There are countless people who will never fly in a commercial airline. As someone who took a commercial flight recently (the previous one I had was one to Moscow, from where I got to Leningrad by train), I can attest that knowing that you're safe /and/ convincing your own subconscious of the same are in fact two vastly different things. Thinking rationally helps, but only that much. And, of course, knowing your weaknesses is a prerequisite for mitigating, if not overcoming, them. (Thankfully, I had mind to order train tickets for my trip back home. I had no such option for getting to the site due to time constraints.) And on the third hand, there are the clueless who's deluded self-preservation leads them to do things that put them at much, much greater risk. Every wrong-way bicyclist is convinced that he's far safer than those riding properly. The same is true for sidewalk riders, despite copious research proving them wrong. Care to suggest any? As a long-time sidewalk rider (which is, to the best of my knowledge, entirely legal in my jurisdiction) I'm rather curious about that. [...] -- FSF associate member #7257 np. Absolution; Winterglade -- Makkon |
#774
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Dead Right
On 2/7/2018 1:42 PM, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes: [...] But there are complications. Rather frequently, I encounter people who have deluded ideas about dangers. On one hand, the people Joy is addressing have no idea that they are putting themselves at risk. On the other hand, and ever more common, there are people who imagine that certain safe or even beneficial activities are dangerous. Those people will (for example) never ride a bicycle at all, because they think bicycling is very, very dangerous. As a consequence, they are much more likely to die of a variety of ailments triggered by being sedentary. Now that the routes I usually follow are either covered with ice or buried under snow, I'm not going to consider bicycling "safe," either. I don't think I'm going to get anything due to "being sedentary," though: I walk 15 minutes every workday to get to job and the same amount of time to get back, and I walk a few floors up and down regularly while there. (Both for necessity and health.) (Refusing to ride without a magic plastic hat is a variation on this theme.) Why, that hat saved my head from a lot of bruises I'd otherwise have got from all the low-hanging branches I've encountered while riding through local forests. The magic plastic hat may make sense if you're mountain biking. For one thing, you're much more likely to encounter a branch low enough to whack your head. For another thing, the impact from such a branch - unlike an impact from a car - will likely be within the tiny protective capacity of the styrofoam. However, there's also the strong possibility that without the hat you might actually watch for low branches and ride in a way that avoids head impacts. That's what I do in our local forest preserve. I've come across a man - educated, recently elected judge - who said he would never walk in a forest while wearing earplugs, because there is such a high risk of a tree falling on a person. (Seriously!) Yep; it was the last summer (or the summer before that) when a Scots pine broke due to strong wind a few meters from me. Thankfully, it fell pretty much the opposite direction to what I've been standing at. Yes, good example. "I saw a tree fall. Trees are SO DANGEROUS!" In the entire U.S., in an average year, there are roughly six people killed by trees falling, not counting those who die because the car they are driving runs into a tree fallen across the road. Trees falling is NOT a common cause of death or serious injury. And on the third hand, there are the clueless who's deluded self-preservation leads them to do things that put them at much, much greater risk. Every wrong-way bicyclist is convinced that he's far safer than those riding properly. The same is true for sidewalk riders, despite copious research proving them wrong. Care to suggest any? As a long-time sidewalk rider (which is, to the best of my knowledge, entirely legal in my jurisdiction) I'm rather curious about that. I just googled "risks of sidewalk riding." Here are the first few hits: http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/faci.../sidecrash.htm https://onelesscar.wordpress.com/200...oad-bicycling/ http://mobikefed.org/2016/08/bicycli...ot-recommended https://bikeleague.org/content/riding-sidewalk We can discuss this. Note that I'm not saying one should never ride a sidewalk. (There are two short sections I ride quite frequently.) But on average, it's much more risky, and if a person is going to do it, there are unusual hazards one should learn about. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#775
|
|||
|
|||
AG: I can't twitch my tail
I can't do what a cat does because I don't have the same body parts, but a stiff old lady can learn quite a lot about mounting a bicycle by watching a cat preparing to leap. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
#776
|
|||
|
|||
AG: I can't twitch my tail
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 22:11:15 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote: I can't do what a cat does because I don't have the same body parts, but a stiff old lady can learn quite a lot about mounting a bicycle by watching a cat preparing to leap. A cat can leap higher then it's body length. And how high did you set your saddle :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#777
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Dead Right
On 2018-02-04 14:49:25 +0000, Frank Krygowski said:
I've come across a man - educated, recently elected judge - who said he would never walk in a forest while wearing earplugs, because there is such a high risk of a tree falling on a person. (Seriously!) If a tree falls in the woods and you don't hear it, did it really fall? Can it kill you? |
#778
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Clear roads and I didn't ride today
I'm a real cut-up when I help set up for a church dinner: chopping vegetables is something that I can do sitting down. And I found a very good chopping knife in the unlabeled drawer. (I have a considerate form of arthritis: I can do anything except stand still.) I'll probably be charged with slicing cakes and pies tomorrow. The chairman is afraid that nobody will bring dessert and is baking brownies. There has always been an excess of desserts, but apparently she had a traumatic experience at a meal that I missed. We're serving spaghetti in red sauce with meatballs on the side (in case of vegetarians) and a tossed salad; that's an ample meal in my opinion, and we don't need side dishes. (But bringing a "side dish" is a good way for a diabetic to bring something that's on his diet without making a show of it.) I got to the church half an hour early, but forgot to run up and down the staircases to make up for being shut in for weeks on end. I did walk down Ninth Street, which is a staircase, on the way home. I hope I don't forget again tomorrow. It's snowing now, so it's back to wearing boots and carrying a cane. And I don't want to carry my shoes in the bum bag, because I left a knapsack full of fruit cake in the freezer and have to bring it back. There's a shoulder bag that would fold to fit the outer pocket of the knapsack, but I'm not sure the shoes would fit in with it. Perhaps my best bet is to wear jeans so that I can tie a disposable plastic bag to my belt. Weather Underground says (runs off to re-re-re-...check) rain until Thursday. (Of course, it says "rain" right now, and it's mighty white out there.) (Wait, there's a pink fleck on the chart about dawn on Sunday. The snow is only a few hours early.) And some snow in the night between Wednesday and Thursday. Hmm . . . Wednesday is "AM showers, and the chart shows them ending just when I'd finish dressing. But it isn't going to be warm enough that I could risk getting wet . . . -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
#779
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Clear roads and I didn't ride today
Weather Underground says that Monday will be sunny and warm with no rain, a perfect day to ride to Walmart: finally an increase in mileage! But at the moment, Sunset Drive and Arthur Street are under Pike Lake. Detroit street is not a reasonable alternative. Under the bridge on Sunset, Lones Ditch is wider and deeper than Eagle Creek, and it runs briskly even when it isn't flooding -- but can it drain Pike Lake fast enough? When it's going to rain again tonight, and half an inch on Saturday? I could go the way I'm planning to come back, but that would mean no frozen beef, and might be too much increase in mileage. Stay tuned. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
#780
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Clear roads and I didn't ride today
Bummer. Today's paper says the Tippy isn't going to crest until Monday -- and I've told the piano tuner he can come on Tuesday. On the bright side, on the second page it said that Pike Lake had receded "slightly". But Satellite View strongly suggests that it's mighty flat out where Lones Ditch meets the Tippy. And I still want to know why the Tippy detours around Hidden lake. If it were round, I'd think it was an astrobleme. Maybe I'll feel up to coming back by Fox Farm. And I'm planning to do the whole ride in walking shoes, so Silveus Crossing isn't out of the question. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Speeding cyclist mows down elderly jogger | Mrcheerful | UK | 10 | February 13th 14 10:43 PM |
Cyclist:0 Disabled granny:1 | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 1 | June 13th 13 09:15 PM |
Hit & run cyclist injures elderly woman on pavement | John Benn | UK | 25 | August 19th 12 09:33 AM |
cyclist says injured granny should not be on pavement! | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 5 | June 13th 10 07:37 PM |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton | [email protected] | UK | 167 | February 1st 09 10:44 AM |