Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 11, 10:39*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""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.

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

So in light of the common language here, is there an English
translation available? None of the online translators seem to
recognize it.

DR

On Dec 11, 6:47*pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:


Is it possible that you don't know what you're saying when you offend
people?
I doubt it. *I imagine this is just the next step in your methodology.

In all of the time that I've been on Usenet with all of the trolls and
flames that I've dealt with,
I've NEVER lost my temper enough to use profanity like that.
Referring to dead cyclists as ground meat? *And you're a cycling advocate?
That's rich.

Duane, YOU apparently don't know what YOU are saying! I responded to
YOUR use of "ground meat" as the result of a cyclist not getting onto
the sidewalk to placate a trucker!

Here's the exchange:
[dh:]
In which case I'm getting out of the way.
[fk:]
Onto the sidewalk again, eh?
[dh:]
Ground meat again eh? If those are the two choices,
I know which I will take.

I never used the phrase until you did, and I wouldn't have used it
then except in response to your use. If you think it's offensive,
don't use it!

- Frank Krygowski

On Dec 11, 9:39 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/11/2010 7:15 PM, DirtRoadie WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:



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?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...81cd897c0129cd

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...ef10ac9d64dc18

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...1cc0205d0c77a2


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!". I tell him to please take that
crap to whoever is saying that. He just rewinds the script and
resumes his spiel.

Moreover, he is on record in this thread describing his approach to
cycling thus:

"So I stay very predictable. I think it's safe to say I never confuse
or startle a motorist. And I don't ride in a way that requires ninja
reflexes or extremely unusual skills. I get to just relax and ride"

If you casually pedal amiably down the village lane - what I might
think of as fuddy-duddy style - of course it's quite safe for someone
as knowledgable and experienced as Frank. But that's not for
everyone, nor should it be. His insistence that his way is the only
right proper way and that anyone who doesn't embrace this is simply
unwilling to learn, etc., etc. - gets old really quick.

snip

On Dec 11, 11:04*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 11, 9:07*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:

I'll give you until tomorrow morning to come up with a link.
And, no, something similar doesn't count.

Turns out Hebert originated and you immediately piled on.

Thank you. As you have acknowledged, you were incorrect.
I did not say what you quote me as saying.
Nothing new there.

I suppose I could demand that you "Quote me directly, with context, or
retract" as I recall some other poster demanding when he became
incensed at some purported misdeed.

DR

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
...

The point being that it is not motor vehicles vs. cyclists, especially
legally speaking.
I drive a motor vehicle, but probably less than most because I have no
commute at all. I ride a bicycle quite a bit but most of that is for
my own enjoyment and/or fitness.

Let me offer for discussion a cycling related non-commuting
hypothetical based up a real world bicycle/motor vehicle occurrence.
Let me know your thoughts.
I will also say that I have my own observations, but no agenda.
To the extent possible I will answer factual questions based upon the
event as I know it to have occurred. If you'd like I can even
provide a location via Google Earth "street view."
Heres the event:
1. Bike club conducts a low-key time trial series several times a
month on open public roads. Participants range from newbies/casual to
categorized/pro racers.
2. During one such event one rider is proceeding (probably 30+ mph) S
on a long, straight, open stretch of false flat downhill on two lane
county road (think "rural"). No shoulder.
3. There is rarely any notable traffic on the road in question.
(Generally it is at least "minutes" between vehicles.
4. A car traveling the opposite direction pulls off toward its LEFT
side (USA) of the road and stops (to check mailbox located at road
edge).
5. Cyclist collides head-on with the stopped car, cartwheels over the
car and suffers injuries.
6. Car sustains damage in the form of right front dents, broken
headlight/windshield.

So is there fault? One party? Both parties? Neither party ("****
happens")? Try to avoid speculation about facts. As I said I will do
what I can to fill in anything missing without making it up.
And if you feel compelled to claim "racers are idiots" or "motorists
are idiots" at least be prepared to show how that applies to the
event.
DR

Is the two lane road two directions? If so, I would wonder if it's legal to
cross
an oncoming lane and park against traffic?

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 6:47 pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:

Duane, YOU apparently don't know what YOU are saying! I responded to
YOUR use of "ground meat" as the result of a cyclist not getting onto
the sidewalk to placate a trucker!

Here's the exchange:
[dh:]
In which case I'm getting out of the way.
[fk:]
Onto the sidewalk again, eh?
[dh:]
Ground meat again eh? If those are the two choices,
I know which I will take.

I never used the phrase until you did, and I wouldn't have used it
then except in response to your use. If you think it's offensive,
don't use it!

Actually the phrase started with Phil telling me that in that circumstance,
I would be ground meat. In that context it was a useful metaphor for his
point. He was referring to getting mangled by a car. You had to jump
in with your insulting insinuation that I was a cowering fool riding on the
sidewalk and I just carried Phil's metaphor forward. Then you jumped
in with your usual bull****.

You may not have been the one to initially use that phrase but you were
the one to categorize the dead Quebec cyclists as ground meat
after calling me a coward for about the gazillionth time. Can
you be so dense as to not understand the difference?

On Dec 12, 7:55*am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
"DirtRoadie" wrote in message

...





The point being that it is not motor vehicles vs. cyclists, especially
legally speaking.
I drive a motor vehicle, but probably less than most because I have no
commute at all. *I ride a bicycle quite a bit but most of that is for
my own enjoyment and/or fitness.
Let me offer for discussion a *cycling related non-commuting
hypothetical based up a real world bicycle/motor vehicle occurrence.
Let me know your thoughts.
I will also say that I have my own observations, but no agenda.
To the extent possible I will answer factual questions based upon the
event as I know it to have occurred. If you'd *like I can *even
provide a location via Google Earth "street view."
Heres the event:
1. Bike club conducts a low-key time trial series several times a
month on open public roads. Participants range from newbies/casual to
categorized/pro racers.
2. During one such event one rider is proceeding (probably 30+ mph) S
on a long, straight, open stretch of false flat downhill on two lane
county road (think "rural"). No shoulder.
3. There is rarely any notable traffic on the road in question.
(Generally it is at least "minutes" between vehicles.
4. A car traveling the opposite direction pulls off toward its LEFT
side (USA) of the road and stops (to check mailbox located at road
edge).
5. Cyclist collides head-on with the stopped car, cartwheels over the
car and suffers injuries.
6. Car sustains damage in the form of right front dents, broken
headlight/windshield.
So is there fault? One party? Both parties? Neither party ("****
happens")? Try to avoid speculation about facts. As I said I will do
what I can to fill in anything missing without making it up.
And if you feel compelled to claim *"racers are idiots" or "motorists
are idiots" *at least be prepared to show how that applies to the
event.
DR

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

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
...

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.

Then I would say that the motorist is in the wrong.

But I would also say that cyclist seeing the motorist
approaching should have anticipated that he would
do something stupid. You just cannot assume that
they see you and will act appropriately. It's always
much worse for the cyclist.

This is not totally unlike the case where the motorist
turns left in front of you and this happens fairly often.

I know how time trials are and
you tend to be tucked and concentrating on speed but
if you're going to do that on an open road you need to
be aware of the risks.

On Dec 12, 7:18*am, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 12, 7:55*am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:



"DirtRoadie" wrote in message

....

The point being that it is not motor vehicles vs. cyclists, especially
legally speaking.
I drive a motor vehicle, but probably less than most because I have no
commute at all. *I ride a bicycle quite a bit but most of that is for
my own enjoyment and/or fitness.
Let me offer for discussion a *cycling related non-commuting
hypothetical based up a real world bicycle/motor vehicle occurrence.
Let me know your thoughts.
I will also say that I have my own observations, but no agenda.
To the extent possible I will answer factual questions based upon the
event as I know it to have occurred. If you'd *like I can *even
provide a location via Google Earth "street view."
Heres the event:
1. Bike club conducts a low-key time trial series several times a
month on open public roads. Participants range from newbies/casual to
categorized/pro racers.
2. During one such event one rider is proceeding (probably 30+ mph) S
on a long, straight, open stretch of false flat downhill on two lane
county road (think "rural"). No shoulder.
3. There is rarely any notable traffic on the road in question.
(Generally it is at least "minutes" between vehicles.
4. A car traveling the opposite direction pulls off toward its LEFT
side (USA) of the road and stops (to check mailbox located at road
edge).
5. Cyclist collides head-on with the stopped car, cartwheels over the
car and suffers injuries.
6. Car sustains damage in the form of right front dents, broken
headlight/windshield.
So is there fault? One party? Both parties? Neither party ("****
happens")? Try to avoid speculation about facts. As I said I will do
what I can to fill in anything missing without making it up.
And if you feel compelled to claim *"racers are idiots" or "motorists
are idiots" *at least be prepared to show how that applies to the
event.
DR

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.

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

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).

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.

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.
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. -- Jay Beattie.

On 12/12/2010 12:04 AM, DirtRoadie WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
On Dec 11, 10:39 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""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.

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