A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dickens:"The law is a ass."



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 31st 18, 08:48 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

  #2  
Old February 1st 18, 05:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

On 1/31/2018 2:48 PM, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/

Time for Spike Bike?

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #3  
Old February 1st 18, 05:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

On 2/1/2018 10:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/31/2018 2:48 PM, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/

Time for Spike Bike?


This story has a lot of traction, in the headlines every
morning.

And yet here we are. Even yet:

https://nypost.com/2018/01/31/mom-of...mands-justice/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #4  
Old February 8th 18, 10:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 2:48:49 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


I'm curious why so many cyclists think death of a cyclist in an accident is a crime. Murder requires intent. Manslaughter requires "gross negligence.." Accidents are not a crime, even if there is negligence, even if people die. Unless the driver did something way out of the ordinary that caused the accident- no crime occurred. The lawyer is absolutely right, the lapsed license is utterly irrelevant to the cause of the injury.
  #5  
Old February 9th 18, 12:13 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 13:29:04 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 2:48:49 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/

I'm curious why so many cyclists think death of a cyclist in an accident is a crime.
Murder requires intent. Manslaughter requires "gross negligence." Accidents are not a
crime, even if there is negligence, even if people die. Unless the driver did
something way out of the ordinary that caused the accident- no crime occurred. The
lawyer is absolutely right, the lapsed license is utterly irrelevant to the cause of
the injury.


We tend to frame it that way because we deal every day with inattentive and or
incompetent drivers who avoid killing or maiming us only because we take the action to
compensate for their inattention and incompetence. Our lives are beneath their notice or
concern.

It may not be murder (e.g., no formulation of intent to kill the other person) but it is
more frequently manslaughter than drivers are charged with. The police and prosecutors
do not want to ruin someone's life just for killing a cyclist, so they accept "I didn't
see" him or her as a valid defense (instead of the admission of negligence that it really
is. Question: how the hell do you not see someone who is dressed like a 200 lb canary on
a bike? Answer: you weren't even looking. Comment: it was your job to look.).

Now, there are cases where the cyclst ran a red light or a stop sign into a vehicle with
the right of way (or some other scenario where it is the cyclist that caused the
collision). Just as it would be if the cyclist was in a car, the cyclist is at fault.

How are most cyclists injured or killed in accidents? They are struck from behind by an
overtaking motor vehicle. Those are the driver's fault in the majority of cases.
  #6  
Old February 9th 18, 02:12 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

On 2/8/2018 6:13 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

How are most cyclists injured or killed in accidents? They are struck from behind by an
overtaking motor vehicle.


Sorry, that's not true. See
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE...f/swless04.pdf

"10. The bicycle-motor vehicle crashes were divided
into the three main categories as such:
Parallel-path events 36 percent
Crossing-path events 57 percent
Specific circumstances 7 percent

11. The most frequent parallel-path crashes were
motorist turn/merge into bicyclist’s path (12.2
percent), motorist overtaking the bicyclist (8.6
percent), and bicyclist turn/merge into motorist’s
path (7.3 percent). The most frequent crossing
path crashes were motorist failed to yield to
bicyclist (21.7 percent), bicyclist failed to yield at
an intersection (16.8 percent), and bicyclist failed
to yield midblock (11.8 percent). These six
individual crash types accounted for almost 80
percent of all bicycle-motor vehicle crashes."

So motorist overtaking were just 8.6 percent of the total. And I'd bet
that a majority of those were of two types: Totally Unlit cyclists at
night, which legal lighting would prevent; and "I think I can squeeze
by" events, which would have been averted by lane control by the cyclist.

Recently, the now-useless League of American Bicyclist pulled a
publicity stunt to try to promote segregated paths. They had interns
scan news reports of bike crashes to see how the reporters described the
crash details. From those, they tried to glean the percentage of
hit-from-behind crashes, and came up with a wild overestimate. Needless
to say, their methodology was terrible.

But that's consistent behavior from an organization that has shifted
from "cyclists' rights to the road" to "let's build cycle tracks
everywhere."

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #7  
Old February 10th 18, 11:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 20:12:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 2/8/2018 6:13 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

How are most cyclists injured or killed in accidents? They are
struck from behind by an overtaking motor vehicle.


Sorry, that's not true. See
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE...f/swless04.pdf


snip

11. The most frequent parallel-path crashes were motorist turn/merge
into bicyclist’s path (12.2 percent), motorist overtaking the
bicyclist (8.6 percent), and bicyclist turn/merge into motorist’s path
(7.3 percent).


Do you know if the first type were exclusively drivers and cyclists
traveling in opposite drections? Or does this include situations where
the driver had passed the cyclist and then turned, cutting the cyclist
off? I would include that scenario in my original statement as they
were struck by a vehicle coming from behind. Not that it would be
likely to move that into the majority. Perhaps my information is out of
date, past research had indicated being struck by a vehicle traveling in
the same direction caused more fatalities.

The most frequent crossing path crashes were motorist failed to yield
to bicyclist (21.7 percent), bicyclist failed to yield at an
intersection (16.8 percent), and bicyclist failed to yield midblock
(11.8 percent).


In what scenario does a vehicle turning or entering the road in the
middle of the block have the right of way?

These six individual crash types accounted for almost 80 percent of
all bicycle-motor vehicle crashes."


What are the other 20+%? Bicycists hitting parked cars? Drivers
hitting stationary bicyclists (we had one of those incidents here a few
years ago when a semi driver turned right on a red, crushing the cyclist
in the bike lane waiting at the corner under the trailer wheels).

So motorist overtaking were just 8.6 percent of the total. And I'd bet
that a majority of those were of two types: Totally Unlit cyclists at
night, which legal lighting would prevent; and "I think I can squeeze
by" events, which would have been averted by lane control by the
cyclist.


I strongly suspect that 8.6% is a gross underestimate and that the real
number is at least double that. It doesn't pass the smell test. As for
you putative reasons, I think that certainly a percentage is the unlit
cyclist scenario (since I see a lot of that around here and those riders
can be hard to see especially in the glare of oncoming headlights). But
I think the greater cause is inattentive, negligent and incompetent
driving.

The lane control is a red herring, it is the driver's responsibility to
gauge that correctly and their fault if they don't- not that that helps
the dead cyclist or injured, of course. As my Mom used to say about
driving, "you can be right and you can be dead right."

snip

LAB's been useless for decades. Their devotees around here have managed
to get bike lanes created that are more dangerous than the situation had
been on the same roads without them.
  #8  
Old February 11th 18, 02:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

On 2/10/2018 5:22 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 20:12:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 2/8/2018 6:13 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

How are most cyclists injured or killed in accidents? They are
struck from behind by an overtaking motor vehicle.


Sorry, that's not true. See
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE...f/swless04.pdf


snip

11. The most frequent parallel-path crashes were motorist turn/merge
into bicyclist’s path (12.2 percent), motorist overtaking the
bicyclist (8.6 percent), and bicyclist turn/merge into motorist’s path
(7.3 percent).


Do you know if the first type were exclusively drivers and cyclists
traveling in opposite drections? Or does this include situations where
the driver had passed the cyclist and then turned, cutting the cyclist
off? I would include that scenario in my original statement as they
were struck by a vehicle coming from behind. Not that it would be
likely to move that into the majority. Perhaps my information is out of
date, past research had indicated being struck by a vehicle traveling in
the same direction caused more fatalities.

The most frequent crossing path crashes were motorist failed to yield
to bicyclist (21.7 percent), bicyclist failed to yield at an
intersection (16.8 percent), and bicyclist failed to yield midblock
(11.8 percent).


In what scenario does a vehicle turning or entering the road in the
middle of the block have the right of way?


The PDF has illustrative diagrams of several common crash types.

These six individual crash types accounted for almost 80 percent of
all bicycle-motor vehicle crashes."


What are the other 20+%? Bicycists hitting parked cars?


Every examination of crash types I've read always had a sizeable "other"
category. I've assumed this is because many bicyclists find very
creative ways to get in trouble.

So motorist overtaking were just 8.6 percent of the total. And I'd bet
that a majority of those were of two types: Totally Unlit cyclists at
night, which legal lighting would prevent; and "I think I can squeeze
by" events, which would have been averted by lane control by the
cyclist.


I strongly suspect that 8.6% is a gross underestimate and that the real
number is at least double that. It doesn't pass the smell test.


IIRC, various studies have given different percentages to the relative
crash types.

This one from North Carolina
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat_nc/...types08-12.pdf
says hits from behind are about 17%.

An Orlando study ("Orlando Area Bicyclist Crash Study:
A Role-Based Approach to Crash Countermeasures") says motorist
overtaking accounted for 8.2%.

Carol Tan's "Crash Type Manual"
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publication...pedbike/96104/
lists five sub-categories of crashes caused by "motorist overtaking."
They total 8.6%, but maybe that's using the same data as the other study
I linked.

The Kenneth Cross study from the 1970s said "motorist collided with rear
of cyclist" comprised 4.17% of crashes. It's at
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm

Whatever the percentage, it seems hits-from-behind are a pretty small
percentage of crash types. And it's been noted that many of those that
do occur are rural, unlit cyclists riding at night.

Now granted, when it does happen, it's a very bad thing. It's
responsible for a disproportionate number of fatalities - but again, not
"most" of fatalities, IIRC.

It's a crash type that is excessively feared. There are more important
things to watch out for.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #9  
Old February 9th 18, 02:25 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 401
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

On 08/02/2018 4:29 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 2:48:49 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


I'm curious why so many cyclists think death of a cyclist in an accident is a crime. Murder requires intent. Manslaughter requires "gross negligence." Accidents are not a crime, even if there is negligence, even if people die. Unless the driver did something way out of the ordinary that caused the accident- no crime occurred. The lawyer is absolutely right, the lapsed license is utterly irrelevant to the cause of the injury.


You don't think texting while driving is gross negligence? How about
driving drunk?

How about the recent discussion of the case in Boston with the
professional truck driver turning right from a middle lane and killing
someone?

I agree that accidents happen but when the event is caused by a reckless
disregard I don't think it's still an accident.

As far as the suspended license, it shows a propensity to this behavior.
  #10  
Old February 9th 18, 12:58 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

"The police and prosecutors
do not want to ruin someone's life just for killing a cyclist, so they accept "I didn't
see" him or her as a valid defense (instead of the admission of negligence that it really
is. "

Most of us drive too. It is damned easy not to see a cyclist. Other than a persecution complex, there is no reason to conclude "just a cyclist" as some kind of motive, when the easier explanation is that mere negligence is a just a civil case and there is simply insufficient evidence to prove a crime. When every juror is going to hear the facts and think "there but for the grace of god go I", there is basically no way it can constitute gross negligence and therefore isn't a crime.

I just don't see the point of the many internet whines (and posting of newspaper articles) that a cyclist got hit and died, so there must have been a crime that isn't being punished. No. That is an unsupportable leap. You need more for it to be a crime.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"John "Cho" Gilmer keeps publishing his "Manifesto" over and over." Hoodini Racing 0 April 23rd 07 12:38 AM
Vandeman calls mountain bikers "liars" and "criminals" then surprised by hate mail! Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 0 June 1st 06 08:15 PM
Vandeman calls mountain bikers "liars" and "criminals" then surprisedby hate mail! ChainSmoker Mountain Biking 0 May 27th 06 05:39 PM
Vandeman calls mountain bikers "liars" and "criminals" then surprised by hate mail! tom Mountain Biking 0 May 16th 06 04:22 AM
R.I.P. Jim Price (aka. "biker_billy", "sydney", "Boudreaux") spin156 Techniques 15 November 28th 05 08:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.