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

nobody seen nuffin'



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 13th 17, 08:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default nobody seen nuffin'


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3407350

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

Ads
  #2  
Old August 14th 17, 02:31 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default nobody seen nuffin'

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:40:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3407350


A really impartial report :-)

The two people on the garbage truck say that they "didn't see the
bicycle". "But they must have, they must have",reports a bloke who
wasn't there, and who's only claim to any knowledge of the matter was
that he had eaten in the restaurant where the bicycle rider was
employed.
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #3  
Old August 14th 17, 03:16 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default nobody seen nuffin'

On 8/13/2017 9:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:40:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3407350


A really impartial report :-)

The two people on the garbage truck say that they "didn't see the
bicycle". "But they must have, they must have",reports a bloke who
wasn't there, and who's only claim to any knowledge of the matter was
that he had eaten in the restaurant where the bicycle rider was
employed.


Assuming the cyclist had lights at night (and perhaps even if he didn't)
it's the JOB of a truck driver to see everyone using the road. "I didn't
see him" should not be treated as a valid excuse; it should be treated
as an admission of guilt.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #4  
Old August 14th 17, 05:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default nobody seen nuffin'

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 22:16:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/13/2017 9:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:40:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3407350


A really impartial report :-)

The two people on the garbage truck say that they "didn't see the
bicycle". "But they must have, they must have",reports a bloke who
wasn't there, and who's only claim to any knowledge of the matter was
that he had eaten in the restaurant where the bicycle rider was
employed.


Assuming the cyclist had lights at night (and perhaps even if he didn't)
it's the JOB of a truck driver to see everyone using the road. "I didn't
see him" should not be treated as a valid excuse; it should be treated
as an admission of guilt.


If a truck driver is responsible to see what is going on doesn't that
apply equally to the bicycle rider? After all, they were both
operating "vehicles" on a public road.

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #5  
Old August 14th 17, 12:19 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default nobody seen nuffin'

Simply written law for the retarded.. the onus is on the bicycle to stay away from garbage trucks n use color n lights.

Having a few victims...who were too close n unseen ... is for the 'lawmaker'... the control mechanism.

That type of function comes from the right..the eye for an eye group.

My limited understanding is the 'example' ...as the victim count n PR iznot effective caws everyone involved are retarded or uncaring
  #6  
Old August 14th 17, 06:04 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default nobody seen nuffin'

On 8/14/2017 12:05 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 22:16:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/13/2017 9:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:40:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3407350

A really impartial report :-)

The two people on the garbage truck say that they "didn't see the
bicycle". "But they must have, they must have",reports a bloke who
wasn't there, and who's only claim to any knowledge of the matter was
that he had eaten in the restaurant where the bicycle rider was
employed.


Assuming the cyclist had lights at night (and perhaps even if he didn't)
it's the JOB of a truck driver to see everyone using the road. "I didn't
see him" should not be treated as a valid excuse; it should be treated
as an admission of guilt.


If a truck driver is responsible to see what is going on doesn't that
apply equally to the bicycle rider? After all, they were both
operating "vehicles" on a public road.


A bike rider has a responsibility to be observant. But it's possible for
one road user to violate the laws in such a way that another very alert
road user can't avoid a crash. That's why there is normally some
investigation into who is at fault in traffic crashes.

The truck driver's "I didn't see him" statement shows he was at fault.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #7  
Old August 15th 17, 03:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default nobody seen nuffin'

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:04:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/14/2017 12:05 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 22:16:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/13/2017 9:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:40:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3407350

A really impartial report :-)

The two people on the garbage truck say that they "didn't see the
bicycle". "But they must have, they must have",reports a bloke who
wasn't there, and who's only claim to any knowledge of the matter was
that he had eaten in the restaurant where the bicycle rider was
employed.

Assuming the cyclist had lights at night (and perhaps even if he didn't)
it's the JOB of a truck driver to see everyone using the road. "I didn't
see him" should not be treated as a valid excuse; it should be treated
as an admission of guilt.


If a truck driver is responsible to see what is going on doesn't that
apply equally to the bicycle rider? After all, they were both
operating "vehicles" on a public road.


A bike rider has a responsibility to be observant. But it's possible for
one road user to violate the laws in such a way that another very alert
road user can't avoid a crash. That's why there is normally some
investigation into who is at fault in traffic crashes.

The truck driver's "I didn't see him" statement shows he was at fault.


But Frank, I've almost hit a bicycle, several times, often enough that
it is no longer an anomaly. And I was on a bicycle, maybe 20 kph. Had
I been driving a powered vehicle at say 50 kph I would almost
certainly have hit them

The conditions we just about dawn, the other cyclist, who I guess
could be called a transportationist cyclist, was on a dingy black
bicycle, the rider was wearing dark, maybe black clothes, trousers and
a long sleeved shirt of some sort, the bike was equipped with a large
plastic "basket" on the rear carrier and a handle bar basket on the
front and riding the wrong way on the edge of a 6 lane highway. Quite
obviously on his way to work.

At that point in my usual ride I would have just turned onto the
highway and would normally be traveling 18 - 20 kph and I can assure
you that when I saw the guy had I been going twice as fast I certainly
would have hit him.

And I do look where I am going and even (strange as it may be) behind
me and on either side of me.

Your argument when someone saying "I didn't see him" is obviously at
fault is absurd.
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #8  
Old August 15th 17, 04:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default nobody seen nuffin'

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 10:04:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/14/2017 12:05 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 22:16:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/13/2017 9:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:40:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3407350

A really impartial report :-)

The two people on the garbage truck say that they "didn't see the
bicycle". "But they must have, they must have",reports a bloke who
wasn't there, and who's only claim to any knowledge of the matter was
that he had eaten in the restaurant where the bicycle rider was
employed.

Assuming the cyclist had lights at night (and perhaps even if he didn't)
it's the JOB of a truck driver to see everyone using the road. "I didn't
see him" should not be treated as a valid excuse; it should be treated
as an admission of guilt.


If a truck driver is responsible to see what is going on doesn't that
apply equally to the bicycle rider? After all, they were both
operating "vehicles" on a public road.


A bike rider has a responsibility to be observant. But it's possible for
one road user to violate the laws in such a way that another very alert
road user can't avoid a crash. That's why there is normally some
investigation into who is at fault in traffic crashes.

The truck driver's "I didn't see him" statement shows he was at fault.


Did the bicycle have headlights?
  #9  
Old August 15th 17, 04:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default nobody seen nuffin'

On 8/14/2017 10:28 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:04:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/14/2017 12:05 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 22:16:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/13/2017 9:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:40:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3407350

A really impartial report :-)

The two people on the garbage truck say that they "didn't see the
bicycle". "But they must have, they must have",reports a bloke who
wasn't there, and who's only claim to any knowledge of the matter was
that he had eaten in the restaurant where the bicycle rider was
employed.

Assuming the cyclist had lights at night (and perhaps even if he didn't)
it's the JOB of a truck driver to see everyone using the road. "I didn't
see him" should not be treated as a valid excuse; it should be treated
as an admission of guilt.

If a truck driver is responsible to see what is going on doesn't that
apply equally to the bicycle rider? After all, they were both
operating "vehicles" on a public road.


A bike rider has a responsibility to be observant. But it's possible for
one road user to violate the laws in such a way that another very alert
road user can't avoid a crash. That's why there is normally some
investigation into who is at fault in traffic crashes.

The truck driver's "I didn't see him" statement shows he was at fault.


But Frank, I've almost hit a bicycle, several times, often enough that
it is no longer an anomaly. And I was on a bicycle, maybe 20 kph. Had
I been driving a powered vehicle at say 50 kph I would almost
certainly have hit them

The conditions we just about dawn, the other cyclist, who I guess
could be called a transportationist cyclist, was on a dingy black
bicycle, the rider was wearing dark, maybe black clothes, trousers and
a long sleeved shirt of some sort, the bike was equipped with a large
plastic "basket" on the rear carrier and a handle bar basket on the
front and riding the wrong way on the edge of a 6 lane highway. Quite
obviously on his way to work.

At that point in my usual ride I would have just turned onto the
highway and would normally be traveling 18 - 20 kph and I can assure
you that when I saw the guy had I been going twice as fast I certainly
would have hit him.

And I do look where I am going and even (strange as it may be) behind
me and on either side of me.

Your argument when someone saying "I didn't see him" is obviously at
fault is absurd.


I'm making the assumption that the cyclist hit by the garbage truck was
riding legally. I don't normally fault a motorist when, say, a wrong-way
nighttime cyclist with no lights rides into a car head-on. Or when a
cyclist blasts through a stop sign directly into the path of a car. But
in this case, the author of the article claims that the cyclist had the
right of way but was killed by what sounds like a right hook. There was
no mention of illegal bicycling.

In any case, even if the cyclist were disobeying some law, there is a
requirement to stop and not flee the scene when a person is injured in a
traffic crash. Anyone can claim "I didn't know I hit anyone." That
shouldn't be treated any more seriously than "I didn't see him." You
have a responsibility to see EVERY legal road user in time to avoid him.
You have a responsibility to stop EVERY time you're involved in a crash.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #10  
Old August 15th 17, 06:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default nobody seen nuffin'

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 11:50:58 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/14/2017 10:28 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:04:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/14/2017 12:05 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 22:16:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/13/2017 9:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:40:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3407350

A really impartial report :-)

The two people on the garbage truck say that they "didn't see the
bicycle". "But they must have, they must have",reports a bloke who
wasn't there, and who's only claim to any knowledge of the matter was
that he had eaten in the restaurant where the bicycle rider was
employed.

Assuming the cyclist had lights at night (and perhaps even if he didn't)
it's the JOB of a truck driver to see everyone using the road. "I didn't
see him" should not be treated as a valid excuse; it should be treated
as an admission of guilt.

If a truck driver is responsible to see what is going on doesn't that
apply equally to the bicycle rider? After all, they were both
operating "vehicles" on a public road.

A bike rider has a responsibility to be observant. But it's possible for
one road user to violate the laws in such a way that another very alert
road user can't avoid a crash. That's why there is normally some
investigation into who is at fault in traffic crashes.

The truck driver's "I didn't see him" statement shows he was at fault.


But Frank, I've almost hit a bicycle, several times, often enough that
it is no longer an anomaly. And I was on a bicycle, maybe 20 kph. Had
I been driving a powered vehicle at say 50 kph I would almost
certainly have hit them

The conditions we just about dawn, the other cyclist, who I guess
could be called a transportationist cyclist, was on a dingy black
bicycle, the rider was wearing dark, maybe black clothes, trousers and
a long sleeved shirt of some sort, the bike was equipped with a large
plastic "basket" on the rear carrier and a handle bar basket on the
front and riding the wrong way on the edge of a 6 lane highway. Quite
obviously on his way to work.

At that point in my usual ride I would have just turned onto the
highway and would normally be traveling 18 - 20 kph and I can assure
you that when I saw the guy had I been going twice as fast I certainly
would have hit him.

And I do look where I am going and even (strange as it may be) behind
me and on either side of me.

Your argument when someone saying "I didn't see him" is obviously at
fault is absurd.


I'm making the assumption that the cyclist hit by the garbage truck was
riding legally. I don't normally fault a motorist when, say, a wrong-way
nighttime cyclist with no lights rides into a car head-on. Or when a
cyclist blasts through a stop sign directly into the path of a car. But
in this case, the author of the article claims that the cyclist had the
right of way but was killed by what sounds like a right hook. There was
no mention of illegal bicycling.

In any case, even if the cyclist were disobeying some law, there is a
requirement to stop and not flee the scene when a person is injured in a
traffic crash. Anyone can claim "I didn't know I hit anyone." That
shouldn't be treated any more seriously than "I didn't see him." You
have a responsibility to see EVERY legal road user in time to avoid him.
You have a responsibility to stop EVERY time you're involved in a crash.

--
- Frank Krygowski


Up here if a bicyclist hits a pedestrian it's suposed to be reported as it's considered to be a vehicular/pedestrian collision. There have been cases where a bicyclist riding on the sidewalk has struck and killed a pedestrian.

Cheers
 




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.