Death by Prius

Sneaking up on a cyclist with a stealth assault weapon,
running him down and then fleeing the scene.

No charges filed.

http://ktla.com/2014/06/18/cyclist-5...but-not-cited/

I note with sadness that the report skips the usual
'wearing/not wearing headgear' line in favor of 'no bicycle
lane'. We've come to this...
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

yes, the electics parade silence...

this one's for you


http://goo.gl/derPZI

On 6/19/2014 7:53 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Sneaking up on a cyclist with a stealth assault weapon, running him down
and then fleeing the scene.

No charges filed.

http://ktla.com/2014/06/18/cyclist-5...but-not-cited/


I note with sadness that the report skips the usual 'wearing/not wearing
headgear' line in favor of 'no bicycle lane'. We've come to this...


This has less to do with the Prius and more to do with the driver. How
do you hit someone from behind on a clear road in broad daylight? My
guess would be that a hand held device was involved.

THOUSANDS travel onto solid objects in clear daylight.....

every hour !

pick a zound ?

how about a strong

HHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS S ?

AMuzi writes:

Sneaking up on a cyclist with a stealth assault weapon, running him
down and then fleeing the scene.

No charges filed.

http://ktla.com/2014/06/18/cyclist-5...but-not-cited/

I note with sadness that the report skips the usual 'wearing/not
wearing headgear' line in favor of 'no bicycle lane'. We've come to
this...

Well, the cyclist was "on the right side of the roadway, 'for an unknown
reason,'�. Clearly he deserved to be run down---riding with an unknown
reason is a de facto admission of culpability. That's why I always
carry a notarized letter stating the intentions of every ride.

--
Joe Riel

On 6/19/2014 10:47 AM, Joe Riel wrote:
AMuzi writes:

Sneaking up on a cyclist with a stealth assault weapon, running him
down and then fleeing the scene.

No charges filed.

http://ktla.com/2014/06/18/cyclist-5...but-not-cited/

I note with sadness that the report skips the usual 'wearing/not
wearing headgear' line in favor of 'no bicycle lane'. We've come to
this...

Well, the cyclist was "on the right side of the roadway, 'for an unknown
reason,'�. Clearly he deserved to be run down---riding with an unknown
reason is a de facto admission of culpability. That's why I always
carry a notarized letter stating the intentions of every ride.



Yes it was a weird article. It looks like someone was pro bike lanes
that wrote that. Or at least anti bikes on the road. Then again, maybe
they thought the rider should be in the middle of the road.

Whatever, when someone is hit from behind on a straight road it's hard
to imagine it ever to be the victim's fault.

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:06:01 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
On 6/19/2014 10:47 AM, Joe Riel wrote:

AMuzi writes:



Sneaking up on a cyclist with a stealth assault weapon, running him

down and then fleeing the scene.



No charges filed.



http://ktla.com/2014/06/18/cyclist-5...but-not-cited/



I note with sadness that the report skips the usual 'wearing/not

wearing headgear' line in favor of 'no bicycle lane'. We've come to

this...



Well, the cyclist was "on the right side of the roadway, 'for an unknown

reason,'". Clearly he deserved to be run down---riding with an unknown

reason is a de facto admission of culpability. That's why I always

carry a notarized letter stating the intentions of every ride.







Yes it was a weird article. It looks like someone was pro bike lanes

that wrote that. Or at least anti bikes on the road. Then again, maybe

they thought the rider should be in the middle of the road.



Whatever, when someone is hit from behind on a straight road it's hard

to imagine it ever to be the victim's fault.

Getting hit from behind in daylight on a clear day on a road with good visibility also happens more often than some people will admit. It also seems to be happening more frequently.

Cheers

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:06:01 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
On 6/19/2014 10:47 AM, Joe Riel wrote:

AMuzi writes:



Sneaking up on a cyclist with a stealth assault weapon, running him

down and then fleeing the scene.



No charges filed.



http://ktla.com/2014/06/18/cyclist-5...but-not-cited/



I note with sadness that the report skips the usual 'wearing/not

wearing headgear' line in favor of 'no bicycle lane'. We've come to

this...



Well, the cyclist was "on the right side of the roadway, 'for an unknown

reason,'". Clearly he deserved to be run down---riding with an unknown

reason is a de facto admission of culpability. That's why I always

carry a notarized letter stating the intentions of every ride.







Yes it was a weird article. It looks like someone was pro bike lanes

that wrote that. Or at least anti bikes on the road. Then again, maybe

they thought the rider should be in the middle of the road.



Whatever, when someone is hit from behind on a straight road it's hard

to imagine it ever to be the victim's fault.

Getting hit from behind in daylight on a clear day on a road with good
visibility also happens more often than some people will admit. It also
seems to be happening more frequently.

Cheers

Certainly seems so around here. I think there's little doubt that it has
to do with texting or similar distractions.
--
duane

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Wollek

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:53:54 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

Sneaking up on a cyclist with a stealth assault weapon,
running him down and then fleeing the scene.

No charges filed.

http://ktla.com/2014/06/18/cyclist-5...but-not-cited/

I note with sadness that the report skips the usual
'wearing/not wearing headgear' line in favor of 'no bicycle
lane'. We've come to this...

It just goes to show how dangerous these new-fangled 'lectric cars
are. If it had been one of them big 'cicles that Frank was bitching
about the bicycle guy would have heared him coming and could have
dodged.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(gmail=invalid)