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
  #11  
Old February 9th 18, 03:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

On 09/02/2018 10:07 AM, jbeattie wrote:

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 4:30:39 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 6:58:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:

"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.


If you really believe that applies to a cyclist in ordinary daylight, or a
legally lit cyclist at night, you should turn in your driver's license.

It's your job as a driver to see cyclists, plus pedestrians (including kids
who my react unpredictably), plus motorcycles, plus other cars, plus trash
cans that blow into the road, plus trees by the side of the road, plus any
number of other things that may be near you or in front of you.


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.


Negligence is not just a civil case. There are laws against it.



Well, unless your drunk or criminally negligent, it is a civil case. Otherwise, every car v. car accident would be criminally prosecuted. The evil dark side of treating bicycles as vehicles is that getting hit by a car is legally no different from getting hit in a car by another car. You ask who had the right of way and go from there.

But I have yet to see a ghost car by the side of the road. http://www.oregonlive.com/living/ind...nd_a_bitt.html

It's easy to see cyclists on a long, flat, empty road. It's not as easy in cluttered urban environment with lots of distractions, e.g. pedestrians, cars, traffic signals. This is not an excuse -- just a reality. There are places where I know conflicts are common, and I exercise case. And regrettably, bike facilities more often than not put cyclists in harms way -- and will do so until motorists learn that bike lanes are (wait for it) lanes. Separate facilities can hide cyclists altogether at intersections or pit bikes against bikes or pedestrians. For some f****** unknown reason, they just put a Tesla dealership straddling a separated bike path on my way home, and now that is the killing fields. You're basically riding through a car dealership with cars using the bike path as a road (because there is no road, just a bike path). And don't get me going about the buses. I've already ordered my flame-thrower from Elon Musk, which I intent to use on the buses and his Tesla dealership.




The question I think is what constitutes criminal negligence. Texting
while driving should as it's illegal - at least here in Quebec.

Also I think there should be a different standard for professional
presumably trained truck drivers.
Ads
  #12  
Old February 9th 18, 03:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,022
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

jbeattie writes:

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 4:30:39 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 6:58:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
"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.


If you really believe that applies to a cyclist in ordinary daylight, or a
legally lit cyclist at night, you should turn in your driver's license.

It's your job as a driver to see cyclists, plus pedestrians (including kids
who my react unpredictably), plus motorcycles, plus other cars, plus trash
cans that blow into the road, plus trees by the side of the road, plus any
number of other things that may be near you or in front of you.

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.


Negligence is not just a civil case. There are laws against it.


Well, unless your drunk or criminally negligent, it is a civil
case. Otherwise, every car v. car accident would be criminally
prosecuted. The evil dark side of treating bicycles as vehicles is
that getting hit by a car is legally no different from getting hit in
a car by another car. You ask who had the right of way and go from
there.

But I have yet to see a ghost car by the side of the
road. http://www.oregonlive.com/living/ind...nd_a_bitt.html


I see quite a few roadside crosses here. I'm sure most of those they
memorialize were either car drivers or passengers. Maybe they don't do
that in Oregon.

--
  #13  
Old February 9th 18, 05:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,847
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

On 2/9/2018 10:31 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:


But I have yet to see a ghost car by the side of the
road. http://www.oregonlive.com/living/ind...nd_a_bitt.html


I see quite a few roadside crosses here. I'm sure most of those they
memorialize were either car drivers or passengers. Maybe they don't do
that in Oregon.


I come across a few roadside crosses or other similar memorials, but
they are probably fewer than one every 200 miles.

Given that there are over 35,000 motorists killed each year (vs. about
800 bicyclists) it seems like white painted junk cars should be stacked
up everywhere! Cars are dangerous!

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #14  
Old February 9th 18, 06:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,022
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 2/9/2018 10:31 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:


But I have yet to see a ghost car by the side of the
road. http://www.oregonlive.com/living/ind...nd_a_bitt.html


I see quite a few roadside crosses here. I'm sure most of those they
memorialize were either car drivers or passengers. Maybe they don't do
that in Oregon.


I come across a few roadside crosses or other similar memorials, but
they are probably fewer than one every 200 miles.

Given that there are over 35,000 motorists killed each year (vs. about
800 bicyclists) it seems like white painted junk cars should be
stacked up everywhere! Cars are dangerous!


Google claims the US has 4.12 million miles of road, so that would be
118 miles per fatality. That sounds well within the precision of your
200 mile estimate, particularly since some crash sites have multiple
fatalities, and most are not marked.

I've also assumed a lifetime of a year. I guess it's a matter of local
mores: Ghost bikes rarely last a week here, but roadside crosses may
persist for years. Who knows? They might even remind the occasional
driver to pay attention.

--
  #15  
Old February 9th 18, 11:07 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,054
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 10:55:16 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 2/9/2018 10:31 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:


But I have yet to see a ghost car by the side of the
road. http://www.oregonlive.com/living/ind...nd_a_bitt.html

I see quite a few roadside crosses here. I'm sure most of those they
memorialize were either car drivers or passengers. Maybe they don't do
that in Oregon.


I come across a few roadside crosses or other similar memorials, but
they are probably fewer than one every 200 miles.

Given that there are over 35,000 motorists killed each year (vs. about
800 bicyclists) it seems like white painted junk cars should be
stacked up everywhere! Cars are dangerous!


Google claims the US has 4.12 million miles of road, so that would be
118 miles per fatality. That sounds well within the precision of your
200 mile estimate, particularly since some crash sites have multiple
fatalities, and most are not marked.

I've also assumed a lifetime of a year. I guess it's a matter of local
mores: Ghost bikes rarely last a week here, but roadside crosses may
persist for years. Who knows? They might even remind the occasional
driver to pay attention.


A lot of that road is pretty empty. You could play football on some of the highways in Eastern Oregon. http://i.imgur.com/44YsRI2.jpg (going west from Nevada). Take an extra water bottle.

Anyway, we don't get much in the way of memorials around here for the dead drivers. Bicyclists and motorists die with some regularity on my flat commute route. https://bikeportland.org/2013/05/16/...bur-blvd-86837 Angela Burke got a vigil. https://bikeportland.org/2010/12/20/...bur-blvd-44832 Someone has died there every year for at least the last six years. I've been riding it for 30 years -- before bike lanes, and alas, I must suffer through my dreary existence, still alive. I admit, though, with increased traffic and the buses, it can be pretty unpleasant.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #16  
Old February 10th 18, 02:17 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,965
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 10:22:25 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 09/02/2018 10:07 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 4:30:39 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 6:58:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
"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.

If you really believe that applies to a cyclist in ordinary daylight, or a
legally lit cyclist at night, you should turn in your driver's license.

It's your job as a driver to see cyclists, plus pedestrians (including kids
who my react unpredictably), plus motorcycles, plus other cars, plus trash
cans that blow into the road, plus trees by the side of the road, plus any
number of other things that may be near you or in front of you.

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.

Negligence is not just a civil case. There are laws against it.


Well, unless your drunk or criminally negligent, it is a civil case. Otherwise, every car v. car accident would be criminally prosecuted. The evil dark side of treating bicycles as vehicles is that getting hit by a car is legally no different from getting hit in a car by another car. You ask who had the right of way and go from there.

But I have yet to see a ghost car by the side of the road. http://www.oregonlive.com/living/ind...nd_a_bitt.html

It's easy to see cyclists on a long, flat, empty road. It's not as easy in cluttered urban environment with lots of distractions, e.g. pedestrians, cars, traffic signals. This is not an excuse -- just a reality. There are places where I know conflicts are common, and I exercise case. And regrettably, bike facilities more often than not put cyclists in harms way -- and will do so until motorists learn that bike lanes are (wait for it) lanes. Separate facilities can hide cyclists altogether at intersections or pit bikes against bikes or pedestrians. For some f****** unknown reason, they just put a Tesla dealership straddling a separated bike path on my way home, and now that is the killing fields. You're basically riding through a car dealership with cars using the bike path as a road (because there is no road, just a bike path). And don't get me going about the buses. I've already ordered my flame-thrower from Elon Musk, which I intent to use on the buses and his Tesla

dealership.



The question I think is what constitutes criminal negligence. Texting
while driving should as it's illegal - at least here in Quebec.

Also I think there should be a different standard for professional
presumably trained truck drivers.


That implies that non truck drivers are not as competent. The question
then becomes, "do we want to be on the road with all these incompetent
drivers"?

But the superior trained truck driver does have a further implication,
doesn't it? What about the totally untrained bicyclist, who, in many
cases isn't even aware of the traffic code?
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #18  
Old February 10th 18, 10:04 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,792
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 15:58:01 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
"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.


With the exception of the dark-clothed cyclist with no lights at night
(which is something I see with depressive regularity around here, as
well as dark-clothed pedestrians at night), it's not that hard to see
bicyclists. On my bike I am taller than most cars.

In most cass "I didn't see" is either a lie or an admission of
negligence.

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.


The prejudice of the jury doesn't determine what laws apply to what
situations. There are conditions under which negligence is a crime in
all 50 states in the US, and should be prosecuted under criminal laws
and not in civil court. If negligence results in the death of another
person, that is IMHO not a civil matter in most cases.

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.


And there frequently is. That is the point. Drivers are frequently
distracted on their cell phones (talking, texting, looking at maps,
etc.), eating, reading books or magazines, arguing with passengers,
looking in the back seat, picking something up from the floor,
intoxicated... I have personally seen all of those scenarios multiple
times while driving on the highways as well as riding my bike on the
roads around here. That is enough for striking a bicyclist (or a
pedestrian or another car) to be a crime.

Now, if the cyclist runs a stop sign or a red light, is riding the wrong
way down a one way street, is riding erratically and unpredictably- all
of which I have witnessed as well- then I think it's likely to be a very
different story. Even if the driver was distracted or inattentive, the
cyclist has some share in the burden of responsibility.
  #19  
Old February 10th 18, 10:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,792
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.
  #20  
Old February 10th 18, 10:24 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,792
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 07:07:20 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

But I have yet to see a ghost car by the side of the road.


No, people put up memorial crosses and the like where fatal accidents
have happened. It's common enough that the Minnesota Department of
Transportation has policies and guidelines about it. There are mostly
informal policies about ghost bikes in the Twin Cities.
 




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 07:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.