|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|