|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Some lives matter. Some don't
John B. writes:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:31:54 +0100, Sepp Ruf wrote: John B. wrote: On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 09:42:11 -0600, AMuzi wrote: On 1/27/2018 11:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/27/2018 11:23 PM, John B. wrote: On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 02:04:27 +0100, Sepp Ruf wrote: John B. wrote: On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 19:07:44 -0600, AMuzi wrote: On 1/26/2018 6:24 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/26/2018 8:24 AM, AMuzi wrote: http://www.massbike.org/anitakurmannvideo Yes, horrific. The ignoramus police, too. Certainly Sir. The logical answer is simply to eliminate the police force. Think of the tax savings, why the New York police force costs the tax payer in the neighborhood of $130,769 annually https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david...b_7659496.html Think of how happy "Mr. Average Man" will be without the ignoramus police and the horrendous tax bill. I strongly support police when they're correct and competent. I can't support a system that provides no serious punishment when a motorist takes another's life. At a bare minimum, the trucker should never again operate a motor vehicle on a public road. pffft. How in the hell would that be enforced? http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3783246 Well, one of the proven ways of reducing illegal acts is by an active police presence..... The old fashioned cop on the beat is an often mentioned example. Of course this results Your phantasies and examples prove no causation. in a large number of "ignoramus police" comments. You know, "The stupid cop. He gave me a ticket and I was only going 15 miles over the speed limit". You are hallucinating, aren't you? You think rbt readers don't notice your misrepresentation of the context of "ignoramus police?" You think rbt readers do not comprehend that you only quote the part of the Mass. law that pertains to the cyclist's behavior, but not the trucker's? Misrepresent the "Ignoramus police"? Given that is the only description or example given was "ignoramus" how is it possible not to misrepresent them? The bicyclist was passing on the right in violation of the Mass. law. thus in simple terms she was in violation of he law. Had she not been in violation of the law then the accident likely wouldn't occurred. Please read the documentation at http://www.massbike.org/anita_kurmann_video_narrative They make an excellent case that Dr. Kurmann was riding legally, and that Mr. Levari violated the law. At the very least he should have been charged for leaving the scene of an accident, the police had to track him down many hours after the event. If you want to argue that had the truck not also turned left there wouldn't have been an accident fine, fine, it makes as much sense as arguing to that if the truck driver not gotten up that morning, or had he a flat ten miles down the road, there wouldn't have been an accident either. Anything can be rationalized and usually is. Traffic rules are mostly constructed in a way that allows one party to make a mistake, but an accident still getting avoided by the other party not making a mistake. Even the legislators in Mass. understand that the burden of extra diligence is upon the operator of dangerous motorized machinery, thus truckers need a license, not cyclists lured into deadly traps by territory-demarcating bicycle activists and dangerously contradictory legislation from one province to another. After the homicide, did the behavior of Boston police and DA indicate any of this is understood by them and demonstrated by impartial "law enforcement?" I don't think so. Traffic rules are mostly constructed in a way that allows one party to make a mistake ?? You mean that it is safe to run red lights or ignore traffic signs? It appears that there are two forms, and effects from, law enforcement systems. A strict system where all laws are vigorously enforced and penalties imposed for law breakers and, secondly, a layed back legal system where law enforcement is lax and legal codes are loosely applied... "Come on Herb... he only ran over two bicycles and you want to put him in Jail?" Take your choice. In one the public feels safe and secure and has confidence in their law enforcement system. in the other they don't. Someone obviously needs to simplify reality by resorting to false dichotomies. You might have forgotten during your unamericanizing Asian adventures, King Longhorn's Johnny, but the public's trust in government is to be earned by control by the public and government being held accountable. -- Cheers, John B. -- |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Some lives matter. Some don't
On 1/29/2018 8:18 PM, John B. wrote:
The bicyclist was passing on the right in violation of the Mass. law. thus in simple terms she was in violation of he law. Had she not been in violation of the law then the accident likely wouldn't occurred. According to this article, that's not true. Bicycles are legally allowed to pass on the right in Massachusetts. http://bikexprt.com/massfacil/laws/passright.htm Although I certainly wouldn't do it in the trucker right hook situation. Or any other right hook situation, really. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Some lives matter. Some don't
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 22:31:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 1/29/2018 8:18 PM, John B. wrote: The bicyclist was passing on the right in violation of the Mass. law. thus in simple terms she was in violation of he law. Had she not been in violation of the law then the accident likely wouldn't occurred. According to this article, that's not true. Bicycles are legally allowed to pass on the right in Massachusetts. http://bikexprt.com/massfacil/laws/passright.htm Although I certainly wouldn't do it in the trucker right hook situation. Or any other right hook situation, really. Yes I read that, in its entirety it says: "...The driver of a vehicle may, if the roadway is free from obstruction and of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles, overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle when the vehicle overtaken is (a) making of about to make a left turn, (b) upon a one-way street, or (c) upon any roadway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement." Which would seem to disqualify a bicycle that is attempting to pass a vehicle unless said vehicle is (a) making of about to make a left turn, (b) upon a one-way street, or (c) upon any roadway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement, as the truck intended to make a R.H. turn, and was not on a one way street nor was traffic restricted to one direction. But more important, when one is planning or attempting to pass a vehicle that due to road construction has the ability to turn directly into or in front of the bicycle isn't it prudent to pay attention to what is going on, is a vehicle starting a turn, relative speeds and positions, apparent intent? Rather like riding across Farmer Brown's field when the bull is loose in the field. Never a thought what the Bull's thinking is? Just pedal along. After all you have a right to use the path? Over the years I've had good luck with the basic plan of avoiding contact with things that are larger, heavier, faster, harder or more aggressive then I am. It has worked well so far :-) I have also noticed that things that go head to head with objects that are larger, heavier, faster, harder or more aggressive then selves are, haven't fared as well. I've always thought that those who ride bicycles might take heed of Henry Gray. Here lies the body of Henry Gray He died defending his right of way. His way was right, his will was strong, But he's just as dead as if he was wrong. It IS true, you know :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Some lives matter. Some don't
Radey Shouman wrote:
http://www.massbike.org/anita_kurmann_video_narrative They make an excellent case that Dr. Kurmann was riding legally, and that Mr. Levari violated the law. At the very least he should have been charged for leaving the scene of an accident, the police had to track him down many hours after the event. Shouldn't they focus more on precedents of careless turns? The charge of leaving the scene of an accident seems shaky because it has been described as possible that the trucker would not have felt the impact on the trailer axle. At least if the road surface under the cabin was bumpy at the same time, I can imagine it would at least be difficult. (No excuse, but another reason why the right turn should have been prepared and executed way more carefully, and way slower!) Post factum, the trucker could have modified mirror angles, tire pressures, suspension settings, blood alcohol level, phone data, whatever. Of the handful of witnesses all frantically calling 911 or attempting first aid, not one had the sense to tell one driver to follow the truck? Well, I hope those just uselessly standing by were simply shocked, not busy getting their cameras ready. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Some lives matter. Some don't
Cyclist had a bout of post adrenalin/hypoglycemia whiz...
Logic: if driver sees analyzes turn approach then sees cyclist. Expects cyclist to see truck ...What's missing ? Proximity ... lights. .. JB, move on LED ? |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Some lives matter. Some don't
On 29/01/2018 9:27 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. writes: On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:31:54 +0100, Sepp Ruf wrote: John B. wrote: On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 09:42:11 -0600, AMuzi wrote: On 1/27/2018 11:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/27/2018 11:23 PM, John B. wrote: On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 02:04:27 +0100, Sepp Ruf wrote: John B. wrote: On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 19:07:44 -0600, AMuzi wrote: On 1/26/2018 6:24 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/26/2018 8:24 AM, AMuzi wrote: http://www.massbike.org/anitakurmannvideo Yes, horrific. The ignoramus police, too. Certainly Sir. The logical answer is simply to eliminate the police force. Think of the tax savings, why the New York police force costs the tax payer in the neighborhood of $130,769 annually https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david...b_7659496.html Think of how happy "Mr. Average Man" will be without the ignoramus police and the horrendous tax bill. I strongly support police when they're correct and competent. I can't support a system that provides no serious punishment when a motorist takes another's life. At a bare minimum, the trucker should never again operate a motor vehicle on a public road. pffft. How in the hell would that be enforced? http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3783246 Well, one of the proven ways of reducing illegal acts is by an active police presence..... The old fashioned cop on the beat is an often mentioned example. Of course this results Your phantasies and examples prove no causation. in a large number of "ignoramus police" comments. You know, "The stupid cop. He gave me a ticket and I was only going 15 miles over the speed limit". You are hallucinating, aren't you? You think rbt readers don't notice your misrepresentation of the context of "ignoramus police?" You think rbt readers do not comprehend that you only quote the part of the Mass. law that pertains to the cyclist's behavior, but not the trucker's? Misrepresent the "Ignoramus police"? Given that is the only description or example given was "ignoramus" how is it possible not to misrepresent them? The bicyclist was passing on the right in violation of the Mass. law. thus in simple terms she was in violation of he law. Had she not been in violation of the law then the accident likely wouldn't occurred. How can she be passing on the right when the truck overtook her? Please read the documentation at http://www.massbike.org/anita_kurmann_video_narrative They make an excellent case that Dr. Kurmann was riding legally, and that Mr. Levari violated the law. At the very least he should have been charged for leaving the scene of an accident, the police had to track him down many hours after the event. If you want to argue that had the truck not also turned left there wouldn't have been an accident fine, fine, it makes as much sense as arguing to that if the truck driver not gotten up that morning, or had he a flat ten miles down the road, there wouldn't have been an accident either. Anything can be rationalized and usually is. Traffic rules are mostly constructed in a way that allows one party to make a mistake, but an accident still getting avoided by the other party not making a mistake. Even the legislators in Mass. understand that the burden of extra diligence is upon the operator of dangerous motorized machinery, thus truckers need a license, not cyclists lured into deadly traps by territory-demarcating bicycle activists and dangerously contradictory legislation from one province to another. After the homicide, did the behavior of Boston police and DA indicate any of this is understood by them and demonstrated by impartial "law enforcement?" I don't think so. Traffic rules are mostly constructed in a way that allows one party to make a mistake ?? You mean that it is safe to run red lights or ignore traffic signs? It appears that there are two forms, and effects from, law enforcement systems. A strict system where all laws are vigorously enforced and penalties imposed for law breakers and, secondly, a layed back legal system where law enforcement is lax and legal codes are loosely applied... "Come on Herb... he only ran over two bicycles and you want to put him in Jail?" Take your choice. In one the public feels safe and secure and has confidence in their law enforcement system. in the other they don't. Someone obviously needs to simplify reality by resorting to false dichotomies. You might have forgotten during your unamericanizing Asian adventures, King Longhorn's Johnny, but the public's trust in government is to be earned by control by the public and government being held accountable. -- Cheers, John B. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Some lives matter. Some don't
On 1/30/2018 12:29 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 22:31:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/29/2018 8:18 PM, John B. wrote: The bicyclist was passing on the right in violation of the Mass. law. thus in simple terms she was in violation of he law. Had she not been in violation of the law then the accident likely wouldn't occurred. According to this article, that's not true. Bicycles are legally allowed to pass on the right in Massachusetts. http://bikexprt.com/massfacil/laws/passright.htm Although I certainly wouldn't do it in the trucker right hook situation. Or any other right hook situation, really. Yes I read that, in its entirety it says: "...The driver of a vehicle may, if the roadway is free from obstruction and of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles, overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle when the vehicle overtaken is (a) making of about to make a left turn, (b) upon a one-way street, or (c) upon any roadway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement." Which would seem to disqualify a bicycle that is attempting to pass a vehicle unless said vehicle is (a) making of about to make a left turn, (b) upon a one-way street, or (c) upon any roadway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement, as the truck intended to make a R.H. turn, and was not on a one way street nor was traffic restricted to one direction. No, John, you missed it. The section of Massachusetts law cited in the article I linked had this, which is pertinent: "Every person operating a bicycle upon a way...may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way..." That specifically says it's legal for a bike to pass on the right. It's a specific law related to bicycles. Specific laws take precedence over more general laws. So it is legal, although dangerous. As I've said it's a move I avoid, and it's a trap I watch out for. But the victim was not violating the law, as you claimed. For years I've questioned the design logic of bike lanes that put straight-ahead bicyclists to the right of right turning traffic. No traffic engineer would do that with motor vehicle lanes. Having it sanctioned for bicycles by Massachusetts (or any other state's) law doesn't make the idea any better. And some condemnation should go to the bicycle advocates that cry out for such designs, including the growing hoard that yells for "protected cycle tracks" everywhere. They invariably generate this same hazard. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Some lives matter. Some don't
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:11:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 1/30/2018 12:29 AM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 22:31:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/29/2018 8:18 PM, John B. wrote: The bicyclist was passing on the right in violation of the Mass. law. thus in simple terms she was in violation of he law. Had she not been in violation of the law then the accident likely wouldn't occurred. According to this article, that's not true. Bicycles are legally allowed to pass on the right in Massachusetts. http://bikexprt.com/massfacil/laws/passright.htm Although I certainly wouldn't do it in the trucker right hook situation. Or any other right hook situation, really. Yes I read that, in its entirety it says: "...The driver of a vehicle may, if the roadway is free from obstruction and of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles, overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle when the vehicle overtaken is (a) making of about to make a left turn, (b) upon a one-way street, or (c) upon any roadway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement." Which would seem to disqualify a bicycle that is attempting to pass a vehicle unless said vehicle is (a) making of about to make a left turn, (b) upon a one-way street, or (c) upon any roadway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement, as the truck intended to make a R.H. turn, and was not on a one way street nor was traffic restricted to one direction. No, John, you missed it. The section of Massachusetts law cited in the article I linked had this, which is pertinent: "Every person operating a bicycle upon a way...may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way..." That specifically says it's legal for a bike to pass on the right. It's a specific law related to bicycles. Specific laws take precedence over more general laws. So it is legal, although dangerous. As I've said it's a move I avoid, and it's a trap I watch out for. But the victim was not violating the law, as you claimed. Ah yes. I read the paragraph that states" The more restrictive wording about passing on the right which applies to all drivers reads Ch. 89 § 2. Passing vehicle traveling in same direction ...The driver of a vehicle may, if the roadway is free from obstruction and of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles, overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle when the vehicle overtaken is (a) making of about to make a left turn, (b) upon a one-way street, or (c) upon any roadway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement. I missed the point that bicycles have special privileges in Mass., sort of no body can turn right except them guys over there. For years I've questioned the design logic of bike lanes that put straight-ahead bicyclists to the right of right turning traffic. No traffic engineer would do that with motor vehicle lanes. Having it sanctioned for bicycles by Massachusetts (or any other state's) law doesn't make the idea any better. And some condemnation should go to the bicycle advocates that cry out for such designs, including the growing hoard that yells for "protected cycle tracks" everywhere. They invariably generate this same hazard. -- Cheers, John B. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Some lives matter. Some don't
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:11:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 1/30/2018 12:29 AM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 22:31:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/29/2018 8:18 PM, John B. wrote: The bicyclist was passing on the right in violation of the Mass. law. thus in simple terms she was in violation of he law. Had she not been in violation of the law then the accident likely wouldn't occurred. According to this article, that's not true. Bicycles are legally allowed to pass on the right in Massachusetts. http://bikexprt.com/massfacil/laws/passright.htm Although I certainly wouldn't do it in the trucker right hook situation. Or any other right hook situation, really. Yes I read that, in its entirety it says: "...The driver of a vehicle may, if the roadway is free from obstruction and of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles, overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle when the vehicle overtaken is (a) making of about to make a left turn, (b) upon a one-way street, or (c) upon any roadway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement." Which would seem to disqualify a bicycle that is attempting to pass a vehicle unless said vehicle is (a) making of about to make a left turn, (b) upon a one-way street, or (c) upon any roadway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement, as the truck intended to make a R.H. turn, and was not on a one way street nor was traffic restricted to one direction. No, John, you missed it. The section of Massachusetts law cited in the article I linked had this, which is pertinent: "Every person operating a bicycle upon a way...may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way..." That specifically says it's legal for a bike to pass on the right. It's a specific law related to bicycles. Specific laws take precedence over more general laws. So it is legal, although dangerous. As I've said it's a move I avoid, and it's a trap I watch out for. But the victim was not violating the law, as you claimed. For years I've questioned the design logic of bike lanes that put straight-ahead bicyclists to the right of right turning traffic. No traffic engineer would do that with motor vehicle lanes. Having it sanctioned for bicycles by Massachusetts (or any other state's) law doesn't make the idea any better. And some condemnation should go to the bicycle advocates that cry out for such designs, including the growing hoard that yells for "protected cycle tracks" everywhere. They invariably generate this same hazard. Yes, I missed the special bicycle portion and went right to the part that reads: "The more restrictive wording about passing on the right which applies to all drivers reads Ch. 89 § 2. Passing vehicle traveling in same direction" Assuming, I suppose that all drivers meant "all drivers". -- Cheers, John B. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Some lives matter. Some don't
Sepp Ruf writes:
Radey Shouman wrote: http://www.massbike.org/anita_kurmann_video_narrative They make an excellent case that Dr. Kurmann was riding legally, and that Mr. Levari violated the law. At the very least he should have been charged for leaving the scene of an accident, the police had to track him down many hours after the event. Shouldn't they focus more on precedents of careless turns? The charge of leaving the scene of an accident seems shaky because it has been described as possible that the trucker would not have felt the impact on the trailer axle. At least if the road surface under the cabin was bumpy at the same time, I can imagine it would at least be difficult. (No excuse, but another reason why the right turn should have been prepared and executed way more carefully, and way slower!) Post factum, the trucker could have modified mirror angles, tire pressures, suspension settings, blood alcohol level, phone data, whatever. Of the handful of witnesses all frantically calling 911 or attempting first aid, not one had the sense to tell one driver to follow the truck? Well, I hope those just uselessly standing by were simply shocked, not busy getting their cameras ready. The reason I mention leaving the scene is that in the US, or at least in my part of it, drivers do seem to have carte blanche to run over cyclists or pedestrians. Unless they either (a) are provably drunk or otherwise pharmacologically impaired or (b) flee the accident scene. Both of those offenses seem to more or less reliably result in prosecution for ordinary motor car drivers. I guess there is some kind of semi truck exception. Mr. Levari apparently contacted police ten hours later, from Pennsylvania. I don't suppose we'll ever know what he might have done in the meantime. -- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
how much does frame matter? | dan[_3_] | Racing | 2 | September 2nd 12 05:55 PM |
What's the matter with her? | Danny Colyer | UK | 7 | May 18th 07 06:19 PM |
does weight matter in uni? | onelesscar | Unicycling | 0 | November 26th 06 10:15 PM |
Does the truth matter? | crit PRO | Racing | 8 | August 24th 05 05:45 PM |
Why Doping does Matter | Bill C | Racing | 7 | August 18th 05 12:06 AM |