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

Bicyclists = Statistics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 11th 16, 10:32 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Bicyclists = Statistics

On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 8:54:45 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:08:27 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 1:15:42 PM UTC+1, John B. wrote:

There was a study done in Los Angles county by the California Highway
Patrol, in 2012, that showed during the year of the study, that of all
bicycle-auto collisions, for which cause could be determined, the
cyclist was at fault approximately 60% of the time. I also read a
review of the study in a cycling magazine in which the author said
something like "I was surprised, I had assumed it would be 50/50", or
words to that extent.
--

Cheers,

John B.


It's bland, unresisting acceptance of this sort of "logic" by the dumber cyclists that make me want to scream and hit my head against a wall.

Chalo Colina used to point out that a) a motorist needs a license to use the roads while b) a cyclist does not and he concluded from that c) that a cyclist has a natural right to the road whereas a motorist doesn't.

This follows from natural justice. The motorist is sitting in a two ton protective metal projectile. The worst that happens to him in an impact with a cyclist is that his airbags might attempt to smother him, or his seatbelt might leave a small blood blister on his skin. Compare the cyclist, all exposed, likely to suffer serious abrasions at the lightest contact, broken bones, diabling breakages, possibly death.

It follows from natural justice that the duty of care falls to a greater extent on the person who can do another person the greater injury. This is the solid reasoning behind the Dutch laws that put the burden of proof in an accident on the motorist to prove that he was not careless or negligent when he hit the cyclist.

But idiots who write for cycling magazines* assume, on no evidence, that cyclists are to blame in at least 50% of cases. And social media morons like Slow Johnny accept that without argument. If that's what cyclists are really like, SUVs deserve to inherit cyclist-free roads, and will.


When it comes to road use in the US, there is no such thing as "natural justice."


That's no reason to lie back and think of England.

There are the state UVC rules and the common-law duty to exercise due care, which is an obligation owed by all road users.


That's natural justice, as warped in practice by the preponderance of power of each of the interest groups.

If a car is violating a law at the time of an accident, it is presumed to be at fault. Same goes with a bike.


Who's arguing with that? Not me.

It doesn't make sense to presume that a driver who is following the law is at fault when he hits a bicyclist who launches off a curb (ala alley-cat bike messenger poseur) and gets whacked.


Of course it doesn't. But what is stupid and self-lacerating is for cyclist immediately to come up with worst cases that admit guilt. Under the Dutch system, the motorist in the case you cite will have no trouble whatsoever proving that he was not negligent, that the cyclist caused the incident. But that is not the sort of incident I was talking about.

BTW, how does natural justice work for pedestrians who are hit by bikes -- or two bikes who hit each other or a bike that hits a car?


You're a lawyer. Now that I've given you the principle and some worked examples, you should be able to work it out.

I can't tell you how many times I've practically plowed into some dumb f*** pedestrian, many of whom make squirrels look rational. Do pedestrians have more natural justice mo-jo?


That's the problem with Americans. They live in and believe in a fractured society in which every fraction is at odds with every other fraction. The Dutch example works because everyone is consciously part of the same society.. Perhaps you should wonder whether your insitence on cycling at 25mph is responsible or reckless.

-- Jay Beattie.


Andre Jute
A very reasonable fellow.
Ads
  #12  
Old April 11th 16, 10:45 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Bicyclists = Statistics

On 4/11/2016 2:54 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:08:27 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 1:15:42 PM UTC+1, John B. wrote:

There was a study done in Los Angles county by the California Highway
Patrol, in 2012, that showed during the year of the study, that of all
bicycle-auto collisions, for which cause could be determined, the
cyclist was at fault approximately 60% of the time. I also read a
review of the study in a cycling magazine in which the author said
something like "I was surprised, I had assumed it would be 50/50", or
words to that extent.
--

Cheers,

John B.


It's bland, unresisting acceptance of this sort of "logic" by the dumber cyclists that make me want to scream and hit my head against a wall.

Chalo Colina used to point out that a) a motorist needs a license to use the roads while b) a cyclist does not and he concluded from that c) that a cyclist has a natural right to the road whereas a motorist doesn't.

This follows from natural justice. The motorist is sitting in a two ton protective metal projectile. The worst that happens to him in an impact with a cyclist is that his airbags might attempt to smother him, or his seatbelt might leave a small blood blister on his skin. Compare the cyclist, all exposed, likely to suffer serious abrasions at the lightest contact, broken bones, diabling breakages, possibly death.

It follows from natural justice that the duty of care falls to a greater extent on the person who can do another person the greater injury. This is the solid reasoning behind the Dutch laws that put the burden of proof in an accident on the motorist to prove that he was not careless or negligent when he hit the cyclist.

But idiots who write for cycling magazines* assume, on no evidence, that cyclists are to blame in at least 50% of cases. And social media morons like Slow Johnny accept that without argument. If that's what cyclists are really like, SUVs deserve to inherit cyclist-free roads, and will.


When it comes to road use in the US, there is no such thing as "natural justice." There are the state UVC rules and the common-law duty to exercise due care, which is an obligation owed by all road users. If a car is violating a law at the time of an accident, it is presumed to be at fault. Same goes with a bike. It doesn't make sense to presume that a driver who is following the law is at fault when he hits a bicyclist who launches off a curb (ala alley-cat bike messenger poseur) and gets whacked.

BTW, how does natural justice work for pedestrians who are hit by bikes -- or two bikes who hit each other or a bike that hits a car? I can't tell you how many times I've practically plowed into some dumb f*** pedestrian, many of whom make squirrels look rational. Do pedestrians have more natural justice mo-jo?

-- Jay Beattie.




Then there's unnatural injustice. Ouch:

http://abc7.com/news/bmx-rider-impal...mente/1285395/

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


  #13  
Old April 11th 16, 10:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default Bicyclists = Statistics

On 12/04/16 07:31, wrote:
On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 9:06:18 PM UTC-5, James wrote:
On 11/04/16 10:47,
wrote:
On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 7:11:24 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

I don't suppose there was any indication of the offender in each of
the collisions?

Does the person who causes the accident effect the results? A
cyclist can be riding on the correct side of the road and hit from
behind. Or a cyclist can be riding on the wrong side of the road and
hit head on. In one instance the cyclist is at fault and the other
he is not. Other than the accumulative force from the head on
accident instead of the from behind accident, I doubt the injuries
are affected at all by who caused the accident or is liable. I've
been involved in bike accidents where I was not responsible. I was
hit by a car. And another where I caused it. I rode off the edge of
the road or rode into a ditch. In both cases I was glad I had my
helmet. In neither did my head or helmet care who caused the
accident. Paying medical bills and court cases later it did matter
who caused the accident.


Does wearing a helmet prevent collisions?


Does a collision always result in injury?


"Always" is absolute. "Mostly" is likely true.

--
JS
  #14  
Old April 12th 16, 12:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Bicyclists = Statistics

On 4/11/2016 5:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:


Then there's unnatural injustice. Ouch:

http://abc7.com/news/bmx-rider-impal...mente/1285395/


Yep. We've got this weird society that idolizes extreme sports, so it
promotes that kind of fly-through-the-air stupidity.

I'll bet anything the trauma surgeon will have asked him, "So, were you
wearing your helmet?"

And if he was, well, then A) it probably saved his life, and B) he was
being careful enough; the crash was just an unlucky break.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #15  
Old April 12th 16, 12:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Bicyclists = Statistics

On 4/11/2016 3:54 PM, jbeattie wrote:
... If a car is violating a law at the time of an accident, it is presumed to be at fault. Same goes with a bike.


Um... you may want to rephrase that. Both the car and the bike have
immunity, being inanimate objects.

Although I understand there are some precedents for punishing inanimate
objects, if you go back far enough. See http://tinyurl.com/o7wmqpl

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #16  
Old April 12th 16, 12:56 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default Bicyclists = Statistics

Does wearing a helmet prevent collisions?

GOOD QUESTION ! for me, no but in a population of 5 million ? an opinion on 5 million is risky.

I am both faster with a helmet and less precise.
  #17  
Old April 12th 16, 01:04 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default Bicyclists = Statistics

On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 5:45:50 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/11/2016 2:54 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:08:27 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 1:15:42 PM UTC+1, John B. wrote:

There was a study done in Los Angles county by the California Highway
Patrol, in 2012, that showed during the year of the study, that of all
bicycle-auto collisions, for which cause could be determined, the
cyclist was at fault approximately 60% of the time. I also read a
review of the study in a cycling magazine in which the author said
something like "I was surprised, I had assumed it would be 50/50", or
words to that extent.
--

Cheers,

John B.

It's bland, unresisting acceptance of this sort of "logic" by the dumber cyclists that make me want to scream and hit my head against a wall.

Chalo Colina used to point out that a) a motorist needs a license to use the roads while b) a cyclist does not and he concluded from that c) that a cyclist has a natural right to the road whereas a motorist doesn't.

This follows from natural justice. The motorist is sitting in a two ton protective metal projectile. The worst that happens to him in an impact with a cyclist is that his airbags might attempt to smother him, or his seatbelt might leave a small blood blister on his skin. Compare the cyclist, all exposed, likely to suffer serious abrasions at the lightest contact, broken bones, diabling breakages, possibly death.

It follows from natural justice that the duty of care falls to a greater extent on the person who can do another person the greater injury. This is the solid reasoning behind the Dutch laws that put the burden of proof in an accident on the motorist to prove that he was not careless or negligent when he hit the cyclist.

But idiots who write for cycling magazines* assume, on no evidence, that cyclists are to blame in at least 50% of cases. And social media morons like Slow Johnny accept that without argument. If that's what cyclists are really like, SUVs deserve to inherit cyclist-free roads, and will.


When it comes to road use in the US, there is no such thing as "natural justice." There are the state UVC rules and the common-law duty to exercise due care, which is an obligation owed by all road users. If a car is violating a law at the time of an accident, it is presumed to be at fault. Same goes with a bike. It doesn't make sense to presume that a driver who is following the law is at fault when he hits a bicyclist who launches off a curb (ala alley-cat bike messenger poseur) and gets whacked.

BTW, how does natural justice work for pedestrians who are hit by bikes -- or two bikes who hit each other or a bike that hits a car? I can't tell you how many times I've practically plowed into some dumb f*** pedestrian, many of whom make squirrels look rational. Do pedestrians have more natural justice mo-jo?

-- Jay Beattie.




Then there's unnatural injustice. Ouch:

http://abc7.com/news/bmx-rider-impal...mente/1285395/

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


This is a stupig quadricycle guy popping a wheelie on a road, drifts into the opposite lane and gets nailed by an oncoming car. Granted the quyad is a motorized ATV but look at the tumble he makes. Imagine what the results/spin would have been if he'd been wearing a helmet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgYUK-HCU9A

Cheers
  #18  
Old April 12th 16, 01:13 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default Bicyclists = Statistics

On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:29:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/11/2016 5:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:


Then there's unnatural injustice. Ouch:

http://abc7.com/news/bmx-rider-impal...mente/1285395/


Yep. We've got this weird society that idolizes extreme sports, so it
promotes that kind of fly-through-the-air stupidity.

I'll bet anything the trauma surgeon will have asked him, "So, were you
wearing your helmet?"

And if he was, well, then A) it probably saved his life, and B) he was
being careful enough; the crash was just an unlucky break.


I don't think it was the helmet. From the description he had failed to
install the new Super Wide Seat Post (SWSP) which doesn't require a
saddle.

It is understood that under newly proposed legislation all portions of
the bicycle that can cause injury are to be modified to prevent injury
to the rider (and/or passenger) and that a registration and inspection
system will be instituted to insure that only safe bicycles will be
available in the future..
--

Cheers,

John B.
  #19  
Old April 12th 16, 01:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Bicyclists = Statistics

On 4/11/2016 6:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2016 3:54 PM, jbeattie wrote:
... If a car is violating a law at the time of an
accident, it is presumed to be at fault. Same goes with a
bike.


Um... you may want to rephrase that. Both the car and the
bike have immunity, being inanimate objects.

Although I understand there are some precedents for
punishing inanimate objects, if you go back far enough. See
http://tinyurl.com/o7wmqpl


nice link.
Civil forfeiture is indeed evil if not medieval. 'After
conviction' was once the limit, now the State can merely
claim witchcraft or whatever to seize assets.

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


  #20  
Old April 12th 16, 02:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default Bicyclists = Statistics

probable cause ......

claim witchcraft or whatever to seize assets.

BAU

https://goo.gl/U8wri7


 




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
Shocking statistics Tarcap UK 8 January 26th 14 03:14 PM
Where are those statistics? bob UK 15 August 30th 07 12:31 PM
RSU Statistics for 2006 - not Klaas Bil Unicycling 17 January 6th 07 05:30 AM
Helmet use statistics Alan Walker UK 62 March 6th 04 02:34 AM
Interesting Statistics. William Higley, Sr. Recumbent Biking 0 July 21st 03 05:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.