|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclists = Statistics
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |