Some lives matter. Some don't

On 1/28/2018 9:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/28/2018 8:32 PM, 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 11:01:23 -0500, 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 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".

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.

My post a few days ago mentioned that, regarding bike share
schemes in Australia vs. Singapore. Apparently Singaporeans
expect a strict system. Australians take the laws as vague
suggestions. I'd say America is about the same as Australia.
I've been told Italy is worse, although we didn't notice
when we were there.



there's an old quip about that:
In Germany, everything is forbidden except where allowed.
In USA everything is allowed except what's forbidden.
In Italy everything's allowed even if it is forbidden.

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

John B. writes:

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:15:26 -0600, Tim McNamara
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:01:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 1/26/2018 8:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
http://www.massbike.org/anitakurmannvideo

Yes, horrific.

And yet we have people here saying a cyclist should always stay far
right, that controlling a lane is dangerous.

If she had been in front of the trucker, he'd have seen her and
slowed.

Since she was clealy visible to the driver for 16 seconds before he
killed her, I don't know that what you say is true. He might have still
run her over.

The interesting thing is that while the driver was celarly and obviously
at fault and broke multiple laws, 100% of the blame has been put on the
cyclist. Apparently hit and run is legal, leaving the scene, etc., is
now legal.

"I didn't see her" holds up as a valid defense in a court of law (or to
the cop who declines to write a ticket, make an arrest, etc., and it
never goes to court).


https://itstillruns.com/massachusett...t-6405256.html

In Massachusetts, there are a few instances when passing on the right
is permitted.

Left Turn

If the car in front of you is making a left turn and is clearly
stopped and signaling as such, you are permitted to pass it on the
right. It is not possible at that point to pass the car on the left
(as it is turning), so passing on the right is allowed.
One-Way Street

If you are driving on a one-way street, and the car in front of you is
in the left lane, you are permitted to pass on the right. As always,
it is important to clearly signal and obey speed limits when doing
this.
Restricted Passage

If traffic is restricted in a left lane, forcing cars to pass on the
right, then passing on the right-hand side is permitted. Please pay
careful attention to any instructions posted in such situations and
keep in mind that safety comes first.
Safety First and Obey the Law

Keep in mind that safety always comes first. If hazardous conditions
on the road leave no other option than to pass on right, then you are
allowed to do so. Also, if there is clear, official signage expressing
The permission to pass on right, then you are allowed to do so.

by Taboola
link
Mass.gov: Rules of the Road
link
The Unofficial DMV Guide
link
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: State "Keep Right" Laws


In fact the Massachusetts allows bicycles to pass motor vehicles on the
right under circumstance broader than those above:

From Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 85, Section 11B:

Every person operating a bicycle upon a way, as defined in section
one of chapter ninety, shall have the right to use all public ways
in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways
where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted, and
shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the
commonwealth and the special regulations contained in this section,
except that (1) the bicycle operator may keep to the right when
passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the
way...


See http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/laws/passright.htm for a link
and some pertinent thoughts on the subject.

--

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 2:24:51 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
http://www.massbike.org/anitakurmannvideo


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

Watching the video with great horror and thinking it over for a couple of days I still have some questions and I am a bit reluctant to ask them here but they keep humming in my head:
- gaining on the truck towards the intersection why was that not a sign to her that the truck may do something stupid and slow down until it was clear to her what his plan was?,
- swerving to the left is a sign that a truck could turn right, didn't she notice that?
- the truck must have shift down a couple of gears before the turn. Didn't she hear that and used info to slow down?
- didn't she notice the indicators of the truck?
- why didn't she made a emergency right turn?

Let there be no misunderstanding that the truckdriver made a big mistake and is to blame but when I am riding along a big truck like that towards an intersection I pay attention to all the above mentioned signs. It is such a tragedy......

Lou

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 12:03:17 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 2:24:51 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
http://www.massbike.org/anitakurmannvideo


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

Watching the video with great horror and thinking it over for a couple of days I still have some questions and I am a bit reluctant to ask them here but they keep humming in my head:
- gaining on the truck towards the intersection why was that not a sign to her that the truck may do something stupid and slow down until it was clear to her what his plan was?,
- swerving to the left is a sign that a truck could turn right, didn't she notice that?
- the truck must have shift down a couple of gears before the turn. Didn't she hear that and used info to slow down?
- didn't she notice the indicators of the truck?
- why didn't she made a emergency right turn?

Let there be no misunderstanding that the truckdriver made a big mistake and is to blame but when I am riding along a big truck like that towards an intersection I pay attention to all the above mentioned signs. It is such a tragedy......

IMO, a couple of things contributed to this: (1) being amidships of a truck, you sometimes can't see the signals, although I'm not sure where the signals were located on this truck. (2) The truck turning so far left to initiate the right turn could have suggested a left turn, (3) a bike lane was about to start, and I'm sure she was looking ahead to that. Had she gotten into traffic over the sharrow, this never would have happened, but going straight into the bike lane rather than cutting into a line of traffic and then out of traffic into the bike lane is not unreasonable. I'd do that if there were no turning traffic, which (apparently) there was not. On the ground, the turn lane looked clear, and it was. The truck was making a right turn from a through-traffic lane and seemed to be going left. I also wonder why she didn't bail, but then again, I know a good local racer with a lot of experience who got squashed in the same way by a garbage truck. Freezing up may be what happens.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 29/01/2018 3:39 PM, jbeattie wrote:

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 12:03:17 PM UTC-8, wrote:

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 2:24:51 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:

http://www.massbike.org/anitakurmannvideo


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


Watching the video with great horror and thinking it over for a couple of days I still have some questions and I am a bit reluctant to ask them here but they keep humming in my head:
- gaining on the truck towards the intersection why was that not a sign to her that the truck may do something stupid and slow down until it was clear to her what his plan was?,
- swerving to the left is a sign that a truck could turn right, didn't she notice that?
- the truck must have shift down a couple of gears before the turn. Didn't she hear that and used info to slow down?
- didn't she notice the indicators of the truck?
- why didn't she made a emergency right turn?

Let there be no misunderstanding that the truckdriver made a big mistake and is to blame but when I am riding along a big truck like that towards an intersection I pay attention to all the above mentioned signs. It is such a tragedy......


IMO, a couple of things contributed to this: (1) being amidships of a truck, you sometimes can't see the signals, although I'm not sure where the signals were located on this truck. (2) The truck turning so far left to initiate the right turn could have suggested a left turn, (3) a bike lane was about to start, and I'm sure she was looking ahead to that. Had she gotten into traffic over the sharrow, this never would have happened, but going straight into the bike lane rather than cutting into a line of traffic and then out of traffic into the bike lane is not unreasonable. I'd do that if there were no turning traffic, which (apparently) there was not. On the ground, the turn lane looked clear, and it was. The truck was making a right turn from a through-traffic lane and seemed to be going left. I also wonder why she didn't bail, but then again, I know a good local racer with a lot of experience who got squashed in the same way by a garbage truck. Freezing up may be what happens.

-- Jay Beattie.





I was wondering about that lane. At first I thought she was in a bike
lane since the truck seemed to be in the middle lane. But there were
cars behind her. I think if the truck was in the middle lane and I saw
his right flasher I would have assumed he intended to move to the right
lane. Not make a right turn. I would still have probably been paying
attention to what he was doing though. At least I hope so.

There was a cyclist stopped to the left of the center lane but he was at
a light. It's hard to see how she could have gotten there across what
would then amounted to two lanes of traffic.

All that said, it's still a sad case and the truck is at fault for any
number of reasons.

jbeattie writes:

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 12:03:17 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 2:24:51 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
http://www.massbike.org/anitakurmannvideo


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

Watching the video with great horror and thinking it over for a
couple of days I still have some questions and I am a bit reluctant
to ask them here but they keep humming in my head:
- gaining on the truck towards the intersection why was that not a
sign to her that the truck may do something stupid and slow down
until it was clear to her what his plan was?,
- swerving to the left is a sign that a truck could turn right,
didn't she notice that?
- the truck must have shift down a couple of gears before the
turn. Didn't she hear that and used info to slow down?
- didn't she notice the indicators of the truck?
- why didn't she made a emergency right turn?

Let there be no misunderstanding that the truckdriver made a big
mistake and is to blame but when I am riding along a big truck like
that towards an intersection I pay attention to all the above
mentioned signs. It is such a tragedy......

IMO, a couple of things contributed to this: (1) being amidships of a
truck, you sometimes can't see the signals, although I'm not sure
where the signals were located on this truck. (2) The truck turning
so far left to initiate the right turn could have suggested a left
turn, (3) a bike lane was about to start, and I'm sure she was looking
ahead to that. Had she gotten into traffic over the sharrow, this
never would have happened, but going straight into the bike lane
rather than cutting into a line of traffic and then out of traffic
into the bike lane is not unreasonable. I'd do that if there were no
turning traffic, which (apparently) there was not. On the ground, the
turn lane looked clear, and it was. The truck was making a right turn
from a through-traffic lane and seemed to be going left. I also
wonder why she didn't bail, but then again, I know a good local racer
with a lot of experience who got squashed in the same way by a garbage
truck. Freezing up may be what happens.

It seemed to me that she did attempt to bail, and avoided the front
wheels of the truck. You can see the rear wheel of her bicycle,
upright, by looking under the bed of the truck at 1:53. She seems to be
moving at roughly 90 degrees to her original direction, when the truck
is about halfway around the turn. One lesson to be taken is that
avoiding the front wheels is not enough, unskilled truck drivers are
known for running over curbs with their rear wheels.

--

Duane writes:

On 29/01/2018 3:39 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 12:03:17 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 2:24:51 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
http://www.massbike.org/anitakurmannvideo


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

Watching the video with great horror and thinking it over for a
couple of days I still have some questions and I am a bit reluctant
to ask them here but they keep humming in my head:
- gaining on the truck towards the intersection why was that not a
sign to her that the truck may do something stupid and slow down
until it was clear to her what his plan was?,
- swerving to the left is a sign that a truck could turn right, didn't she notice that?
- the truck must have shift down a couple of gears before the
turn. Didn't she hear that and used info to slow down?
- didn't she notice the indicators of the truck?
- why didn't she made a emergency right turn?

Let there be no misunderstanding that the truckdriver made a big
mistake and is to blame but when I am riding along a big truck like
that towards an intersection I pay attention to all the above
mentioned signs. It is such a tragedy......

IMO, a couple of things contributed to this: (1) being amidships of
a truck, you sometimes can't see the signals, although I'm not sure
where the signals were located on this truck. (2) The truck turning
so far left to initiate the right turn could have suggested a left
turn, (3) a bike lane was about to start, and I'm sure she was
looking ahead to that. Had she gotten into traffic over the
sharrow, this never would have happened, but going straight into the
bike lane rather than cutting into a line of traffic and then out of
traffic into the bike lane is not unreasonable. I'd do that if there
were no turning traffic, which (apparently) there was not. On the
ground, the turn lane looked clear, and it was. The truck was
making a right turn from a through-traffic lane and seemed to be
going left. I also wonder why she didn't bail, but then again, I
know a good local racer with a lot of experience who got squashed in
the same way by a garbage truck. Freezing up may be what happens.

-- Jay Beattie.




I was wondering about that lane. At first I thought she was in a bike
lane since the truck seemed to be in the middle lane. But there were
cars behind her. I think if the truck was in the middle lane and I
saw his right flasher I would have assumed he intended to move to the
right lane. Not make a right turn. I would still have probably been
paying attention to what he was doing though. At least I hope so.

According to massbike
(http://www.massbike.org/anita_kurmann_video_narrative) the lane at that
time was a right turn lane also used as a bike lane and bus stop. They
show that it was marked on the pavement "ONLY BIKE BUS".

There was a cyclist stopped to the left of the center lane but he was
at a light. It's hard to see how she could have gotten there across
what would then amounted to two lanes of traffic.

All that said, it's still a sad case and the truck is at fault for any
number of reasons.

--

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.

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.

On 1/29/2018 7:18 PM, John B. wrote:
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.

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.



You mean that it is safe to run red lights or ignore
traffic signs?

sure, what could go wrong?

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...+ran+red+light

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

On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 20:00:52 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/29/2018 7:18 PM, John B. wrote:
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.

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.



You mean that it is safe to run red lights or ignore
traffic signs?

sure, what could go wrong?

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...+ran+red+light

In reply to "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." above.

Your examples appear to demonstrate that his statement is doubtful,
at best.
--
Cheers,

John B.