Re: Bicyclists Usually *NOT* At Fault

[Steven M. O'Neill]

Jym Dyer > wrote:
>
>[i]
>> 90% of the time the Bicycle is AT FAULT. 890 0f the 900
>> caused their own deaths! look it up!
>
>=v= If you'd spend some time away from the CAPS LOCK key and
>look things up, you'd find that you've got it backwards. Take
>a look at the reports on this site:
>
>http://www.rightofway.org/

There's a good summary and link to the pdf report here:
http://www.transalt.org/features/goodcyclist.html

Oh, what the heck, I'll paste in some of the summary:

The Only Good Cyclist is an analysis of fatal bicycle
crashes with motor vehicles in New York City. It refutes
police officials' claim that bicyclists, not drivers, are
responsible for most cyclist deaths.

Bicycle fatalities in New York City doubled last year to an
all-time high of 35. When this news hit the media, Mayor
Giuliani reacted with a promise to protect cyclists (and
pedestrians) from dangerous drivers. This promise has proven
empty.

Police officials justify their inaction with the unsupported
claim that "cyclist error" has been the "primary
contributing factor" in three-fourths of recent fatal
bicycle crashes with motor vehicles.

To test this claim, and to better understand how cyclists
are being struck and killed on our streets, Right Of Way
obtained and analyzed police accident reports for 71 fatal
bicycle crashes during 1995-1998 (data for 1999 were not
available). Here are our key findings.

1. Traffic-law violations by motorists are the main cause
of fatal bicyclist accidents in New York City. We were able
to assign responsibility in 53 of the 71 fatal bicycle
crashes during 1995-1998 for which we obtained police crash
reports. We determined that drivers were highly culpable in
30 cases, partly culpable in 11 cases, and not culpable in
12 cases. Driver misconduct was thus the principal cause in
57% (30 out of 53) of the cases and a contributory factor in
78% (30 plus 11, or 41, out of 53).

Thus, although police blame cyclist error for three-fourths
(75%) of cyclist fatalities, in fact, driver error was the
principal cause in 57% of recent fatal bicycle crashes and
at least a contributing cause in 78%.
--
Steven O'Neill

[Jorma Myers]

Steven M. O'Neill" > wrote in message
...
> There's a good summary and link to the pdf report here:
> http://www.transalt.org/features/goodcyclist.html
>
> Oh, what the heck, I'll paste in some of the summary:
>
> The Only Good Cyclist is an analysis of fatal bicycle
> crashes with motor vehicles in New York City. It refutes
> police officials' claim that bicyclists, not drivers, are
> responsible for most cyclist deaths.
>
> Bicycle fatalities in New York City doubled last year to an
> all-time high of 35. When this news hit the media, Mayor
> Giuliani reacted with a promise to protect cyclists (and
> pedestrians) from dangerous drivers. This promise has proven
> empty.
>
> Police officials justify their inaction with the unsupported
> claim that "cyclist error" has been the "primary
> contributing factor" in three-fourths of recent fatal
> bicycle crashes with motor vehicles.
>
> To test this claim, and to better understand how cyclists
> are being struck and killed on our streets, Right Of Way
> obtained and analyzed police accident reports for 71 fatal
> bicycle crashes during 1995-1998 (data for 1999 were not
> available). Here are our key findings.
>
> 1. Traffic-law violations by motorists are the main cause
> of fatal bicyclist accidents in New York City. We were able
> to assign responsibility in 53 of the 71 fatal bicycle
> crashes during 1995-1998 for which we obtained police crash
> reports. We determined that drivers were highly culpable in
> 30 cases, partly culpable in 11 cases, and not culpable in
> 12 cases. Driver misconduct was thus the principal cause in
> 57% (30 out of 53) of the cases and a contributory factor in
> 78% (30 plus 11, or 41, out of 53).
>
> Thus, although police blame cyclist error for three-fourths
> (75%) of cyclist fatalities, in fact, driver error was the
> principal cause in 57% of recent fatal bicycle crashes and
> at least a contributing cause in 78%.
> --
> Steven O'Neill


Problem is that "Right Of Way" did this determination, which is obviously
biased and came out with a result they wanted.

Even so, the percentage of accidents caused by bicyclists is somewhere in
between 60% to 75%.

Which is 2/3 to 3/4 caused by Bicyclists.

[Thinker]

"Jym Dyer" > wrote in message
...
> > = Jorma Myers
>
> > Problem is that "Right Of Way" did this determination, which
> > is obviously biased and came out with a result they wanted.
>
> =x= Their techniques and data are right there for all to see.
> As are the many consistently inaccurate (and, understandably,
> completely unsupported) assertions made in the last week of
> Usenet posts from Jorma Myers.
> <_Jym_>
>

60% to 75% caused by bicyclists is much higher than I expected, I thought
it was more like 20%,
No wonder the cops have a bias.

[Ruben Safir]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:23:03 -0500, Thinker wrote:

>
> 60% to 75% caused by bicyclists is much higher than I expected, I thought
> it was more like 20%,
> No wonder the cops have a bias.


That's redicules. I've riden a Bike for years in the city and accross the
country. Cars are responsible for almost ALL accidents with Bikes.

Let us count the ways!

1 - Right hand turns without looking
2 - Speeding
3 - Opening Doors without looking
4 - failing to obey signal control adequately
5 - cutting too close on roads to the bike from the passanger side of the
door
6 - failure to heed bike right of way
7 - Suddenly stopping (one of my favorites)
8 - suddening changing direction to get off a road without warning
9 - failing to STOP before turning
10 - Malicious intent!

Can you think of more.

Here is the fact. I god damn car should NEVER EVER hit a bicycle. There
is no damn excuse to use that 2 tons of steal, metal and plastic is any
way which can jeopadize ANYONE, Bike pedestrain or otherwise.

People are just too selfish when they are driving. If it was there damn
necks in the noose, they would never pop that door open.

And I'll tell you another thing that contributes to the accidents is the
bicycling laws and bike lanes. The ***MOST DANGEROUS*** place for a bike
to be is on the right hand lane between the parked cars and the traffic.
Put your darn bike INTO the lane and make the cars around you respect your
space.

Ruben

[Steven M. O'Neill]

Jorma Myers > wrote:
>>
>> Thus, although police blame cyclist error for three-fourths
>> (75%) of cyclist fatalities, in fact, driver error was the
>> principal cause in 57% of recent fatal bicycle crashes and
>> at least a contributing cause in 78%.
>> --
>> Steven O'Neill
>
>
>Problem is that "Right Of Way" did this determination, which is obviously
>biased and came out with a result they wanted.

Do you have a study that contradicts it?

>Even so, the percentage of accidents caused by bicyclists is somewhere in
>between 60% to 75%.
>
>Which is 2/3 to 3/4 caused by Bicyclists.

Cite?
--
Steven O'Neill

[Eric Struckhoff]

"Jorma Myers" > wrote in message >...
>
> Problem is that "Right Of Way" did this determination, which is obviously
> biased and came out with a result they wanted.
>
> Even so, the percentage of accidents caused by bicyclists is somewhere in
> between 60% to 75%.
>
> Which is 2/3 to 3/4 caused by Bicyclists.

Citation, please.

[Peter Keller]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:25:51 -0700, Eric Struckhoff wrote:

> "Jorma Myers" > wrote in message >...
>>
>> Problem is that "Right Of Way" did this determination, which is obviously
>> biased and came out with a result they wanted.
>>
>> Even so, the percentage of accidents caused by bicyclists is somewhere in
>> between 60% to 75%.
>>
>> Which is 2/3 to 3/4 caused by Bicyclists.
>
> Citation, please.

This is not what has been found in New Zealand.
Our Land Transport Safety Authority has found that motorists are in the
wrong about 67% of the time, bicyclists about 28% of the time, and unknown
or both at fault in the rest.

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

[Ramon Shultz]

"Ruben Safir" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:23:03 -0500, Thinker wrote:
>
> >
> > 60% to 75% caused by bicyclists is much higher than I expected, I
thought
> > it was more like 20%,
> > No wonder the cops have a bias.
>
>
> That's redicules. I've riden a Bike for years in the city and accross the
> country. Cars are responsible for almost ALL accidents with Bikes.
>

That is obviously stupid. Time to fess-up now, boys, how do Bicyclists cause
accidents?

1 - failure to yield to car's Right hand turn
2 - Speeding - riding faster than conditions support
3 - riding too fast or failure to see Opening Doors
4 - Running Stop Signs and Red Lights
5 - failure to stay next to curb
6 - failure to stay in bike right of way
7 - Suddenly turning in front of a car (one of my favorites)
8 - suddening changing direction to get off a road without warning
9 - failing to STOP before turning
10 - Malicious intent!

> And I'll tell you another thing that contributes to the accidents is the
> bicycling laws and bike lanes. The ***MOST DANGEROUS*** place for a bike
> to be is on the right hand lane between the parked cars and the traffic.
> Put your darn bike INTO the lane and make the cars around you respect your
> space.

Use Hand Signals so they (cars) know what you are going to do.

[Mitch Haley]

Ramon Shultz wrote:
> That is obviously stupid. Time to fess-up now, boys, how do Bicyclists cause
> accidents?
>
> 1 - failure to yield to car's Right hand turn

This was posted in NYC and in Australia, I'll assume USA.
What bicycles need to yield to right turning cars, the
bicycles turning left?
In Australia, I'd say no vehicle needs to yield to right turning cars.

> 3 - riding too fast or failure to see Opening Doors

You mean "riding too close to parked cars"

> 5 - failure to stay next to curb
> 6 - failure to stay in bike right of way

Are you saying "failure to stay out of my way"?

> 7 - Suddenly turning in front of a car (one of my favorites)

I think that passing the cyclist unsafely is the true cause of
most of the claims of "cyclist swerved in front of me".

> Use Hand Signals so they (cars) know what you are going to do.

Yep.

[J Swartz]

"Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
...
> Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:41:55 -0400, >,
> Mitch Haley > wrote:
>
> >> 3 - riding too fast or failure to see Opening Doors
> >
> >You mean "riding too close to parked cars"
>
> I mean failure to check for conflicting traffic before opening doors.

No, You mean Your failure to see the driver opening the door. You are in his
blindspot.

[James S]

Right of Way did a "study", that is all.
It did not change any of the police reports,
It did not change any legal outcomes.
Too bad it was not truly independent either.

[Mitch Haley]

J Swartz wrote:
> No, You mean Your failure to see the driver opening the door. You are in his
> blindspot.

Are you saying that if you glance in the mirror without looking
over your shoulder and open your door into traffic, you expect
the operator of the vehicle which hits your door to get the
ticket?

[J Swartz]

"Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
...
> Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:08:13 -0500, >,
> "J Swartz" > wrote:
>
> >>
> >> >> 3 - riding too fast or failure to see Opening Doors
> >> >
> >> >You mean "riding too close to parked cars"
> >>
> >> I mean failure to check for conflicting traffic before opening doors.
> >
> >No, You mean Your failure to see the driver opening the door. You are in
his
> >blindspot.
>
> Guess again, scum clot.
>
> Uniform Vehicle Code - Article XI
>
> 11-1105.Opening and closing vehicle doors
> No person shall open any door on a motor vehicle unless and until it
> is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with
> the movement of other traffic, nor shall any person leave a door open
> on a side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of
> time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.
>
> Illinois Vehicle Code, Article XIV, Section 11-1407, requires that:
> "No person shall open the door of a vehicle on the side available to
> moving traffic unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so, and
> can be done without interfering with the movement of other traffic."
>
> Australia - Victoria
> Rule 269. "Opening doors and getting out of a vehicle etc.... (3) A
> person must not cause a hazard to any person or vehicle by opening a
> door of a vehicle, leaving a door of a vehicle open, or getting off,
> or out of, a vehicle."
>
> Canada - Province of Ontario
> 165. "It is illegal for drivers or passengers to open their car doors
> without first making sure the action will not endanger a cyclist or
> any other person or vehicle."
> . . .etc.


To: microbrain

All the driver has to say is that he did not see you, and he might get small
fine.
Hard to make a judge believe you could not avoid door by moving over a foot.

If you assume that driver will always see you, that you have recourse in
court, and therefore you can ride fast close to parked cars, you gonna get
whacked, just a matter of time, that is your problem, not mine.

Better to take possession of the lane, away from door range. Driver can see
you better too.

[Steven M. O'Neill]

James S > wrote:
>Right of Way did a "study", that is all.
>It did not change any of the police reports,
>It did not change any legal outcomes.
>Too bad it was not truly independent either.
>

Independent of what?

--
Steven O'Neill

[dave]

J Swartz wrote:
> "Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:41:55 -0400, >,
>>Mitch Haley > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>3 - riding too fast or failure to see Opening Doors
>>>
>>>You mean "riding too close to parked cars"
>>
>>I mean failure to check for conflicting traffic before opening doors.
>
>
> No, You mean Your failure to see the driver opening the door. You are in his
> blindspot.
>
>
Wow. That really is an amazingly stupid statement. Sorry , my fault
you didnt look.

[Mitch Haley]

Zoot Katz wrote:
>
> Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:43:40 -0500, >,
> "J Swartz" > wrote:
>
> >All the driver has to say is that he did not see you, and he might get small
> >fine.
>
> IOW, they've admitted fault for having broken a law.

But J Swartz is right, drivers (without alcohol in their systems)
can kill cyclists and pedestrians at will, as long as they say
the magic words. Just like an on-duty police officer can kill
anybody, as long as he claims that he thought the victim was armed.
"My gun just went off" is another one that works, but only for cops.

Last year, some idiot killed a high school valedictorian about a month
after she graduated. At the time, he claimed that he was passing at
a safe distance and she "swerved into my path". The prosecuting
attorney went for a negligent homicide charge. The defense attorney
claimed, among other things, that her shirt was the color of the sun
and you couldn't see her with the sun in your eyes. (at 2pm daylight
savings time, with the sun almost directly overhead, try claiming
that next time you rear end a school bus) A jury of his peers wasn't
even deadlocked, they found him innocent. (his peers being other idiots
who wouldn't want to go to jail if their stupidity killed somebody).

This is a big step forward from when I was 18, when some bozo ran a
stop sign and destroyed my motorcycle. The assistant prostituting attorney
at that time (1982) told me that "you just can't see motorcycles" when he
refused to take the ticket to court. I should have demanded that he
(the taxpayer funded lawyer) give me his license so I could rip it up if
he couldn't see a high beam headlight (which I had on at the time of the crash)
in clear weather.

Mitch.

[Ruben Safir]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:43:40 -0500, J Swartz wrote:

>
> All the driver has to say is that he did not see you, and he might get small
> fine.
> Hard to make a judge believe you could not avoid door by moving over a foot.


That's four feet and there is no warning.

Here is the bottom line rule. When your driving 2 tons of Steal, it is
ALWAYS your god damn fault. More people die of Car accidents than any
other even in the US, but somehow when it comes to Bikes, it's the
bicyclists fault? Right.

Give up the crack man.

Ruben

[Ruben Safir]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:12:29 -0700, Zoot Katz wrote:

> BTW, I've never been doored. Had a few close calls when I started
> riding as an adult (1970)


I never get doored because I never ride in the right hand side of the
road, which is a violation in many states who don't give a damn if I die
on my bike because of reckless motorist, as almost all motorists are.

Ruben

[Steven M. O'Neill]

Ruben Safir > wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:12:29 -0700, Zoot Katz wrote:
>
>> BTW, I've never been doored. Had a few close calls when I started
>> riding as an adult (1970)
>
>
>I never get doored because I never ride in the right hand side of the
>road, which is a violation in many states who don't give a damn if I die
>on my bike because of reckless motorist, as almost all motorists are.

Aren't you required to ride as far to the right *as long as you
can remain safe*? I'd say it's up to te rider to decide how far
that is.

--
Steven O'Neill

[Ruben Safir]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:26:42 +0000, Ken [NY) wrote:

> And there is the best method of staying on your bike, rubber
> side down. You are entitled to that right lane, so use it.


in New York, that is a recent change in the law and it is true. Take the
whole damn lane and if they hon at you, put your kyptonite lock into their
windshield.

It bounces off the hood and comes right back to you.

Ruben

[Name]

"Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
...
> Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:37:03 -0400, >,
> Mitch Haley > wrote:
>
> >> >All the driver has to say is that he did not see you, and he might get
small
> >> >fine.
> >>
> >> IOW, they've admitted fault for having broken a law.
> >
> >But J Swartz is right, drivers (without alcohol in their systems)
> >can kill cyclists and pedestrians at will, as long as they say
> >the magic words.
>
> I was stopped for a sign, in broad daylight, directly behind the
> driver. He looked right past me and backed into me with his van as I
> was scrambling to get out of the way. The driver admitted he didn't
> see me and left after I told him to call a cop. When questioned later
> he claimed I'd ridden into him. Without witnesses, I got ****ed.
> They're worse than scum.

Car drivers, many are scum, many are not, but why depend upon them to do
reasonable things all the time?
Drunks, kids, near blind people, mean asswipes, new drivers, old ladies,
large trucks.
How can you reasonably expect every one of them all to provide you space all
the time?
They don't even do that to each other.

They are watching out for other cars and trucks, and rely on a glance.
Motorcycles are overlooked easily, and Bicycles are near invisible.

You want Ideal world ****, and that is not going to happen, ever.

[Pete]

"Ruben Safir" > wrote
>
> That's four feet and there is no warning.
>
> Here is the bottom line rule. When your driving 2 tons of Steal, it is
> ALWAYS your god damn fault. More people die of Car accidents than any
> other even in the US, but somehow when it comes to Bikes, it's the
> bicyclists fault? Right.
>
> Give up the crack man.

Often, but not *always*.
Dark sweatshirt, jeans, no lights, no reflectors, riding against traffic,
going through a red light at a badly lit, but non-rural, intersection.

We've all seen this clown. And many others just like him. I saw one tonight.
Saw him almost get hit. I only saw him peripherally, because I was at a gas
station and was looking around.

Sorry, but we can't blame this type of thing on the motorists.

Pete

[Ruben Safir]

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:03:55 +0000, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:

> Aren't you required to ride as far to the right *as long as you
> can remain safe*?

Not in New York. I can take any lane I want. And you are ***NEVER***
safe in the right lane.


Ruben

[Ruben Safir]

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 04:12:17 +0000, Pete wrote:

> Often, but not *always*.
> Dark sweatshirt, jeans, no lights, no reflectors, riding against traffic,
> going through a red light at a badly lit, but non-rural, intersection.

There is no excuse for Car to hit a bike, ever. Drive slower

Ruben

[Steven M. O'Neill]

Ruben Safir > wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:03:55 +0000, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>
>> Aren't you required to ride as far to the right *as long as
>> you can remain safe*?
>
>Not in New York. I can take any lane I want. And you are
>***NEVER*** safe in the right lane.

New York state law says that you must ride to the right except
when "reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that would make
it unsafe[1]". So if the right lane's not safe, then it's
reasonable to ride somewhere else.

It goes on to say:

Conditions to be taken into consideration include, but are
not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles,
in-line skates, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or
traffic lanes too narrow for a bicycle or person on in-line
skates and a vehicle to travel safely side-by-side within
the lane.

Obviously, it's very subjective. I interpret to mean that I, as
a rider, may ride on the road where ever I feel safest.

(Legal disclaimer: In my opinion. I am not a lawyer.)

====
[1] http://www.nysgtsc.state.ny.us/bike-vt.htm#sec1234
--
Steven O'Neill
The bicycle is the true automobile.

[Steven M. O'Neill]

Ruben Safir > wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 04:12:17 +0000, Pete wrote:
>
>> Often, but not *always*.
>> Dark sweatshirt, jeans, no lights, no reflectors, riding against traffic,
>> going through a red light at a badly lit, but non-rural, intersection.
>
>There is no excuse for Car to hit a bike, ever. Drive slower

Cf. the "Toronto Coroner's Rule":

The concept of motorized vehicles yielding to non-motorized
vehicles, who in turn must yield to pedestrians seems to be a
common sense rule which should be accepted by all road users.
Entrenching this principle in the HTA would clarify the
situation, and likely significantly reduce risk of injury and
death.

http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/cycling/coroner_recomend.htm#legislative

--
Steven O'Neill

[Name]

"Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
...
> Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:51:18 -0500, >,
> "Name" > wrote:
>
> >Car drivers, many are scum, many are not, but why depend upon them to do
> >reasonable things all the time?
>
> What? If we weren't making some little acts of faith all the time by
> depending on each other to do the right thing according to the rules
> governing our public spaces, nothing would move.
> ****wad was signalling right. He had positioned himself for turning
> right. I was going straight. I was in the proper lane postion when the
> ****flake decided he was going to back up. That I wasn't more
> seriously injured is testament to my being prepared for just such a
> move and ready to take evasive actions. What's your solution?

In auto accidents from the rear, the person that is at fault is the one that
hit the rear of the other car. Not my rule, but traffic law, and insurance
rule. So you were toast to start with.

I would not have been so close to his rear bumper as you were, and I would
have moved a little faster than you did when he started backing up, instead
of letting a van back over me, and be a victim for bicycle rights.

[Jym Dyer]

[i]
> New York state law says that you must ride to the right except
> when "reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that would make
> it unsafe ...."

=v= It's also got one of those "you must use the bike lane" laws
(provided the bike lane is useable). The policy in New York
City is to put the bike lane on the *left* side of many one-way
streets, so the law-adhering bicyclist has to move back and
forth a lot. :^)

=v= Of course, not many bike lanes in NYC are actually useable.
<_Jym_>

[Ruben Safir]

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:08:03 +0000, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:

>>> Aren't you required to ride as far to the right *as long as
>>> you can remain safe*?

Or in a lane like any other vehicle

Personally, I use the space between the double yellow lines as my lane and
I lean into drivers windows to make ***SURE*** they see me

Riding on the blind side of the cars is fundementally stupid.

Ruben

[Ruben Safir]

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:08:03 +0000, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:

> [1] http://www.nysgtsc.state.ny.us/bike-vt.htm#sec1234


This is a good link. Is it up to date?

Ruben

[Steven M. O'Neill]

Ruben Safir > wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:08:03 +0000, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>
>> [1] http://www.nysgtsc.state.ny.us/bike-vt.htm#sec1234
>
>
>This is a good link. Is it up to date?

At the bottom it says "Revised: January 15, 2003".

Seems reasonable to me.

--
Steven O'Neill

[Pete]

"Ruben Safir" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 04:12:17 +0000, Pete wrote:
>
> > Often, but not *always*.
> > Dark sweatshirt, jeans, no lights, no reflectors, riding against
traffic,
> > going through a red light at a badly lit, but non-rural, intersection.
>
> There is no excuse for Car to hit a bike, ever. Drive slower
>

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying it is an excuse. I ride daily.

However!

There are instances of cyclists bringing it upon themselves, no matter how
carefully a motorist (or other cyclist!) drives. When a completely black
object, on a dark night, appears right in your path, in violation of basic
traffic rules...the laws of physics take over. Doesn't matter if it were a
cyclist, or another car, or a pedestrian.

If a flat black car, with no headlights and no reflectors were driving the
wrong way in traffic, at night...who would be at fault in the resultant head
on collision? Why should a 'flat black' cyclist get a free pass? I almost
hit one of these clowns over the weekend, on my bike. Drive slower? Not an
issue in this case.

A moving object (bus/car/bike/ped) can easily cause a crash, by violating
basic rules, such as visibility, lane discipline, etc. Cyclists don't get a
free pass just because we'd like them to.

Unless of course you desire a 3mph national speed limit. Which might not be
bad, but that's not what we have, and not going to happen.

Pete

[Pete]

"Steven M. O'Neill" > wrote

>
> Cf. the "Toronto Coroner's Rule":
>
> The concept of motorized vehicles yielding to non-motorized
> vehicles, who in turn must yield to pedestrians seems to be a
> common sense rule which should be accepted by all road users.
> Entrenching this principle in the HTA would clarify the
> situation, and likely significantly reduce risk of injury and
> death.
>
> http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/cycling/coroner_recomend.htm#legislative

Good idea, but you can only yield to what you see. Too many POB's are
determined not to be seen.

Pete

[Steven M. O'Neill]

Pete > wrote:
>
>"Steven M. O'Neill" > wrote
>
>>
>> Cf. the "Toronto Coroner's Rule":
>>
>> The concept of motorized vehicles yielding to non-motorized
>> vehicles, who in turn must yield to pedestrians seems to be a
>> common sense rule which should be accepted by all road users.
>> Entrenching this principle in the HTA would clarify the
>> situation, and likely significantly reduce risk of injury and
>> death.
>>
>> http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/cycling/coroner_recomend.htm#legislative
>
>Good idea, but you can only yield to what you see. Too many POB's are
>determined not to be seen.

I don't know what a POB is, but try slowing down if you can't
see properly.

--
Steven O'Neill

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 01:02:15 -0400, Ruben Safir >
wrote:

>> Often, but not *always*.
>> Dark sweatshirt, jeans, no lights, no reflectors, riding against traffic,
>> going through a red light at a badly lit, but non-rural, intersection.
>
>There is no excuse for Car to hit a bike, ever. Drive slower

That's absurd. I've twice nearly hit cyclists that were riding the
wrong way through busy intersections at night. In each case they made
little effort to be seen.

A motorist scans logically to the area where traffic is supposed to
be. If you are turning left from a stop on a busy four lane roadway,
you are in no position to pick up a fast moving cyclist riding against
traffic into the intersection. When they enter the intersection as you
make your left turn, it is entirely the luck of the draw whether or
not the cyclist is hit.

There are two lucky individuals out there. Or maybe not. They could
easily be statistics by now.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Steven M. O'Neill]

Curtis L. Russell > wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 01:02:15 -0400, Ruben Safir >
>wrote:
>
>>> Often, but not *always*.
>>> Dark sweatshirt, jeans, no lights, no reflectors, riding against traffic,
>>> going through a red light at a badly lit, but non-rural, intersection.
>>
>>There is no excuse for Car to hit a bike, ever. Drive slower
>
>That's absurd. I've twice nearly hit cyclists that were riding the
>wrong way through busy intersections at night. In each case they made
>little effort to be seen.

So you admit that you have a history of driving too fast to
avoid cyclists that are riding the wrong way and wearing dark
clothes?

--
Steven O'Neill

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 17:49:24 +0000 (UTC), (Steven M.
O'Neill) wrote:

>So you admit that you have a history of driving too fast to
>avoid cyclists that are riding the wrong way and wearing dark
>clothes?

Your reading comprehension is as bad as your logic. I turned left from
a standstill, crossing the two on-coming lanes of traffic. The cyclist
was moving somewhere over 15 mph the wrong way on the far left curb.
You can't scan that area or see it adequately in your mirrors. And the
cyclist isn't supposed to be riding there. Period.

Your assinine logic would have the driver responsible for hitting a
cyclist that comes out from a downtown alley at full speed into a busy
roadway. And it trivializes all cyclists and makes them victims
instead of members of traffic.

You are not a defender of cyclists. You are part of the cohort that
provides motorists with the logic necessary to keep cyclists off the
road. If we have no responsibility for how we ride, if we are
irresponsible to the point that we have no impact on incidents on the
road but are always the victims, then we are no more than children and
should not be in traffic at all.

Your response has far more to say about your bicycle riding and
inability to take responsibility than it does about my driving.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Steven M. O'Neill]

Curtis L. Russell > wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 17:49:24 +0000 (UTC), (Steven M.
>O'Neill) wrote:
>
>>So you admit that you have a history of driving too fast to
>>avoid cyclists that are riding the wrong way and wearing dark
>>clothes?
>
>Your reading comprehension is as bad as your logic. I turned left from
>a standstill, crossing the two on-coming lanes of traffic. The cyclist
>was moving somewhere over 15 mph the wrong way on the far left curb.
>You can't scan that area or see it adequately in your mirrors. And the
>cyclist isn't supposed to be riding there. Period.
>
>Your assinine logic would have the driver responsible for hitting a
>cyclist that comes out from a downtown alley at full speed into a busy
>roadway. And it trivializes all cyclists and makes them victims
>instead of members of traffic.
>
>You are not a defender of cyclists. You are part of the cohort that
>provides motorists with the logic necessary to keep cyclists off the
>road. If we have no responsibility for how we ride, if we are
>irresponsible to the point that we have no impact on incidents on the
>road but are always the victims, then we are no more than children and
>should not be in traffic at all.
>
>Your response has far more to say about your bicycle riding and
>inability to take responsibility than it does about my driving.

So you won't deny you have a history?

--
Steven O'Neill

[Ruben Safir]

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:09:23 -0500, Name wrote:

> Not my rule, but traffic law, and insurance
> rule. So you were toast to start with.


So why do the cars now whissle when backing up? Because the freaken
drivers are dangerous

Ruben

[Pete]

"Steven M. O'Neill" > wrote

>
> But I also think that in the current environment the users who
> are underwhelmingly held repsonsible for their actions are
> motorists. So perhaps some over-compensation would be a good
> start to equalization.

Reparations, as it were?

Pete
(i agree with you on the underwhelming penalties)