nobody seen nuffin'
 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3407350

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

nobody seen nuffin'
 

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:40:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3407350

A really impartial report :-)

The two people on the garbage truck say that they "didn't see the
bicycle". "But they must have, they must have",reports a bloke who
wasn't there, and who's only claim to any knowledge of the matter was
that he had eaten in the restaurant where the bicycle rider was
employed.
--
Cheers,

John B.

nobody seen nuffin'
 

On 8/13/2017 9:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:40:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3407350

A really impartial report :-)

The two people on the garbage truck say that they "didn't see the
bicycle". "But they must have, they must have",reports a bloke who
wasn't there, and who's only claim to any knowledge of the matter was
that he had eaten in the restaurant where the bicycle rider was
employed.

Assuming the cyclist had lights at night (and perhaps even if he didn't)
it's the JOB of a truck driver to see everyone using the road. "I didn't
see him" should not be treated as a valid excuse; it should be treated
as an admission of guilt.

--
- Frank Krygowski

nobody seen nuffin'
 

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 22:16:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/13/2017 9:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:40:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3407350

A really impartial report :-)

The two people on the garbage truck say that they "didn't see the
bicycle". "But they must have, they must have",reports a bloke who
wasn't there, and who's only claim to any knowledge of the matter was
that he had eaten in the restaurant where the bicycle rider was
employed.

Assuming the cyclist had lights at night (and perhaps even if he didn't)
it's the JOB of a truck driver to see everyone using the road. "I didn't
see him" should not be treated as a valid excuse; it should be treated
as an admission of guilt.

If a truck driver is responsible to see what is going on doesn't that
apply equally to the bicycle rider? After all, they were both
operating "vehicles" on a public road.

--
Cheers,

John B.

nobody seen nuffin'
 

Simply written law for the retarded.. the onus is on the bicycle to stay away from garbage trucks n use color n lights.

Having a few victims...who were too close n unseen ... is for the 'lawmaker'... the control mechanism.

That type of function comes from the right..the eye for an eye group.

My limited understanding is the 'example' ...as the victim count n PR iznot effective caws everyone involved are retarded or uncaring

nobody seen nuffin'
 

On 8/14/2017 12:05 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 22:16:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/13/2017 9:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:40:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3407350

A really impartial report :-)

The two people on the garbage truck say that they "didn't see the
bicycle". "But they must have, they must have",reports a bloke who
wasn't there, and who's only claim to any knowledge of the matter was
that he had eaten in the restaurant where the bicycle rider was
employed.

Assuming the cyclist had lights at night (and perhaps even if he didn't)
it's the JOB of a truck driver to see everyone using the road. "I didn't
see him" should not be treated as a valid excuse; it should be treated
as an admission of guilt.

If a truck driver is responsible to see what is going on doesn't that
apply equally to the bicycle rider? After all, they were both
operating "vehicles" on a public road.

A bike rider has a responsibility to be observant. But it's possible for
one road user to violate the laws in such a way that another very alert
road user can't avoid a crash. That's why there is normally some
investigation into who is at fault in traffic crashes.

The truck driver's "I didn't see him" statement shows he was at fault.

--
- Frank Krygowski

nobody seen nuffin'
 

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:04:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/14/2017 12:05 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 22:16:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/13/2017 9:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:40:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3407350

A really impartial report :-)

The two people on the garbage truck say that they "didn't see the
bicycle". "But they must have, they must have",reports a bloke who
wasn't there, and who's only claim to any knowledge of the matter was
that he had eaten in the restaurant where the bicycle rider was
employed.

Assuming the cyclist had lights at night (and perhaps even if he didn't)
it's the JOB of a truck driver to see everyone using the road. "I didn't
see him" should not be treated as a valid excuse; it should be treated
as an admission of guilt.

If a truck driver is responsible to see what is going on doesn't that
apply equally to the bicycle rider? After all, they were both
operating "vehicles" on a public road.

A bike rider has a responsibility to be observant. But it's possible for
one road user to violate the laws in such a way that another very alert
road user can't avoid a crash. That's why there is normally some
investigation into who is at fault in traffic crashes.

The truck driver's "I didn't see him" statement shows he was at fault.

But Frank, I've almost hit a bicycle, several times, often enough that
it is no longer an anomaly. And I was on a bicycle, maybe 20 kph. Had
I been driving a powered vehicle at say 50 kph I would almost
certainly have hit them

The conditions we just about dawn, the other cyclist, who I guess
could be called a transportationist cyclist, was on a dingy black
bicycle, the rider was wearing dark, maybe black clothes, trousers and
a long sleeved shirt of some sort, the bike was equipped with a large
plastic "basket" on the rear carrier and a handle bar basket on the
front and riding the wrong way on the edge of a 6 lane highway. Quite
obviously on his way to work.

At that point in my usual ride I would have just turned onto the
highway and would normally be traveling 18 - 20 kph and I can assure
you that when I saw the guy had I been going twice as fast I certainly
would have hit him.

And I do look where I am going and even (strange as it may be) behind
me and on either side of me.

Your argument when someone saying "I didn't see him" is obviously at
fault is absurd.
--
Cheers,

John B.

nobody seen nuffin'
 

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 10:04:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/14/2017 12:05 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 22:16:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/13/2017 9:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:40:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3407350

A really impartial report :-)

The two people on the garbage truck say that they "didn't see the
bicycle". "But they must have, they must have",reports a bloke who
wasn't there, and who's only claim to any knowledge of the matter was
that he had eaten in the restaurant where the bicycle rider was
employed.

Assuming the cyclist had lights at night (and perhaps even if he didn't)
it's the JOB of a truck driver to see everyone using the road. "I didn't
see him" should not be treated as a valid excuse; it should be treated
as an admission of guilt.

If a truck driver is responsible to see what is going on doesn't that
apply equally to the bicycle rider? After all, they were both
operating "vehicles" on a public road.

A bike rider has a responsibility to be observant. But it's possible for
one road user to violate the laws in such a way that another very alert
road user can't avoid a crash. That's why there is normally some
investigation into who is at fault in traffic crashes.

The truck driver's "I didn't see him" statement shows he was at fault.

Did the bicycle have headlights?

nobody seen nuffin'
 

On 8/14/2017 10:28 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:04:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/14/2017 12:05 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 22:16:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/13/2017 9:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:40:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3407350

A really impartial report :-)

The two people on the garbage truck say that they "didn't see the
bicycle". "But they must have, they must have",reports a bloke who
wasn't there, and who's only claim to any knowledge of the matter was
that he had eaten in the restaurant where the bicycle rider was
employed.

Assuming the cyclist had lights at night (and perhaps even if he didn't)
it's the JOB of a truck driver to see everyone using the road. "I didn't
see him" should not be treated as a valid excuse; it should be treated
as an admission of guilt.

If a truck driver is responsible to see what is going on doesn't that
apply equally to the bicycle rider? After all, they were both
operating "vehicles" on a public road.

A bike rider has a responsibility to be observant. But it's possible for
one road user to violate the laws in such a way that another very alert
road user can't avoid a crash. That's why there is normally some
investigation into who is at fault in traffic crashes.

The truck driver's "I didn't see him" statement shows he was at fault.

But Frank, I've almost hit a bicycle, several times, often enough that
it is no longer an anomaly. And I was on a bicycle, maybe 20 kph. Had
I been driving a powered vehicle at say 50 kph I would almost
certainly have hit them

The conditions we just about dawn, the other cyclist, who I guess
could be called a transportationist cyclist, was on a dingy black
bicycle, the rider was wearing dark, maybe black clothes, trousers and
a long sleeved shirt of some sort, the bike was equipped with a large
plastic "basket" on the rear carrier and a handle bar basket on the
front and riding the wrong way on the edge of a 6 lane highway. Quite
obviously on his way to work.

At that point in my usual ride I would have just turned onto the
highway and would normally be traveling 18 - 20 kph and I can assure
you that when I saw the guy had I been going twice as fast I certainly
would have hit him.

And I do look where I am going and even (strange as it may be) behind
me and on either side of me.

Your argument when someone saying "I didn't see him" is obviously at
fault is absurd.

I'm making the assumption that the cyclist hit by the garbage truck was
riding legally. I don't normally fault a motorist when, say, a wrong-way
nighttime cyclist with no lights rides into a car head-on. Or when a
cyclist blasts through a stop sign directly into the path of a car. But
in this case, the author of the article claims that the cyclist had the
right of way but was killed by what sounds like a right hook. There was
no mention of illegal bicycling.

In any case, even if the cyclist were disobeying some law, there is a
requirement to stop and not flee the scene when a person is injured in a
traffic crash. Anyone can claim "I didn't know I hit anyone." That
shouldn't be treated any more seriously than "I didn't see him." You
have a responsibility to see EVERY legal road user in time to avoid him.
You have a responsibility to stop EVERY time you're involved in a crash.

--
- Frank Krygowski

nobody seen nuffin'
 

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 11:50:58 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/14/2017 10:28 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:04:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/14/2017 12:05 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 22:16:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/13/2017 9:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:40:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3407350

A really impartial report :-)

The two people on the garbage truck say that they "didn't see the
bicycle". "But they must have, they must have",reports a bloke who
wasn't there, and who's only claim to any knowledge of the matter was
that he had eaten in the restaurant where the bicycle rider was
employed.

Assuming the cyclist had lights at night (and perhaps even if he didn't)
it's the JOB of a truck driver to see everyone using the road. "I didn't
see him" should not be treated as a valid excuse; it should be treated
as an admission of guilt.

If a truck driver is responsible to see what is going on doesn't that
apply equally to the bicycle rider? After all, they were both
operating "vehicles" on a public road.

A bike rider has a responsibility to be observant. But it's possible for
one road user to violate the laws in such a way that another very alert
road user can't avoid a crash. That's why there is normally some
investigation into who is at fault in traffic crashes.

The truck driver's "I didn't see him" statement shows he was at fault.

But Frank, I've almost hit a bicycle, several times, often enough that
it is no longer an anomaly. And I was on a bicycle, maybe 20 kph. Had
I been driving a powered vehicle at say 50 kph I would almost
certainly have hit them

The conditions we just about dawn, the other cyclist, who I guess
could be called a transportationist cyclist, was on a dingy black
bicycle, the rider was wearing dark, maybe black clothes, trousers and
a long sleeved shirt of some sort, the bike was equipped with a large
plastic "basket" on the rear carrier and a handle bar basket on the
front and riding the wrong way on the edge of a 6 lane highway. Quite
obviously on his way to work.

At that point in my usual ride I would have just turned onto the
highway and would normally be traveling 18 - 20 kph and I can assure
you that when I saw the guy had I been going twice as fast I certainly
would have hit him.

And I do look where I am going and even (strange as it may be) behind
me and on either side of me.

Your argument when someone saying "I didn't see him" is obviously at
fault is absurd.

I'm making the assumption that the cyclist hit by the garbage truck was
riding legally. I don't normally fault a motorist when, say, a wrong-way
nighttime cyclist with no lights rides into a car head-on. Or when a
cyclist blasts through a stop sign directly into the path of a car. But
in this case, the author of the article claims that the cyclist had the
right of way but was killed by what sounds like a right hook. There was
no mention of illegal bicycling.

In any case, even if the cyclist were disobeying some law, there is a
requirement to stop and not flee the scene when a person is injured in a
traffic crash. Anyone can claim "I didn't know I hit anyone." That
shouldn't be treated any more seriously than "I didn't see him." You
have a responsibility to see EVERY legal road user in time to avoid him.
You have a responsibility to stop EVERY time you're involved in a crash.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Up here if a bicyclist hits a pedestrian it's suposed to be reported as it's considered to be a vehicular/pedestrian collision. There have been cases where a bicyclist riding on the sidewalk has struck and killed a pedestrian.

Cheers