On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 13:58:57 -0800 (PST), yirgster
wrote:

It's amazing to me that this thread immediately devolved into details concerning the context of what the roads are like an similar. Which have been fought over time and again in this group with virtually no resolve. Even the occasional lurker here could spout them from memory while solving differential equations.

The main thrust of the article--which appears to have been totally ignored--is that drivers who kill cyclists get away with it, even when they have committed violations, and get away with it with the outright complicity, to put it mildly, of the police.

The actions of the SFPD are beyond the pale, totally reprehensible.

It's these that should be the focus.

I don't see that it is a matter of "motorists that kill cyclists" it
is more a matter of "motorists that kill people" as the same rules and
regulation seem to apply if they run over a pedestrian or crush
another car.

I've always wondered, particularly in the U.S., why there weren't
civil suits brought against a motorist who runs over someone's husband
and father? After all if you are in an accident down at work that rips
your arm off you may well collect a compensation equal to the
potential earnings that you have been deprived of due to the loss of
your arm. why not the loss of income due to the death of the Lord and
Master of the household.
--
Cheers,

John B.