|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#761
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Bummed
Friday, 26 January 2018, was a lovely sunny warm day, and I finally wash-in-bleached the bin of dish towels and cleaning rags and dried them in the sun. Not a prolonged stay in the sun because it was also windy, and even rags shouldn't be blown into rags. The day was rather spoiled when the morning paper arrived that evening. The City of Warsaw is going to put a two-way "cycle track" between the parked cars and the sidewalk on the south side of the downtown end of Market Street. And I thought that putting in a wide sidewalk on this end of the street and calling it a bikeway was bad! At least nothing will need to be ripped out when they find out what a dangerous idea that was.` 'course, they may never find out that it's dangerous -- I haven't seen any riders on the "bikeway" so far: no riders, no crashes. On the other hand, ever since the "improvement" I've only crossed Market, never ridden along it. There could have been a bicycle I didn't see or didn't notice. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
Ads |
#762
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Winter training
When I saw that yesterday and Friday were predicted to be usable-road days, I thought I'd take a "dump tour" (about eleven miles) on Tuesday, and if that went well, go to the Friday Specials at Duck Down and Above (about twenty miles). But come Tuesday morning, I didn't feel like sorting and packing a pannier of Goodwill stuff, and I did want a few things at Aldi, so I turned left instead of right when I left the emergency room, about five miles. (This also meant crossing US 30 twice at an intersection that would be mentioned as particularly dangerous in that evening's paper.) On the way home, when I stopped at the first bench to put my mittens back on and make sure my shirts were zipped all the way up, I was glad I'd shortened the ride. I'm well enough to resume training, and I'm well enough to ride in the cold -- indeed, vaso-motor rhinitis normalizes my cough -- but I'm NOT well enough to train in biting cold. Not even when thoroughly warm from the neck down. The small amount of leakage around my scarf bothered me a *lot*. Friday is still looking good, but I've already dumped the plastic bags and the magazines, and I still don't feel like sorting out Goodwill stuff. I need ten yards of elastic, but that's only 1.7 miles from Winona Lake, and it's too cold to ride around the south end of the lake to come home. That route is boring when it's *warm*! -------------------------- This recovery reminds me of the day I unpacked my Ed Kearny light with delight -- no more four-o'clock curfew! And then I learned: riding in the dark is pleasant, if the road has a fog line. Riding in the cold is a simple matter of dressing appropriately. I was more-or-less accustomed to coming home tired. But riding the dark when I'm tired and icicles are hanging on my fenders . . . . At least the days are getting longer. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
#763
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Dead Right
(In appropriate jurisdictions, replace "right" with "left".) There are various and sundry laws in different jurisdictions about passing another vehicle on the right. What the law says doesn't matter. What matters is that WHEN YOU PASS A VEHICLE ON ITS RIGHT YOU ARE BETTING YOUR LIFE THAT IT WON'T TURN RIGHT. You don't want to make that bet unless you are sure that you will win. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
#764
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Dead Right
On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 21:07:10 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote: (In appropriate jurisdictions, replace "right" with "left".) There are various and sundry laws in different jurisdictions about passing another vehicle on the right. What the law says doesn't matter. What matters is that WHEN YOU PASS A VEHICLE ON ITS RIGHT YOU ARE BETTING YOUR LIFE THAT IT WON'T TURN RIGHT. You don't want to make that bet unless you are sure that you will win. Essentially you are talking about "Self Preservation:, described by Google as "Self-preservation is a behavior that ensures the survival of an organism. It is almost universal among living organisms. The description goes on to say, The desire for self-preservation has led to countless laws and regulations surrounding a culture of safety in Western society.[10] Seat belt laws, speed limits, texting regulations, and the "stranger danger" campaign should all be familiar examples of societal guides and regulations to enhance survival, and these laws are heavily supported due to the animal need we possess for self-preservation. " Self-preservation is also thought by some to be the basis of rational and logical thought and behavior". -- Cheers, John B. |
#765
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Dead Right
On 2/3/2018 9:55 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 21:07:10 -0400, Joy Beeson wrote: (In appropriate jurisdictions, replace "right" with "left".) There are various and sundry laws in different jurisdictions about passing another vehicle on the right. What the law says doesn't matter. What matters is that WHEN YOU PASS A VEHICLE ON ITS RIGHT YOU ARE BETTING YOUR LIFE THAT IT WON'T TURN RIGHT. You don't want to make that bet unless you are sure that you will win. Essentially you are talking about "Self Preservation:, described by Google as "Self-preservation is a behavior that ensures the survival of an organism. It is almost universal among living organisms. The description goes on to say, The desire for self-preservation has led to countless laws and regulations surrounding a culture of safety in Western society.[10] Seat belt laws, speed limits, texting regulations, and the "stranger danger" campaign should all be familiar examples of societal guides and regulations to enhance survival, and these laws are heavily supported due to the animal need we possess for self-preservation. " Self-preservation is also thought by some to be the basis of rational and logical thought and behavior". But there are complications. Rather frequently, I encounter people who have deluded ideas about dangers. On one hand, the people Joy is addressing have no idea that they are putting themselves at risk. On the other hand, and ever more common, there are people who imagine that certain safe or even beneficial activities are dangerous. Those people will (for example) never ride a bicycle at all, because they think bicycling is very, very dangerous. As a consequence, they are much more likely to die of a variety of ailments triggered by being sedentary. (Refusing to ride without a magic plastic hat is a variation on this theme.) I've come across a man - educated, recently elected judge - who said he would never walk in a forest while wearing earplugs, because there is such a high risk of a tree falling on a person. (Seriously!) There are millions of kids who are told to NEVER talk to strangers. Or never walk to school. There are countless people who will never fly in a commercial airline. And on the third hand, there are the clueless who's deluded self-preservation leads them to do things that put them at much, much greater risk. Every wrong-way bicyclist is convinced that he's far safer than those riding properly. The same is true for sidewalk riders, despite copious research proving them wrong. And of course, there are plenty of bike lanes to the right of potential right-turning vehicles. Those lanes actively delude people into thinking they're safe. Ignorance is a tough opponent. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#766
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Dead Right
On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 09:49:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 2/3/2018 9:55 PM, John B. wrote: On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 21:07:10 -0400, Joy Beeson wrote: (In appropriate jurisdictions, replace "right" with "left".) There are various and sundry laws in different jurisdictions about passing another vehicle on the right. What the law says doesn't matter. What matters is that WHEN YOU PASS A VEHICLE ON ITS RIGHT YOU ARE BETTING YOUR LIFE THAT IT WON'T TURN RIGHT. You don't want to make that bet unless you are sure that you will win. Essentially you are talking about "Self Preservation:, described by Google as "Self-preservation is a behavior that ensures the survival of an organism. It is almost universal among living organisms. The description goes on to say, The desire for self-preservation has led to countless laws and regulations surrounding a culture of safety in Western society.[10] Seat belt laws, speed limits, texting regulations, and the "stranger danger" campaign should all be familiar examples of societal guides and regulations to enhance survival, and these laws are heavily supported due to the animal need we possess for self-preservation. " Self-preservation is also thought by some to be the basis of rational and logical thought and behavior". But there are complications. Rather frequently, I encounter people who have deluded ideas about dangers. On one hand, the people Joy is addressing have no idea that they are putting themselves at risk. On the other hand, and ever more common, there are people who imagine that certain safe or even beneficial activities are dangerous. Those people will (for example) never ride a bicycle at all, because they think bicycling is very, very dangerous. As a consequence, they are much more likely to die of a variety of ailments triggered by being sedentary. (Refusing to ride without a magic plastic hat is a variation on this theme.) I've come across a man - educated, recently elected judge - who said he would never walk in a forest while wearing earplugs, because there is such a high risk of a tree falling on a person. (Seriously!) It's easy for an old country boy (like me) to walk around muttering "damned fool", but the problem is much deeper then that. It is basically lack of knowledge, I was going to write "ignorance" but decided that was a bid argumentative. Re trees falling down, I've spend a considerable amount of time walking about in forested areas and I am aware that trees very rarely fall down... well, except in hurricanes and typhoons :-) but apparently the judge doesn't have that experience. Of course, to put a different slant on the story it is equally accurate to state that the average poster here is incompetent to discuss the legal system and its derivatives as used in the U.S. and its various states. Witness how many times when a bicycle and an auto come in violent contact the cry "Off with his head echoes through the realm. If one attempts to interject a little reality, like, "is there any evidence what took place? Any witnesses? Can a case be made? There is an immediate outcry, generally in the vein of "bicycle got hit it must be the auto's fault. No other possibility exists. There are millions of kids who are told to NEVER talk to strangers. Or never walk to school. Well, one can only comment that as children did walk to school when I was a student with no ill effects and if it is now unsafe then the only possible assumption that y'all must have evolved a society, in the past 50 years, or so, where children are unsafe. (Which certainly makes more sense then an oak tree falling on your head :-) There are countless people who will never fly in a commercial airline. And on the third hand, there are the clueless who's deluded self-preservation leads them to do things that put them at much, much greater risk. Every wrong-way bicyclist is convinced that he's far safer than those riding properly. The same is true for sidewalk riders, despite copious research proving them wrong. And of course, there are plenty of bike lanes to the right of potential right-turning vehicles. Those lanes actively delude people into thinking they're safe. Ignorance is a tough opponent. The interesting thing is that although the cyclist is often found to be at fault - breaking traffic rules, drunk, etc., no one seems to admit that it is very possible that the major problem with the question of bicycle safety is the people that ride them. Nope, we argue that all we have to do is build another MUP and everybody will be safe as safe can be. Reality is a terrible thing to have to face. -- Cheers, John B. |
#767
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Dead Right
On 2/4/2018 9:31 PM, John B. wrote:
Of course, to put a different slant on the story it is equally accurate to state that the average poster here is incompetent to discuss the legal system and its derivatives as used in the U.S. and its various states. Witness how many times when a bicycle and an auto come in violent contact the cry "Off with his head echoes through the realm. If one attempts to interject a little reality, like, "is there any evidence what took place? Any witnesses? Can a case be made? There is an immediate outcry, generally in the vein of "bicycle got hit it must be the auto's fault. No other possibility exists. .... The interesting thing is that although the cyclist is often found to be at fault - breaking traffic rules, drunk, etc., no one seems to admit that it is very possible that the major problem with the question of bicycle safety is the people that ride them. Nope, we argue that all we have to do is build another MUP and everybody will be safe as safe can be. Reality is a terrible thing to have to face. "Paint & Path" advocates are skilled at _not_ facing reality. But regarding the "off with his head" cries about motorists that kill or seriously injure bicyclists: I think the most common complaint is that the current U.S. system absolves drivers far, far too easily. There are countless examples of drivers who merely say "I didn't see the bicyclist" and thereby let off the hook. If a cyclist had legal equipment (IOW, legal lights and reflectors at night; you shouldn't need anything special to ride in daylight) then that statement should be taken as an confession of guilt. When you drive, it's your JOB to see where you're going; and that's true even if it's dark, if the sun is too bright, if it's foggy - whatever. And it's not only "I didn't see him." No matter the details of a car-bike crash, the default assumption is that the motorist is a fine person who just made a mistake. Unless he was drunk, drugged or 20 mph over the speed limit, even if convicted the motorist who kills a cyclist or pedestrian will pay just a couple hundred dollars and do some community service. That's wrong, in my view. I'm in favor of changing the default assumptions. Let's assume that the person operating the obviously more deadly piece of machinery must exercise as much care as, say, a person carrying a loaded AR-15 into a shopping mall. Or an operator of a fork lift or an overhead crane in a busy factory. If one of those people hurts someone, the assumption is that _they_ screwed up. Their license was supposed to demonstrate sufficient training, and their training was supposed to prevent hurting an innocent victim, even if the victim made a mistake. If a bicyclist truly did something unavoidable - say, riding no-lights facing traffic on a dark night, or blasting through a stop sign directly in front of a moving car - then the motorist should be allowed to defend himself. But in other cases - "I didn't see him" or "He swerved in front of me" - the motorist should be assumed guilty. And I'm not asking for prison time. But I firmly believe those motorists should never, ever be allowed to operate a motor vehicle again. Legally, perhaps make that a condition of their parole. And if they are found to violate that parole condition, then yes, they do go to prison. - Frank Krygowski |
#768
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Dead Right
On 2/5/2018 11:46 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/4/2018 9:31 PM, John B. wrote: Of course, to put a different slant on the story it is equally accurate to state that the average poster here is incompetent to discuss the legal system and its derivatives as used in the U.S. and its various states. Witness how many times when a bicycle and an auto come in violent contact the cry "Off with his head echoes through the realm. If one attempts to interject a little reality, like, "is there any evidence what took place? Any witnesses? Can a case be made? There is an immediate outcry, generally in the vein of "bicycle got hit it must be the auto's fault. No other possibility exists. ... The interesting thing is that although the cyclist is often found to be at fault - breaking traffic rules, drunk, etc., no one seems to admit that it is very possible that the major problem with the question of bicycle safety is the people that ride them. Nope, we argue that all we have to do is build another MUP and everybody will be safe as safe can be. Reality is a terrible thing to have to face. "Paint & Path" advocates are skilled at _not_ facing reality. But regarding the "off with his head" cries about motorists that kill or seriously injure bicyclists: I think the most common complaint is that the current U.S. system absolves drivers far, far too easily. There are countless examples of drivers who merely say "I didn't see the bicyclist" and thereby let off the hook. If a cyclist had legal equipment (IOW, legal lights and reflectors at night; you shouldn't need anything special to ride in daylight) then that statement should be taken as an confession of guilt. When you drive, it's your JOB to see where you're going; and that's true even if it's dark, if the sun is too bright, if it's foggy - whatever. And it's not only "I didn't see him."Â* No matter the details of a car-bike crash, the default assumption is that the motorist is a fine person who just made a mistake. Unless he was drunk, drugged or 20 mph over the speed limit, even if convicted the motorist who kills a cyclist or pedestrian will pay just a couple hundred dollars and do some community service. That's wrong, in my view. I'm in favor of changing the default assumptions. Let's assume that the person operating the obviously more deadly piece of machinery must exercise as much care as, say, a person carrying a loaded AR-15 into a shopping mall. Or an operator of a fork lift or an overhead crane in a busy factory. If one of those people hurts someone, the assumption is that _they_ screwed up. Their license was supposed to demonstrate sufficient training, and their training was supposed to prevent hurting an innocent victim, even if the victim made a mistake. If a bicyclist truly did something unavoidable - say, riding no-lights facing traffic on a dark night, or blasting through a stop sign directly in front of a moving car - then the motorist should be allowed to defend himself. But in other cases - "I didn't see him" or "He swerved in front of me" - the motorist should be assumed guilty. And I'm not asking for prison time. But I firmly believe those motorists should never, ever be allowed to operate a motor vehicle again. Legally, perhaps make that a condition of their parole. And if they are found to violate that parole condition, then yes, they do go to prison. - Frank Krygowski That will never happen, in the USA it's all about making money... if a driver loses his license he is not able to pay taxes and will go on public assistance taking money out of the system. I was hit 2 years ago and nearly killed, was in hospital for 9 weeks. I was legally riding on the shoulder of the road. I had front and rear very bright blinking lights and wearing very visible clothing. The driver was the middle car of 5 riding the shoulder. The only thing that happened to him was a $169 ticket for not staying in lane. Damage to his car from hitting me was covered... I have $750,000.00 plus medical bills and rising. Plus I haven't been able to work unless you consider $10.00 per hour job substitute teaching for the localÂ* school system when I am up to it. I am very blessed to be alive so I make the best of it and have made great improvements to get back to as normal as possible. All this to say, I am but one of millions of cyclist that have been hit and the laws has not changed to our favor when hit and it never will. We ride at our own risk whether it is on the road or off road, the best we can do is limit our exposure as much as possible and ride with joy in our hearts and a smile on our face! One more note if the driver was forced to pay "all" our medical bills, losses caused by the accident and financial support as needed the driver would be much more careful. As it is now insurance only pays so much then you are left on your own for the rest and the car driver is let off free except for the minor traffic violation. -- Ride fast, ride hard, ride for health and enjoyment... Coach JQ Dancing on the edge --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#769
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Dead Right
rOn Mon, 5 Feb 2018 11:46:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 2/4/2018 9:31 PM, John B. wrote: Of course, to put a different slant on the story it is equally accurate to state that the average poster here is incompetent to discuss the legal system and its derivatives as used in the U.S. and its various states. Witness how many times when a bicycle and an auto come in violent contact the cry "Off with his head echoes through the realm. If one attempts to interject a little reality, like, "is there any evidence what took place? Any witnesses? Can a case be made? There is an immediate outcry, generally in the vein of "bicycle got hit it must be the auto's fault. No other possibility exists. ... The interesting thing is that although the cyclist is often found to be at fault - breaking traffic rules, drunk, etc., no one seems to admit that it is very possible that the major problem with the question of bicycle safety is the people that ride them. Nope, we argue that all we have to do is build another MUP and everybody will be safe as safe can be. Reality is a terrible thing to have to face. "Paint & Path" advocates are skilled at _not_ facing reality. But regarding the "off with his head" cries about motorists that kill or seriously injure bicyclists: I think the most common complaint is that the current U.S. system absolves drivers far, far too easily. There are countless examples of drivers who merely say "I didn't see the bicyclist" and thereby let off the hook. If a cyclist had legal equipment (IOW, legal lights and reflectors at night; you shouldn't need anything special to ride in daylight) then that statement should be taken as an confession of guilt. When you drive, it's your JOB to see where you're going; and that's true even if it's dark, if the sun is too bright, if it's foggy - whatever. And it's not only "I didn't see him." No matter the details of a car-bike crash, the default assumption is that the motorist is a fine person who just made a mistake. Unless he was drunk, drugged or 20 mph over the speed limit, even if convicted the motorist who kills a cyclist or pedestrian will pay just a couple hundred dollars and do some community service. That's wrong, in my view. But doesn't this echo the current U.S. attitude that evil doers are a victim of their environment, or some other nambi-pambi excuse? After all, it couldn't have been his fault. If the 7-11 hadn't had all that money they wouldn't have gotten robbed. I'm in favor of changing the default assumptions. Let's assume that the person operating the obviously more deadly piece of machinery must exercise as much care as, say, a person carrying a loaded AR-15 into a shopping mall. Or an operator of a fork lift or an overhead crane in a busy factory. If one of those people hurts someone, the assumption is that _they_ screwed up. Their license was supposed to demonstrate sufficient training, and their training was supposed to prevent hurting an innocent victim, even if the victim made a mistake. But aren't you the one I had a discussion about executing murderers or some similar subject. As I remember you felt it was cruel and should stop. Isn't that kind treatment toward those who made a mistake or perhaps didn't notice the cyclist simply an extension of that thinking. I would take a rather jaundiced view to your comment "even if the victim made a mistake" as making the mistake of not noticing the red light and swooping our into 8 lanes of traffic may not be an innocent act that should be ignored. If a bicyclist truly did something unavoidable - say, riding no-lights facing traffic on a dark night, or blasting through a stop sign directly in front of a moving car - then the motorist should be allowed to defend himself. But in other cases - "I didn't see him" or "He swerved in front of me" - the motorist should be assumed guilty. And I'm not asking for prison time. But I firmly believe those motorists should never, ever be allowed to operate a motor vehicle again. Legally, perhaps make that a condition of their parole. And if they are found to violate that parole condition, then yes, they do go to prison. - Frank Krygowski But Frank, those poor bedeviled motorists work 60 miles from their home and loss of a driver's license means loss of a job. Not that long ago killing someone fell under a very few classifications - murder, manslaughter, etc, and in nearly all cases resulted in prison time or worse. Now, from what I read here, auto "accidents" result in 24 hours of community duty and a 60 dollar fine. My own feeling is that the U.S. has lost sight of the fact that basically penalties are not, in essence, simply punishment for being a bad person but historically have been intended as a deterrent and that a legal system was intended to protect society from individuals, not individuals from society. Imagine if the penalty for a motor vehicle "accident" were changed to execution of the individual at fault. Do you think it would have an effect on the numbers of "Accidents". I enclose accidents in quotes as, at least since 1931, when W.H. Heinrich developed the so-called domino theory, 88% of all accidents have been considered as being caused by unsafe acts of people, 10% by unsafe actions and 2% by acts of God. I find it strange that Industrial Safety still uses those figures while Traffic Safety apparently ignores them. -- Cheers, John B. |
#770
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Dead Right
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 19:50:34 -0500, JQ wrote:
On 2/5/2018 11:46 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/4/2018 9:31 PM, John B. wrote: Of course, to put a different slant on the story it is equally accurate to state that the average poster here is incompetent to discuss the legal system and its derivatives as used in the U.S. and its various states. Witness how many times when a bicycle and an auto come in violent contact the cry "Off with his head echoes through the realm. If one attempts to interject a little reality, like, "is there any evidence what took place? Any witnesses? Can a case be made? There is an immediate outcry, generally in the vein of "bicycle got hit it must be the auto's fault. No other possibility exists. ... The interesting thing is that although the cyclist is often found to be at fault - breaking traffic rules, drunk, etc., no one seems to admit that it is very possible that the major problem with the question of bicycle safety is the people that ride them. Nope, we argue that all we have to do is build another MUP and everybody will be safe as safe can be. Reality is a terrible thing to have to face. "Paint & Path" advocates are skilled at _not_ facing reality. But regarding the "off with his head" cries about motorists that kill or seriously injure bicyclists: I think the most common complaint is that the current U.S. system absolves drivers far, far too easily. There are countless examples of drivers who merely say "I didn't see the bicyclist" and thereby let off the hook. If a cyclist had legal equipment (IOW, legal lights and reflectors at night; you shouldn't need anything special to ride in daylight) then that statement should be taken as an confession of guilt. When you drive, it's your JOB to see where you're going; and that's true even if it's dark, if the sun is too bright, if it's foggy - whatever. And it's not only "I didn't see him."* No matter the details of a car-bike crash, the default assumption is that the motorist is a fine person who just made a mistake. Unless he was drunk, drugged or 20 mph over the speed limit, even if convicted the motorist who kills a cyclist or pedestrian will pay just a couple hundred dollars and do some community service. That's wrong, in my view. I'm in favor of changing the default assumptions. Let's assume that the person operating the obviously more deadly piece of machinery must exercise as much care as, say, a person carrying a loaded AR-15 into a shopping mall. Or an operator of a fork lift or an overhead crane in a busy factory. If one of those people hurts someone, the assumption is that _they_ screwed up. Their license was supposed to demonstrate sufficient training, and their training was supposed to prevent hurting an innocent victim, even if the victim made a mistake. If a bicyclist truly did something unavoidable - say, riding no-lights facing traffic on a dark night, or blasting through a stop sign directly in front of a moving car - then the motorist should be allowed to defend himself. But in other cases - "I didn't see him" or "He swerved in front of me" - the motorist should be assumed guilty. And I'm not asking for prison time. But I firmly believe those motorists should never, ever be allowed to operate a motor vehicle again. Legally, perhaps make that a condition of their parole. And if they are found to violate that parole condition, then yes, they do go to prison. - Frank Krygowski That will never happen, in the USA it's all about making money... if a driver loses his license he is not able to pay taxes and will go on public assistance taking money out of the system. I was hit 2 years ago and nearly killed, was in hospital for 9 weeks. I was legally riding on the shoulder of the road. I had front and rear very bright blinking lights and wearing very visible clothing. The driver was the middle car of 5 riding the shoulder. The only thing that happened to him was a $169 ticket for not staying in lane. Damage to his car from hitting me was covered... I have $750,000.00 plus medical bills and rising. Plus I haven't been able to work unless you consider $10.00 per hour job substitute teaching for the local* school system when I am up to it. I am very blessed to be alive so I make the best of it and have made great improvements to get back to as normal as possible. All this to say, I am but one of millions of cyclist that have been hit and the laws has not changed to our favor when hit and it never will. We ride at our own risk whether it is on the road or off road, the best we can do is limit our exposure as much as possible and ride with joy in our hearts and a smile on our face! One more note if the driver was forced to pay "all" our medical bills, losses caused by the accident and financial support as needed the driver would be much more careful. As it is now insurance only pays so much then you are left on your own for the rest and the car driver is let off free except for the minor traffic violation. I described, in another post, how the system works in Thailand where, in simple terms, the largest vehicle is deemed, subject to evidence to the contrary, to be at fault and responsible for all costs. It certainly makes a difference in how traffic acts here :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Speeding cyclist mows down elderly jogger | Mrcheerful | UK | 10 | February 13th 14 10:43 PM |
Cyclist:0 Disabled granny:1 | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 1 | June 13th 13 09:15 PM |
Hit & run cyclist injures elderly woman on pavement | John Benn | UK | 25 | August 19th 12 09:33 AM |
cyclist says injured granny should not be on pavement! | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 5 | June 13th 10 07:37 PM |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton | [email protected] | UK | 167 | February 1st 09 10:44 AM |