Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-10-06, 06:24 AM   #1
N_C
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
N_C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bannation, forever.
Bikes:
Posts: 2,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I chalk this one up as an accident pure & simple.

IMO due to the drivers inexperience behind the wheel. This is why I advocate for better instruction in driver's ed, of course this is an educated guess. The driver may be very experienced & this was a mistake he made, that could happen to anyone. If he is not as expereinced as he should be because drivers ed. did not teach him everthing he should know about driving then that means there is not enough education in the course. If it is the same as when I went through it 16 or 17 years ago enough is not taught to teach kids everything they should know before letting them drive. Then all they seemed interested in doing is getting us through the course as fast as they could, taught us the basics & turned us loose. They did not teach us how to react or behave around motorcycles or bicycles, or runners who run against traffic.

Here is the article: http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/...sp?NewsID=1684
N_C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-06, 06:31 AM   #2
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 1990s Peugeot (Canadian-made) rigid mountain bike; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others
Posts: 10,663
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 494 Post(s)
There's no way to tell from that link or the source article if the driver's inexperience played a role. It says the cyclist was riding "across" the street. Maybe he was a sidewalk cyclist who put himself in danger. Strange that the kid is charged with failing to yield to "a pedestrian".
cooker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-06, 06:47 AM   #3
N_C
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
N_C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bannation, forever.
Bikes:
Posts: 2,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
His age, 18, tells me he may not have the experience needed to drive. In Iowa drivers have to yield to pedestrians regardless.
N_C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-06, 07:05 AM   #4
San Rensho 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 5,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
This is not an accident. The police charged the driver with violating the right of way of the cyclist, so the driver was at fault. To me, an "accident" is something completely unforseable, like a meteor hitting a car, causing the car to lose control and hit a cyclist.

By using the word accident, you imply no fault, and in this case there was definitely fault on the part of the driver. Inexperience does not excuse fault. If you are inexperienced, you should not be driving in many siuations until you gain enough experience. Like saying its not the "fault" of a pilot with 5 hours of solo time, flying into a storm and crashing.
__________________
Il faut de l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace

1980 3Rensho-- 1975 Raleigh Sprite 3spd
1990s Raleigh M20 MTB--2007 Windsor Hour (track)
1988 Ducati 750 F1
San Rensho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-06, 07:26 AM   #5
supcom
You need a new bike
 
supcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Bikes:
Posts: 5,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by San Rensho
This is not an accident. The police charged the driver with violating the right of way of the cyclist, so the driver was at fault. To me, an "accident" is something completely unforseable, like a meteor hitting a car, causing the car to lose control and hit a cyclist.

By using the word accident, you imply no fault, and in this case there was definitely fault on the part of the driver. Inexperience does not excuse fault. If you are inexperienced, you should not be driving in many siuations until you gain enough experience. Like saying its not the "fault" of a pilot with 5 hours of solo time, flying into a storm and crashing.
You shouldn't make up new menaings for words. It just confuses people:

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dicti...ch&va=accident

Please take note of the second definition.
supcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-06, 08:15 AM   #6
N_C
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
N_C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bannation, forever.
Bikes:
Posts: 2,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
To me accident imply's the driver hit the cyclist with out intent. He had no intention of hitting him but he do so accidentally. Had it been with intent then it would not be an accident but on purpose.
N_C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-06, 08:27 AM   #7
ignominious
pointless & uncalled for
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: TOONCA
Bikes:
Posts: 378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Regardless of the semantics related to the news article, N_C does have a very good point here. It seems ridiculous that drivers of motorised vehicles are ill educated in the rights and needs of other, non-motorised road users.

I have in the past suggested that it would be benficial for driving instruction to include a mandatory session with a cycling instructor who could make an informative presentation to learner drivers. In fact such a practice could be reciprocated to have cycling instruction contain a piece on motor vehicle use.

Now if only there were pedestrian instruction, we could acheive a trifector.
ignominious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-06, 08:41 AM   #8
N_C
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
N_C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bannation, forever.
Bikes:
Posts: 2,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ignominious
Regardless of the semantics related to the news article, N_C does have a very good point here. It seems ridiculous that drivers of motorised vehicles are ill educated in the rights and needs of other, non-motorised road users.

I have in the past suggested that it would be benficial for driving instruction to include a mandatory session with a cycling instructor who could make an informative presentation to learner drivers. In fact such a practice could be reciprocated to have cycling instruction contain a piece on motor vehicle use.

Now if only there were pedestrian instruction, we could acheive a trifector.
Don't forget motorcycle instructor too. I think since is probably no such thing as a pedestrian instructor perhaps the safety coordinator or representative of a runners or walkers club would suffice. In my area we have all 4. A motorcycle club & motorcycle instruction is taught at the community college, we have a bicycle, runners & walkers clubs as well.
N_C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-06, 09:30 AM   #9
San Rensho 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 5,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by supcom
You shouldn't make up new menaings for words. It just confuses people:

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dicti...ch&va=accident

Please take note of the second definition.
I am not making up new meanings, if you re-read my post you will see that I in fact defined accident exactly as you quote it from the dictionary. The first, primary meaning of "accident" in the dictionary is 1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance .
It is foreseeable that if you are an inexperienced driver, you will not know how to react in certain situations and cause an accident. Therefore, it is not an accident, because it was not unforseeable.

I am trying to be precise in order to avoid the perception that the driver was not at fault and did nothing wrong.

I completely agree that more education could reduce collissions of all types by new, inexperienced drivers. But because "accident" has so many meanings, one of them being no fault and no responsibility, I want to make the point that there was fault in this case.
__________________
Il faut de l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace

1980 3Rensho-- 1975 Raleigh Sprite 3spd
1990s Raleigh M20 MTB--2007 Windsor Hour (track)
1988 Ducati 750 F1
San Rensho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-06, 09:48 AM   #10
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 1990s Peugeot (Canadian-made) rigid mountain bike; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others
Posts: 10,663
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 494 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by San Rensho
in this case there was definitely fault on the part of the driver.
We don't know that. He was charged with failing to yield to a pedestrian. One possible scenario is that the cyclist was riding in a crosswalk and the kid had no way to anticipate that. Being charged and being at fault are often but not always the same thing.
cooker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-06, 11:28 AM   #11
supcom
You need a new bike
 
supcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Bikes:
Posts: 5,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by San Rensho
I am not making up new meanings, if you re-read my post you will see that I in fact defined accident exactly as you quote it from the dictionary. The first, primary meaning of "accident" in the dictionary is 1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance .
It is foreseeable that if you are an inexperienced driver, you will not know how to react in certain situations and cause an accident. Therefore, it is not an accident, because it was not unforseeable.

I am trying to be precise in order to avoid the perception that the driver was not at fault and did nothing wrong.

I completely agree that more education could reduce collissions of all types by new, inexperienced drivers. But because "accident" has so many meanings, one of them being no fault and no responsibility, I want to make the point that there was fault in this case.
You statred quite clearly that you believed this was not an accident because you consider an accident as something "completely unforseeable". Websters defines accident as something unforseen, not unforseeable. You demand a clearly higher standard. Unforseen describes the fact that the actor did not sense something. Unforseeable means that the actor could not have possibly sense something.

Semantics aside, in either case, the presumption that there is no fault associated with an accident is your own interpretation and not supported by definition or practice. For example, if a defect in my automobile tire causes a blowout and subsequent loss of control leading to the destruction of a mailbox, I will be held liable for the replacement of the mailbox. The tire defect may very well have been unforseeable as well as unforseen, but that does not relieve me of responsibility.
supcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-06, 11:47 AM   #12
Keith99
Senior Member
 
Keith99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 5,866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooker
We don't know that. He was charged with failing to yield to a pedestrian. One possible scenario is that the cyclist was riding in a crosswalk and the kid had no way to anticipate that. Being charged and being at fault are often but not always the same thing.
Let's take it a step farther. The following is consistent with what little we know:

The 18 year old driver was making a left hand turn, quite carefully in fact and the cyclist riding the same direction he was came off the sidewalk into the crosswalk at 15 mph or even a bit more and the cyclist actually hit the side of the car. However some cops seem to hate teens and wrote up the kid anyway.

The other side is:

The cyclist had been riding on the sidewalk going the opposite direction from the driver. He then dismounted and was walking his bike in the crosswalk (with the green walk light on) and was hit by the driver. Clearly by any reasonable and legal definition puts the driver at fault in this case.

Either of these fit the few 'facts' we have.
Keith99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:56 AM.