njkayaker

Touchy, touchy! If it doesn't show the location of the accident, the photo is irrelevant. If it isn't "exactly where", no one has any idea why the article included it or why you linked to it.

Here's a mid block crosswalk "pretty dam close to the collision location".

Note that "Birkeland Bros Wool Lt" on the right where the mid block crosswalk starts has a 3573 address, which might mean the crosswalk might be even closer than "pretty damn". And, yes, there's a crosswalk there in a 3500 block.

https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...,0.000603&z=21

Which appears to be what this quote from the first article is talking about.

CB HI

The link to the crosswalk you show is outside the article description of where the collision occurred, making your jerkism irrelevant. Try a little reading comprehension, the collision did not occur AT E 20 Ave in the 3600 block.

And for a rider traveling north, your link is at an intersection (main and E 20 Ave) and not mid-block.

CB HI

I see you edited your post to try to cover your lack of reading comprehension. Which of those family members were eye witnesses to the collision such that they could add something other than irrelevant conjecture?

njkayaker

Wrong. The cross walk starts in the west side of the street at the following address.

Birkeland Bros Wool Ltd‎
Rate it
1 review - more info »
3573 Main Street
Vancouver, BC V5V 3N4, Canada

The problem is that we don't know exactly where the collision occurred. "3500 block" isn't precise enough to say.

CB HI

Sorry, missed this part of your edit when you added the other garbage about irrelevant family conjecture.

The article picture and my link are both within reason of the location of the collision. You sound like you want an X within a couple of inches of the exact mark, which is just being a jerk.

It is not just this thread, many BF members have noted this quality about you in many, if not most of your post.

njkayaker

If it is not "exactly where" the collision occurred, the photo is irrelevant! The crosswalk is also "within reason" too!

He lives on E 20 ave on the west side of Main street (otherwise, he would not have needed to cross the street). It's quite possible that he used the crosswalk which starts on the west "3500 block". Using the crosswalk isn't any less convenient. It seems that it's the bus stop on the east side of Main Street he was using (since where he was supposedly going is north of where the collision occurred).

https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...,0.002411&z=19

The photo is somewhere "near" the location. If it isn't exact, it's irrelevant. This is not that hard to understand!

The "irrelevant family conjecture" is plausible looking at the map. (I have no idea whether it's true or not). Since there is no indication that the photo is the exact location of the accident, it it clearly is irrelevant.

Yawn. So, it's you who can't deal with somebody pointing out that the photograph is irrelevant!

CB HI

Again some reading comprehension on your part would be helpful. Cyclist headed north bound, mid block of north bound side of 3500 block is the alleyway. Police found no fault in cyclist actions (unlikely to occur if pedestrian was in a crosswalk). No mention in article of pedestrian being in a crosswalk (unlikely to occur if pedestrian was in a crosswalk). Article shows a photo of the scene that does not include your crosswalk.

You provide an address on the southbound side of the street at the end of the 3500 block just to try and confuse readers.

njkayaker

Yawn!

You are now saying it's the "scene"? Make up your mind: do you think the photo is exactly where the collision occurred or not?

(I have no idea where the collision occurred. No one is willing to say precisely. The photo certainly is a picture of something nearby.)

The first article doesn't say this. The second article doesn't say "north bound side".

Anyway, it's common that these articles don't get the details correct.

I know it's on the south bound side. It's quite clear it's on the south side. No one (other than you, it appears), is "confused".

CB HI

Since the collision occurred on the northbound side, why are you then referencing locations on the southbound side?

njkayaker

Because that's where the bloody crosswalk that he allegedly used is! It's really not that hard. It's possible (again, I don't know) that he was on the east side of the crosswalk when the collision occurred.

And "3500 block" is ambiguous: it includes the west side of the street as well as the east side.

Why do you keep talking about a photograph if it isn't clearly the location of the accident?

It's not at all clear that the photograph is helpful in figuring out the details of what occurred (all we know about it is that it is somewhere near or at the collision site). If it isn't "at" the collision side, it's useless.

CB HI

Allegedly used by which eyewitness?

CB HI

The cyclist was riding northbound (east side), nothing ambiguous about that.

njkayaker

You, apparently, are the only eyewitness!!

So what? You are making another assumption, which could be wrong.

"3500 block" is ambiguous. Because of the odd jog in 20 E Ave, there are two "midblocks" (one which has a crosswalk and one which does not). He could have been hit by a northbound vehicle crossing from the west side midblock (this isn't that hard to understand). I don't know which one is being referred to.

Somebody who is assuming you are reasonable would make this inference. Are you saying I'm a jerk because I assumed you were reasonable? Are you saying you are unreasonable and are talking about an irrelevant photograph?

If you don't think the photograph is a picture of the collision seen, you haven't explained why you commented about the irrelevant photo. It's not unreasonable to assume that it might be. But nothing in the article says that it is. It appears that it is a photograph of the bus stop and the person selected the photograph based on the assumption that it shows where the collision occurred. If the writer was sure it was of the collision site, he should have said so. Since he didn't, it would seem that he isn't sure.

Something is funny here. Moving west to east, how could he get hit by a northbound cyclist after "just stepping out"? (Ir's not a one-way street.)

CB HI

^^^
Your like a dog chasing it's tail by repeatedly trying to jump to the west side of Main Street, when it is clear the collision occurred on the east side.

closetbiker

I've re-visited this thread because of an opinion piece in a local paper about cyclists being irresponsible. That they act irresponsibly more often than motorists or pedestrians.

I thought of this incident because it seems at this point that the irresponsible party was the pedestrian (you know, crossing mid-block directly in the path of an oncoming cyclist - police clearing the cyclist of any wrong-doing).

So, not to derail the topic (if it is derailing it) but I concur with CB HI.

For all the flack I've taken over the years on BF, very few members have made it to my ignore list, but njkayaker has. His manner of posting makes it a waste of time to spend what it takes to explain how out of line he can be.

I admit, on occasion I click on the "View Post" to see what he's posted and it almost always confirms why I put him on ignore. The interaction here only confirms what I've experienced elsewhere. njkayaker isn't contributing here, he's impeding.

JoeyBike

Even if the ped was in the right, he is DEAD. We all need to look both ways before crossing the street. Walking, cycling, driving. A green light and right of way means nothing when you are dead. A green light means that you have the right of way. Period. We can not confuse a green light with safety. The two have nothing to do with each other.

This is a tragic event. If the cyclist broke the law, and the ped was obeying the law, then the cyclist should pay the consequences. I take a lot of heat around here for running red lights when the coast is clear. So what is safer? Running a red when nothing is coming, or proceeding on a green in front of a bus? Let this be a lesson to all who think a green light means GO. It means look around, then go - when the coast is clear.

SCROUDS

Door zone sharrows? My money is on the fact that the door zone hugging didn't help visibility, either for the cyclist to see the ped, the ped to see the cyclist, and the elimination of sufficient reaction time for either of them to avoid each other.

Looigi

26 knots...

High Roller

Excellent advise for all, whether one is prone to adhering to the rules of the road or not.