genec

I understand, but take notice that we do throw out that "presumption of innocence" precept... when we find reason. Such as mandatory 3 strike laws, or use a gun go to jail. Or even in the case of potential DUI... where refusal to test can get one's license pulled... so there is precedent for overruling certain rights under certain circumstances.

On the other hand we also make laws that tend to favor the majority... and since motorists are clearly the majority in this country... it is highly unlikely that such a vulnerable road user law would ever be proposed, much less pass.

bobvonb

It was a Focus, with mirrors closer to 6'7".

myrridin

Completely incorrect. None of the examples mentioned entail throwing out the presumption of innocence. Lets address individually. Three strike law... In order to apply the subject must already have been convicted in a trial that required the prosecutor to proove beyond a reasonable doubt. The application of this law is a punishment for the convicted... one way society expressed its displeasure with judges sentencing. Two, use gun, go to jail. Again here you are presumably referring to laws where there are additional sentencing guidelines after conviction for a crime... Finally the DUI and license pulling... This is an artifact of the legal sophistry that driving is a privilege not a right, therefore the privilege can be revoked by the government. The government managed to get precedent established describing driving as a privilege rather than a right--thereby nicely bypassing the whole "innocent until proven guilty" problem among many others..

CB HI

Your insistence on calling a 1 foot berm a "shoulder", betrays your bias.

genec

So in reality the DUI situation DOES exist, and therefore I am not "completely incorrect" as you so state. Yes, the other two situations do require conviction, so I may be wrong there.

As far as the driving being a right... show me where that is so stated anywhere? Otherwise, it is indeed a privilege.

crhilton

6' 7" without mirrors, unless it's an oddly narrow year.

Also, 6' 7" is closer to 7' .

crhilton

Is your cyclist 1' wide?

CB HI

And he seems to think cyclist ride with 1/2 their tire on the asphalt edge of the berm and the other 1/2 on the gravel/grass. Some mighty fine riding skills on a CAAD9 700x23 road tire.

crhilton

What? I'm not sure what you mean, exactly, by that statement, but I think law is supposed to be applied to everyone. Which I would see as fairness. There's even an amendment about equal protection under the law, which seems like an indication of fairness.

crhilton

Indeed. I really don't think there's good enough information to say what happened. I have my guesses, but there's so little information.

The moral of the story is to equip your bike with a bomb so you can at least take them out with you . Wait, no, that's not it. It's something about sharing and caring.

CB HI

Especially with police just accepting a suicide swerve statement by single witness motorist.

Knowing what is most likely to have happened, the police then need to proceed on the basis of proving or disproving that scenario by physical evidence and unbiased witnesses.

In this collision and death the police appear to be relying solely on claims made by someone facing possible criminal charges.

Having seen the bald faced lies people and their friends will tell judges in court, I have no faith that this driver and his buddy are telling the truth. All probabilities are against their claims.

PS - This post will sent myrridin off the deep end.

buzzman

I know it's impossible in these threads to make a completely accurate assessment as to the cause of one of these accidents. BUT I'd rather have fellow cyclists out there like CB HI, who has done a good job of presenting a case for close scrutiny of the driver's and his passenger's account. This is the kind of accident that could happen to any one of us. As I look at the road I would more than likely be riding in the right tire track or even more center of that lane and moving right as needed to allow for safe passing by autos. I would probably NOT be riding on that "shoulder".

Were I the victim, I would hope that there would be some cyclists out there in my corner who would first assume I was riding in a straight line and responsibly before giving credence to a driver's statement that leaves so much room for doubt.

I know we tend to have a bias in BF towards cyclists but why not? It's BIKE forums- at least we can think like cyclists when we read these accounts and provide some perspective. In this case, a very legitimate one.

genec

Gee and it's not as if we haven't already "changed our entire system," in fact, reshaped our very cities, even our national parks, and certainly much of our landscape to accommodate the automobile; why then would it be so terribly shocking to change one small aspect of our legal system... especially since we have already shown a preponderance for doing so, where the automobile is concerned.

myrridin

If one accepts that driving is a right, as you do, then yes you are completely wrong, including the case of DUI. You would only have been partially right if you accept that driving is simply one means of travel and that there is a right to travel, therefore a right to drive... And no I don't wish to argue that point any more than I want to argue the pros/cons of helmets

myrridin

No but when one adds the distance of the shoulder it makes it possible for the motorist to have passed safely... which was the point I was making to those of you who let your prejudices and hysterics rule your reason.

Some additional points:

Pennsylvania does not appear to be one of the states that have the three foot passing law, thereby a "safe pass" could in fact be less then 3ft

The road in question is quite probably 12 feet wide per lane not the 10 feet CB HI claims. His "claims" are not based on measurements or design plans but google maps (which he linked to). Didn't want to bother explaining to him that once again he is very likely wrong about that since it wasn't needed to prove my point..

And none of this precludes the possibility that the driver moved into the other lane as he was passing.

In short, the only "evidence" of fault is the driver and his passengers statements. The only way to convict these folks would be to pack a jury with the same prejudiced, irrational people as typified by CB HI... Something that isn't likely to actually happen (thankfully)... The cyclists family of course has a civil court recourse, which do to the lower standard of proof, the need to only show that the driver contributed to the accident, and juries tendency to grant emotional based verdicts gives the family recourse for the "blood payment" so many seem to want.

myrridin

If you can't see that there is a world of difference between such cosmetic changes (such as using electricity, computers and smart phones--all of which have altered our civilization as well) and a fundamental alteration of what basic human rights we allow than your already hopeless...

genec

I don't accept that driving is a right. So the rest of your assumptions go right out the window. Driving is a privilege. To travel freely is a right.

genec

And all of the above have shaped our personal freedoms and privacy, which you conveniently overlook; I believe you're already hopeless.

myrridin

Are you willing to give up your right to be assumed innocent if the government (or someone else) decided to accuse you of a crime? That is what we are talking about. The need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty... Something that this situation does not allow... That is why CB HI is wrong when he states his imaginary "facts"...

myrridin

Thank you for the clear evidence that you simply don't understand the concepts if you believe that cell phones and computers alter the basic freedoms we have...

myrridin

While it is possible that folks in that area of the country call that area of the road "berms" (after all the europeans refer to intersections as junctions) in the areas of the country where I design roads, we call that a shoulder--which despite you ignorance doesn't necessarily mean that it is able to be used for cars (or bikes)...

Oh, and around here, berms refer to mounds of earth that are also called levies...

That is why I use the term I do...

genec

Quick example...ever hear of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro...ns_Privacy_Act

myrridin

Yes, though I wasn't aware (as you seem to be) that it was passed by the phones themselves... You see in the real world it was passed by people. People who believe like you do that anything they don't agree with should be stamped out and the heck with the freedoms this country were founded upon...

So let me explain this in a way you might be able to understand; The danger to our freedoms are people (who believe like you do) not inanimate objects (cars, phones, computers) or imaginary conspiracies (car culture...)...

unterhausen

simple guidelines for following the posting rules on BF: talk about the issues, not the other people here. Thanks

crhilton

No one is hysterical as far as I can tell.

https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hysteria

Now, about that shoulder. The picture I see doesn't show a shoulder. It shows a foot or so of space to the right of a fog line. You can't pull any vehicle over onto that, and it's really not wide enough to ride. More than likely the road isn't brand spanking new and features some missing chunks around the edge. Riding on the far right edge of that space would be challenging. If you were riding right of the fog line you'd probably be hugging the line. Leaving your left shoulder, arm, etc inside the lane.

The fact that you think this guy would disappear and ride on that shoulder without occupying the lane at all is where your prejudices show.

Certainly we both have some. Taking this down to axioms is impossible.