CB HI

No one in this thread has disputed that possibility, but you have clearly stated your willingness to place full blame on a cyclist hit from behind without the actual scientific proof of fact. You should know better as a lawyer to place blame on someone just from supposition. You also excuse the motorist responsibility to not hit and kill things in their path by trying to blame others, as if others can control the motorist.

That has been the point that I and several others have tried to get you to realize: with the power of the motor vehicle, just as with a gun, the operator of such tools have added responsibilities to not kill others, regardless.

Maybe this will help you see how off base your wish to blame the cyclist are. Under your premise, minimart clerks knowing they are in a dangerous job, would be 100% at fault if they are shot by a robber and the clerk did not have a bullet proof vest on. If you do as you placed blame on the cyclist, you would place 100% blame on the clerk for their own death for not wearing a bullet proof vest.

CB HI

What does the word "suggest" mean to you. You seem to think it is scientific proof that you can take into a courtroom to place 100% FAULT ON THE CYCLIST.

You and your quote are obsessed with ignoring the more likely causes: such as a much higher rate of homeless drunk and drugged cyclist riding at night, DUI motorist that lost their license and now DUI cycle, even the sober homeless cyclist tend to cross the roads mid-block without proper care - not to mention poor crossing at intersections.

We had an off duty cop in Honolulu kill a young woman while DUI running a red light at 25 mph over the speed limit. The cop continued to drink but just DUI cycled while waiting for his court case to come up. He got hit while DUI cycling. Most other DUI cyclist are just not worth the print space for us to hear about.

curbtender

I didn't see any fault in that no accident occurred. Pretty normal process, early AM, something shows up on the road unexpected, it gets avoided, life goes on.

merlinextraligh

So you think riding at night, no lights no reflectors is possibly dangerous.


Any reasonable person knows it is in fact dangerous, and your continuing to quibble over that is just silly.

I'm not going to waste any more time with it.

CB HI

So rather than provide any true scientific evidence for your position, you go to the default "any reasonable person knows" BS. How typical.

In our society, the current "Any reasonable person knows" standard is that cycling is extremely dangerous at any time and no one should do it, period (except in a park maybe). Some parents get threatened with arrest or worse having their kids taken away for allowing them to ride their bicycles to school.

Stealthammer

"Any reasonable person knows" that putting your hand over a flame will burn you, no "true scientific evidence" is required. The same holds true for riding ninja, and anyone who doesn't understand that is simply too dense to be allowed on a bike after dark.

The statement that "In our society, the current "Any reasonable person knows" standard is that cycling is extremely dangerous at any time and no one should do it..." is just as patently absurb and untrue (and it lacks any "true scientific evidence" as you yourself demand), and just reinforces that fact that maybe anyone who believes that to be true should not be allowed on a bike at any time.

You cannot compare those two unrelated concepts here and not be called on it, as there are adults involved in these discussions......



Ride Safe! ...... ...........and use a light at night.

krobinson103

I've almost run down bike Ninjas on the predawn bike paths with 1600lumens of light ahead of me. They are almost impossible to see. In a car with less reaction time it has to be harder.

CB HI

ZING, right over this guys head.

PS - there is significant scientific proof that holding a human hand too close over a flame will burn them. The scientific proof had even quantified the amount of thermal calories needed to cause the three different degrees of burn to the skin. And for your education:
https://www.nist.gov/fire/fire_behavior.cfm

gcottay

So, you contend there is insufficient evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that riding at night, no lights no reflectors increases ones danger of collision?

dynodonn 

As with the case of BF member TNbikemom, to the point of having her threads/posts/user name removed.

Stealthammer

Ahh yes, but it does not take an understanding of the underlying science to acknowledge that the flame will burn you, just as it does not take an understanding of the underlying science to acknowledge that riding in the dark with no source of illumination is dangerous. Only a completely delusional troll would argue otherwise.


Ride Safe! ... ...and use a light when you ride at night.

I-Like-To-Bike

???

dynodonn 

Ah, but not when one is a youthful person inexperienced in night riding techniques or someone not versed in encountering a unlit/non reflective cyclist or ped while driving, and seeing first hand in the dangers involved for themselves.

GrouchoWretch

It's a motorist's responsibility not to hit other road users while overtaking them from the rear. Durp!

In order to meet this responsibility, the motorist must maintain a speed and following distance that will permit them to maneuver around slower road users without hitting them, and they must watch out for such road users. Hurp!

Because motorists cannot be relied upon to meet their responsibility, a cyclist might choose to put lights on his bike, in order to make his presence more conspicuous to lazy, reckless, unvigilant motorists, so that they might avoid hitting him despite their negligence. It is not the cyclist's duty to do so, but if he thinks it might reduce the odds of getting smashed by a car, then the decision to put lights on his bike is a hurpadurp.

If a motorist hits him from behind, it is the motorist's fault, 100%, with or without bike lights and under all driving conditions. This is the diametric opposite of our lawyer friend's contention that if this occurs in the dark, and the cyclist has not assisted motorists in their duty by adding lights to his bike, it is 100% the cyclist's fault.

It's really not hard to decide between these two viewpoints.

While you would arguably be ill advised to stake your life on the vigilance of the American motorist, or even crazy not to avail yourself of lights to assist them in not hitting you, it is still 100% their responsibility not to hit you from behind with their big, stupid death machines.

What is

So HARD

About that?

Oh, but saying this is somehow not inclusive enough (sorry but wtf?) and will cause fewer Americans to buy a bicycle and have fun while burning calories.

I present for your listening pleasure a raspberry sound.

dynodonn 

Not in all cases, there was one local cyclist trying to cross one of our local freeways, and was struck in the furthest right hand lane, with the cyclist having no lights, dark clothing, one standard red rear reflector. This incident occurred a stormy winter night with the motorists determined to be driving well below the speed limit. The cyclist was struck by three individual motorists before traffic could be diverted away from him, and all motorists were eventually cleared of any wrong doing.

GrouchoWretch

I will acknowledge that freeways are a different story!

AFAIK, cyclists are everywhere expressly prohibited from operating on any road that we would call a freeway, and there are usually posted minimum speeds in the neighborhood of 45 mph.

At freeway speeds, no driver can steer or stop. He can only aim or slow down. There can't exist a duty to do the impossible. So bikes aren't allowed on the freeway. That guy is like the occasional genius who meets his untimely demise in the jaws of a polar bear into whose zoo enclosure the genius has climbed. Sad thing, couldn't be helped.

Stealthammer

Your knowledge and understanding of both traffic laws and civil liability are a wonder to behold! I stand in awe of your expertise.

Wow, once again you show us how well versed you are in all nuances of both traffic laws and civil liability, and you share this expertise so freely, without even any regard to compensation. This is truely worth every cent that we have invested.

Psssst. Maybe you should actually pickup a drivers handbook and read it when you next visit a DMV, because your opinions are polar opposite of actual written law my friend.

Ride Safe! ... ...and do a bit of research....

GrouchoWretch

I'm glad no one noticed I've changed my tune on this topic while participating in this thread. Changing your mind is a sign of weakness, perhaps even insanity or malice. But I point it out because who knew that discussing a social issue could change someone's mind about it?

GrouchoWretch

Finally I am paid the tribute that is rightfully mine.

dynodonn 

.....unless there is no alternate roadway that cyclists can use, which was the case at the collision location.

Stealthammer

Hey Don..... vvvvv ....... Nice try though.

dynodonn 

Ok, your state may let cyclist ride on all freeways, but not here in CA.

https://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/faq/faq67.htm

"Of the more than 4,000 miles of freeways in California, about 1,000 miles are open to bicyclists. These open sections are usually in rural areas where there is no alternate route."

I-Like-To-Bike

AFAIK, you don't know much about traveling on highways.

I commuted legally for two years on I80N (now designated I84) in Oregon on the wide shoulder.

I commuted legally for seven years in the right travel lane of US34 with a speed limit of 55mph.

Are you arguing that the problems of bicycle-motor vehicle interactions at "freeway speeds" (45+MPH) only come into effect if the highway has a "minimum" speed posted and is called a freeway?

GrouchoWretch

This is the part where I say I'm not a lawyer and leave the rest to the smart people.

skye

Or maybe he works late/early at a kitchen, is riding the only transportation he can barely afford, and doesn't have the money to buy himself a light.

There are people in that position in this country. Lots of them. And until you've ridden in their non-cleated shoes for a few miles, it might be worth your while to not be judgmental.