Does anyone else see how this is a logical, reasonable and rational conclusion to reach for jurors' minds steeped in pro-motorist cyclo-segregationary thinking - the very mentality that is promoted by segregationary policies supported by much of bicycling advocacy, including LAB's own Bicycle Friendly Community program?
but the jury ignored this evidence and the judges instruction on the rights of a bicyclist in Kentucky and decided that the bicyclist should have pulled over and stopped to let the driver pass, i.e. they shouldn’t have been there.
"The rapidly-growing university town of Davis has a population of 64,300. More than 100 miles of streets with bike lanes [SEGREGATION!]
, trails [SEGREGATION!]
, and other bicycle routes combine with quiet streets and thousands of bicycle parking spaces to make a great environment for bicycling. There are more than 25 grade-separated intersections keeping bicycle and motor vehicle traffic movements apart [SEGREGATION!]
First Platinum-level Bicycle Friendly Community Recognized
If the underlying message of the "Bicycle Friendly Community" program is not Cycling mixed with motor vehicle traffic is inherently dangerous and they should be separated ("apart"), then what is? If that is the underlying message, then is it not logical to hold someone responsible for choosing to participate in an inherently dangerous activity? If the truck driver's attorney's had any sense, they could have used LAB's own website and program to defend the decision of the original jury.
Luckily for us, the logical implications of the pro-segregationary mentality promoted by bicycling advocacy had not yet permeated the minds of the jury foreman, or the Supreme Court... But the rest of the original jury, the original judge, and the Appeals Court have already been infected.
How long are the rest of you going to support segregationary facilities and, thus, the associated mentality, before you realize the severe damage this is causing to cycling?