I guess driving the speed limit is just out of the question... [Archive] - Page 2

genec

03-26-07, 07:15 PM

That claim is debatable.

For instance:

"The No. 1 leading cause is driver error, followed by speeding, and then alcohol" (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1779513/posts)

What did you intend to accomplish by merely repeating this?

It is not my claim... it came from your news quote. Don't blame me for what the Hiway Patrol believes and you pointed to with a URL.

Here is that entire statement from the URL you provided:
"With the addition of radar enforcement to all local freeways, our officers have one more tool to utilize in their efforts to reduce collisions and increase safety for motorists," said Capt. John Bailey, commander of the San Diego-area CHP office.

Speeding is the No. 1 cause of traffic accidents," Bailey said.

noisebeam

03-26-07, 08:47 PM

Horsecrap aside, I think the problem comes from drivers doing too many miles on too many freeways. Think about it, when you get off the freeway (having been on it for more than the last exit), how slow does it feel to do the speed limit in your local arterials and residential streets? How hard is it to catch yourself, gather some patience and slow down? I could care less how fast people want to drive on the freeways, but when you get off, slow the frack down and obey the freakin speed limits...there's people and kids and pets and CYCLISTS around.
Exactly. Which is why I don't like the 65mph SL urban freeways have in metro-phx (except for one short stretch of 202 which is 55mph). Police have publicly said no tickets for 11mph over and less. Everyone goes 75mph+ and exits directly onto the roads I cycle daily (an arterial exit every 1mi). Folks are coming off the freeway merging with me going 70mph on 45mph posted roads. They slow to 60 after about a mile.
Al

sbhikes

03-26-07, 09:08 PM

I live in a place with a lot of super rich people. It doesn't surprise me that they consider speeding tickets a minor inconvenience to doing whatever the heck they want to do. They've already got a lawyer. Why not have him take care of those speeding tickets while he's not figuring out how to hide those white collar crimes?

You should see what it's like when you ride through the rich part of town wearing one of these high vis lime green jackets. You can see the little lawyer meter spinning in their brains as they decide maybe it's best to let the lowly cyclist take their rightful right of way. No officer or jury is going to believe I didn't see her with that jacket she's got.

Brian

03-26-07, 09:59 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/kgtv/20070325/lo_kgtv/11351868

Rather strangly written article on paying lawyers vice the fines for traffic tickets... The thing that gauls me is that here is someone that obviously has money, and choses to pay a lawyer so he can get out of traffic tickets when he zips around town at too high a speed in his fancy sports car.

I guess the idea of driving the speed limit or less never occured to this selfish JAM. Nope, just whip out the checkbook and pay the price for your little E ticket ride.

Gee are speed limits only for those that can't afford fancy sports cars or what. What an attitude.

Wonder what this guy is going to do if he plows into someone in his "toy?"

Were you drinking when you wrote this?

genec

03-26-07, 10:14 PM

I know it was from the URL that I posted, I never wrote that it was your claim nor did I blame you for what one CHP officer believes (I don't believe that he was speaking for the entire patrol, those statements would come from a PIO type). Regardless, that claim is very debatable, with many studies showing that driver inattention is the leading cause of accidents, rather than speeding.

Now, again, what did you intend to accomplish by merely repeating that claim?

Obey the law... it is as simple as that. A speed limit is just that, a limit. Something to not be exceeded.

What are you trying to accomplish? That speeding is a cheap thrill and therefore is OK? What other illegal cheap thrills do you condone? Wife beating, giving illegal drugs to minors, shooting out house windows... where do you draw the line? Apparently for some reason you are willing to cross the line for some "cheap thrills" such as driving at excessive speed.

This truly baffles me, otherwise fine law abiding citizens somehow feel that the laws regarding the handling of an auto just don't apply to them. Now why exactly is that?

genec

03-26-07, 10:15 PM

Were you drinking when you wrote this?

Nope, just trying to figure out why some folks just feel justified in breaking traffic laws.

Treespeed

03-26-07, 10:33 PM

Obey the law... it is as simple as that. A speed limit is just that, a limit. Something to not be exceeded.

What are you trying to accomplish? That speeding is a cheap thrill and therefore is OK? What other illegal cheap thrills do you condone? Wife beating, giving illegal drugs to minors, shooting out house windows... where do you draw the line? Apparently for some reason you are willing to cross the line for some "cheap thrills" such as driving at excessive speed.

This truly baffles me, otherwise fine law abiding citizens somehow feel that the laws regarding the handling of an auto just don't apply to them. Now why exactly is that?

Nice comparisons Gene. You sound like your foaming at the mouth.

Just like with your whole 0-60 rant you're taking arbitrary numbers and extrapolating all kinds of ulterior motives for speeding and then comparing it to blatant criminal behavior. They lock you up for the crimes you listed, unless you are driving recklessly (over 100 mph) you are only cited. On I-5 North of Stockton try and find a driver doing 65mph. I've had CHP pass me at 95 while I and other drivers were doing 90. Speed is relative to conditions and you're assertion that this is some black and white issue is ridiculous.

Brian

03-26-07, 11:04 PM

Obey the law... it is as simple as that. A speed limit is just that, a limit. Something to not be exceeded.

Are you familiar with section 22350 of the CVC? Forget the moral question. Is it legal to drive 40 MPH in a 30 zone?

AlmostTrick

03-26-07, 11:44 PM

genec

03-26-07, 11:59 PM

Why? How is this any different than riding a bike while going slower than everyone else? The only difference is that exceeding the speed limit is illegal while going the limit (or less) is not. I have no doubt that if all drivers obeyed the limits we would have a lot less wrecks. If you think going slower than "everyone else" is somehow a problem or dangerous then you better hang up your bike.

Exactamondo!!!

:beer: :beer: :beer:

genec

03-27-07, 12:17 AM

Are you familiar with section 22350 of the CVC? Forget the moral question. Is it legal to drive 40 MPH in a 30 zone?

Yes, with "competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing."

Are you familar with 22384, which offers only that one exception... 22351(b) for exceeding the posted speed.

So if other traffic is also present on the road, then does driving at a speed over the posted limit constitute a violation of basic speed law?

What is wrong with driving at or under the speed limit?

genec

03-27-07, 12:25 AM

So do you obey all laws or are you also a "selfish JAM"?

To get this mindless finger pointing out of the way... I obey all laws... I drive at or under the speed limit, I use my turn signal to indicate all my intentions and I stop completely whether on bike or in a car. Hard for me to be an example to others and expect the same treatment, if I don't do it myself. I also insist that others do not call me on a cell phone when they are driving. Call me back when you stop... that is all I ask. What if we all tried obeying the laws and "driving friendly?"

Why so much virtual arm waving about speeding when you have no objection to people driving fast on freeways?

I don't ride a bicycle on freeways... It is that simple. Motorists failing to adhere to traffic laws create more potentional situations that I have to work to avoid... from motorists failing to stop before proceeding at a red, to motorists speeding, to motoristst failing to yield right of way at a stop. These are all typical "graces" that motorists take "shamlessly" that can cause harm to others with whom they share the road.

So Pete are you a JAM to fellow cyclists? Can I draw that "line?" Who are you behind the wheel?

deputyjones

03-27-07, 01:42 AM

It's good to have a small percentage having the resources to be legal sticklers and keeping the cops honest. It's an important checks and balances part of our justice system.

Suprisingly, I have to agree with HH here. As the quote goes, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." I KNOW we don't have a problem in this country with Officers writing bad tickets because there exists a good system of checks and balances and there are enough bad drivers out there to give good tickets to, but without someone challenging us once in a while there could be a problem eventually.

That being said, I always laugh when some joker hires a lawyer for $500 to fight a $70 ticket because they lose 99.9999999999% of the time anyway, but I respect his right to do so and I REALLY respect the people who represent themselves and come to court with good, sensible arguments for doing whatever they did. Sometimes I am even convinced, and have on one occasion requested the magistrate toss the ticket after hearing the Defendants argument.

The really funny part is that most lawyers are totally clueless when it comes to traffic law. I have actually had a pre-trial hearing where a lawyer was challenging my stop on an OWI because he didn't think I could stop a car for having tinted windows.....um, Michigan MVC section 257.709, dude. I hope he didn't charge his client for that day, but I am sure he did.

It makes me feel good to hear those of you who defended the police in this thread. Thanks to you and thanks to all the Officers out there working traffic enforcement!

Helmet Head

03-27-07, 01:49 AM

Tell me you don't drive 65 when everyone else is going 80.

Why? How is this any different than riding a bike while going slower than everyone else? The only difference is that exceeding the speed limit is illegal while going the limit (or less) is not. I have no doubt that if all drivers obeyed the limits we would have a lot less wrecks. If you think going slower than "everyone else" is somehow a problem or dangerous then you better hang up your bike.
Confusing freeways and appropriate behavior on freeways with surface streets and appropriate behavior on surface streets is what I call "freeway mentality". Freeway mentality belongs on freeways, not on surface streets.

That said, you're right. Going 65 on the freeway is not all that bad. 45 is another matter, but 65 is fine.

Brian

03-27-07, 06:47 AM

Speeding is the No. 1 cause of traffic accidents....

As stated already, inattention is the number one cause. And the number one accident is a rear-ender due to inattention.

Now it's time to put this argument to rest. Someone please show me where speeding was the primary cause, rather than inattention, of the majority of car/car or car/motorcyle or car/bicycle accidents. You can't. Anyone here remember sydney? Do you think it would have made a difference if the girl was going 45 or 65? Sure, she would have had more reaction time. But her inattention was the cause of the accident. Or what about the cyclist that ran into the side of the bus? Or the one run over by the garbage truck?

A focused driver is inherently safer at any speed when compared to a distracted driver. Speed alone is not dangerous. Talking on a mobile phone, playing with the radio, shaving, putting on makeup, and any other distraction is dangerous. Prove me wrong.

genec

03-27-07, 08:19 AM

As stated already, inattention is the number one cause. And the number one accident is a rear-ender due to inattention.

Now it's time to put this argument to rest. Someone please show me where speeding was the primary cause, rather than inattention, of the majority of car/car or car/motorcyle or car/bicycle accidents. You can't. Anyone here remember sydney? Do you think it would have made a difference if the girl was going 45 or 65? Sure, she would have had more reaction time. But her inattention was the cause of the accident. Or what about the cyclist that ran into the side of the bus? Or the one run over by the garbage truck?

A focused driver is inherently safer at any speed when compared to a distracted driver. Speed alone is not dangerous. Talking on a mobile phone, playing with the radio, shaving, putting on makeup, and any other distraction is dangerous. Prove me wrong.

According to the National Hiway Safety Administration, Vehicle Crashes are the leading cause of Death in the US. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809843.PDF

According to this summery report, inattention was the leading cause of crashes, followed by excessive speed. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/UDAshortrpt/summary.html

* DRIVER INATTENTION 22.7%
* VEHICLE SPEED 18.7%
* ALCOHOL IMPAIRMENT 18.2%
* PERCEPTUAL ERRORS (e.g. looked, but didn’t see) 15.1%
* DECISION ERRORS (e.g. turned with obstructed view) 10.1%
* INCAPACITATION (e.g. fell asleep) 6.4%

The types of accidents break down as follows:

* SAME DIRECTION, REAR END

(Driver Inattention Factors) 12.9%

* TURN, MERGE, PATH ENCROACHMENT

(Looked, Did Not See, etc.) 12.0%

* SINGLE DRIVER, ROADSIDE DEPARTURE

(Speed, Alcohol) 10.3%

* INTERSECTING PATHS, STRAIGHT PATHS

(Looked, Did Not See, etc.) 4.1%

* SAME TRAFFIC-WAY, OPPOSITE DIRECTION

(Inattention, Speed) 2.6%

* BACKING, OTHER, MISCELLANEOUS, ETC.

(Following Too Closely, Speed) 1.3%

Notice that rear ending accidents occur more frequently... this somewhat denies data that some bicycle advocates believe regarding cycling accidents... and perhaps also the safety of cycling "in the middle of the lane." (but that is another thread.)

Inattention, as Brian states, is the leading cause, but speed is the number two cause, close behind inattention. Alcohol use follows that.

sbhikes

03-27-07, 08:57 AM

genec

03-27-07, 09:19 AM

Wow. So hit from behind is the number one auto accident. If it is not the number one auto accident for bicyclists, then I can only deduce that is because we tend not to be directly in the path of inattentive motorists. Interesting.

Apparently... and no doubt "bike lane deaths" occur simply because that is where cyclists tend to ride. Since cyclists did not tend to ride in the middle of the lane, the data regarding cyclists deaths doesn't show rear end accidents (overtaking) as a problem. Move cyclists into the middle of the road... hmmmm. However, those advocating moving to the middle of the road also indicate that cyclists should move out of the way before overtaking traffic arrives. Thus putting cyclists back into the bike lane. Of course this also reinforces "bicycles should get out of the way." sigh... But again... this should be a different thread.

AlmostTrick

03-27-07, 09:26 AM

I don't think it's quite so easy to separate speeding from all those other categories. Slowing down allows more reaction time and shorter stopping / maneuvering distances, which would eliminate many of the crashes of the other categories. If the chick behind you is looking in the mirror and putting on make up would you rather she was driving the limit or the standard 10-15 over?

UmneyDurak

03-27-07, 09:49 AM

kalliergo

03-27-07, 11:07 AM

It makes me feel good to hear those of you who defended the police in this thread. Thanks to you and thanks to all the Officers out there working traffic enforcement!

Big +1. It can be a grinding, grueling, sometimes dangerous job. Most of the folks who are doing it are everyday heroes. Pay raises and fresh-baked cookies all around.

Helmet Head

03-27-07, 11:52 AM

As stated already, inattention is the number one cause. And the number one accident is a rear-ender due to inattention.

Now it's time to put this argument to rest. Someone please show me where speeding was the primary cause, rather than inattention, of the majority of car/car or car/motorcyle or car/bicycle accidents. You can't. Anyone here remember sydney? Do you think it would have made a difference if the girl was going 45 or 65? Sure, she would have had more reaction time. But her inattention was the cause of the accident. Or what about the cyclist that ran into the side of the bus? Or the one run over by the garbage truck?

A focused driver is inherently safer at any speed when compared to a distracted driver. Speed alone is not dangerous. Talking on a mobile phone, playing with the radio, shaving, putting on makeup, and any other distraction is dangerous. Prove me wrong.
I can't prove you wrong, but I can explain why I don't worry much about inattention.

First, inattention is a fact. Sure, some people do it less than others, but nobody can pay attention to everything all the time. Whatever graps their attention from looking ahead may or may not be legitimate. It's exasperating when it's something trivial like shaving, dialing a number, or thinking about a work problem, but it's no less distracting than is paying attention to a sudden warning light/buzzer on the dash.

Second, ALL drivers do pay attention to the road ahead AT LEAST in short periodic spurts. Every few seconds they must pay attention to the road ahead, or they couldn't make it half a block without crashing. And that's good enough for me, since I don't ride in a manner that relies on them to be paying any more attention than that. It's nice if they do pay more attention than that, but nothing I do requires it.

genec

03-27-07, 12:07 PM

You expect me to believe that you have never exceeded the speed limit, forgotten to signal, followed too closely, used your wipers without turning on your headlights, etc.?

You must be the first absolutely perfect driver in the history of the world!

Not hardly. But I don't chose to do those things intentionally... as does the speedster in question. The difference is I chose to try to drive within the law and as best as I can. Not everyone makes that choice... clearly. Some see driving as a form of entertainment, or as wasted time where they choose other distractions such as cell phones, DVD, makeup and eating.

The key part here is that when I chose to drive, I focus on that task. And I try to do it as best as I can for my transportation requirements. Obviously you are missing that key issue.

That doesn't explain your arm waving about speeding. I understand that you have a great deal of fear about sharing roads with cars. Because you are fearful does not mean that eveyone who exceeds the speed limit is doing so on surface streets, for "entertainment value," for "cheep thrills," etc.

You're just making unsupportable absolute statements which are contradicted by your very own posts.

Accident statistics show that speeding is the number 2 cause of crashes... that is supported by more than my "absolute statements."

Coupled with your outrageous comparison between speeders and wife beaters, etc. it's quite unbecoming genec.
It was an outrageous comparison... but it was meant to point out that apparently some people chose to not obey the laws, and where they draw the line is pretty arbitrary.

Do you assume that I'm a JAM because I exceed the speed limit? Or is because I've pointed out the silliness of your "arguments"?

I established my driving habits as a baseline, so I was looking for yours, and based on your comments regarding speeding, the picture painted was not as as "co-operative" driver. Also your constant defense of poor driving habits also tends to paint that picture. "Poor habits" as again, speeding is the number two cause of driving accidents... so why do it?

lima_bean

03-27-07, 12:11 PM

To answer the question of the OP, it appears that yes, unfortunately, driving the speed limit is out of the question for many.

noisebeam

03-27-07, 12:12 PM

...I don't chose to do those things intentionally... as does the speedster in question. The difference is I chose to try to drive within the law and as best as I can. Not everyone makes that choice... clearly. Some see driving as a form of entertainment, or as wasted time where they choose other distractions such as cell phones, DVD, makeup and eating.

The key part here is that when I chose to drive, I focus on that task. And I try to do it as best as I can for my transportation requirements.

As do I.
Driving with good habits makes those habits easier to maintain and success becomes easier too. One can train subconcious good habits just well as the bad. One may find after several months of driving as best as one can and following all laws, that it feels natural and in ones comfort zone. It is a very rare moment when I am focusing on something other than driving when driving.

Al

AlmostTrick

03-27-07, 01:22 PM

Pete, the fact that nobody is a perfect driver is really besides the point. Surely you would agree that there is a huge difference between someone who "may" exceed the speed limit slightly on occasion (when conditions permit) and someone who is caught speeding so often that they need to hire a lawyer to help salvage their driving record. You seem to be defending the actions of the latter while attempting to put the former in the same category. This just doesn't make sense.

genec

03-27-07, 01:30 PM

Pete I don't know how you get from CHOOSING to obey the speed limit to "being a JAM," one who intentionally CHOOSES to drive in a manner irrespective of others and probably illegal.

Opposite ends of the spectrum. As AmostTrick points out.

Helmet Head

03-27-07, 01:31 PM

AlmostTrick has a good point. There is reasonable speeding, and unreasonable speeding. I've done both. Reasonable speeding is the kind police ignore.

But many people probaby consider going 90 mph on I-5 through the central valley to be "unreasonable speeding". It's flat and has great sight lines. Others consider it a great way to save a few hours from a long drive.

slowandsteady

03-27-07, 02:21 PM

Our right to defend ourselves is in the constitution. It doesn't matter if it is a parking ticket or a mass murder. I really don't get what is wrong with hiring a lawyer for a speeding ticket if you all think having a lawyer for a more heinous crime is okay.

The fact that this has become big business for lawyers just goes to show how inaccurate tickets are. Clearly the cops are doing something wrong here.

noisebeam

03-27-07, 02:50 PM

Furthermore, how do you know that Ferrari guy's tickets were a result of him choosing to exceed the speed limit (as opposed to simple inattention) or that he was driving in a manner irrespective of others?
Simple inattention will result in traveling 5mph or less over the SL. One doesn't (or it is near impossible to) get multiple speeding tickets from speeding due to inattention.

I very likely have not speed in the last 5yrs except for ~5mph over on rural interstate freeways. I drive at or under all the time otherwise. I'm quite sure about this.

Al

noisebeam

03-27-07, 03:30 PM

I disagree, inattention can certainly result in traveling more than 5mph over the speed limit. For example, I see it when folks pass me at 60 in a 40 while talking on their phone and weaving a bit. Bam! Brake lights on and their speed drops. When I catch them at a light down the road they're not talking on the phone anymore.

This is hardly simple inattention. It takes gross inattention to unknowingly go 20mph over SL. Either one does this out of general habit, so one is aware one speeds if one is generally aware of ones driving habits, or so unaware at the moment of ones driving as to be grossly inattentive.

(begin genec "logic")Aha! Another driver who thinks that he is above the rules and chooses to violate the laws for his own entertainment!(end genec "logic")
Obviously I knew admiting this upfront would bring out the cries of hypocrite. I could very well have left it unsaid, but I believe in honest discourse. You taking this as an example of illogical thinking is not honest, it is picking at very fringe infringment of the law vs. the real issue of speeding being acceptable whether safe or not.
There is a reason I've speed ~5mph over and that is some moderation with general traffic flow. SL on interstate is 75mph. Pretty much all traffic flows at 85-90mph. In two lane busy traffic I end up blocking the inside lane when I am passing a slower vehicle going 65-70mph, causing blockage in flow. I drive at 75mph, but occasionally to help clear up a slowage I am causing I'll push it up to 80 temporarily if that helps the dynamics the best. Hardly entertainment.

Al

genec

03-27-07, 03:31 PM

(begin genec "logic")Aha! Another driver who thinks that he is above the rules and chooses to violate the laws for his own entertainment!(end genec "logic")

Cute... but consider your own "logic;" "It's fun, therefore I do it, damn the law or the consequences."

zeytoun

03-27-07, 03:38 PM

Peter, out of curiousity, have you ever been in an at-fault accident, or received a traffic citation of any kind?

AlmostTrick

03-27-07, 03:46 PM

(begin genec "logic")Aha! Another driver who thinks that he is above the rules and chooses to violate the laws for his own entertainment!(end genec "logic")

Haha. Even if you think Genec may go over the top a little now and then, I'd still rather have him and his "logic" driving behind me while I'm on my bike than Mr. "my lawyer is my copilot" sports car driver. :lol: :p

All other things being equal, adding speed will result in a higher chance of having a wreck or close call. If this was not so we wouldn't need speed limits anywhere.

zeytoun

03-27-07, 03:55 PM

(fair warning, watch your assumptions!)
If I was into making assumptions, I would have assumed that you have gotten more then a few speeding tickets. Instead, I asked you.

zeytoun

03-27-07, 04:08 PM

The fair warning was regarding assumptions relating to my final paragraph.
Oh, no need for assumptions there. You told the whole story. You went fast, and didn't get a ticket.

Brian

03-27-07, 06:13 PM

Wow. So hit from behind is the number one auto accident. If it is not the number one auto accident for bicyclists, then I can only deduce that is because we tend not to be directly in the path of inattentive motorists. Interesting.

Shhh. Don't let this leak out. Some people may find it hard to accept that someone can not recall seeing a car right in front of them, let alone a bicycle.

My driving and biking style are both borne from what I learned working in the insurance business. After personally getting about 400 new claims each month for 10 years, I think I have a pretty good handle on how accidents occur. And not to sound like a broken record, but speed was rarely the cause. If it was, it was combined with inattention, or alcohol, followed closely by lack of skill/experience. Oddly, Fords seemed to be involved in a disproportionate share of accidents, and the very expensive or "Sports" cars were usually hit by someone else. As long as they're sober, (nothing implied) guys that drive cars like Pete's don't generally take risks.

On another side note, I was stuck behind an inattentive driver today wearing headphones. Not little Ipod ear buds, but big, Bose, "cover your ears" style headphones. In a Civic. To quote Ralph, "Unsafe at any speed".

genec

03-27-07, 06:31 PM

As long as they're sober, (nothing implied) guys that drive cars like Pete's don't generally take risks.

You're probably right... owning and maintaining such a vehicle is costly enough... no doubt the real issue is the wannabees that think they are "Pete" but don't have the skill and experience to handle even the "Civic."

My humble apolgies to the "Petes" of the world; it is the speeding JAMs that concern me. In all honesty, I have never been buzzed by an expensive, well maintained sports car. Sadly, JAMs use lawyers too.

Of course there are wannabee "Lances" in the world that don't do the cycling community any favors either.

Helmet Head

03-27-07, 06:51 PM

and the very expensive or "Sports" cars were usually hit by someone else.
If I'm not mistaken, there is an implication here that "someone hit by someone else" did nothing wrong. If that is the intended implication, I must disagree.

Even people who are rear-ended are often at least partially responsible. For example, I know of a case where someone stopped at a yield sign, thought it was clear to continue, proceeded, then stopped again when she decided the car coming from the left was closer and/or faster than she realized at first. Moments later she was rear-ended. Turns out the driver following her had stopped behind her, saw that she went, was looking to the left at the same car coming and decided to go for it. She did not expect the car in front of her to stop again, and was inattentive to what was in front of her while she was paying attention to traffic coming from the left because she assumed the one car that was in front of her was already going. She did notice that the car in front of her had stopped, but because it was a downhill grade there was too much momentum to stop in time. The one behind was more responsible for the collision, but the one in front also was responsible to some extent for starting then stopping. I know if I did that and got rear-ended, I would blame myself.

I'm sure people who are rear-ended sometimes truly did nothing wrong, but often they are complicit. Perhaps they were going too fast for conditions and had to stop suddenly because of it, or maybe they stopped suddenly because they weren't paying attention, etc.

Another way that people who are hit are complicit is when they cut someone off.

Anyway, just because someone is hit by someone else doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong.

I believe that in all but some very rare collisions, all drivers involved are complicit to some degree.

Helmet Head

03-27-07, 06:57 PM

Of course there are wannabee "Lances" in the world that don't do the cycling community any favors either.
What kind of behavior do you believe these wannabee "Lances" engage in that causes them to not do any favors for the cycling community? And how does that behavior make one a "wannabee Lance"?

chipcom

03-27-07, 07:05 PM

genec

03-27-07, 07:15 PM

What kind of behavior do you believe these wannabee "Lances" engage in that causes them to not do any favors for the cycling community? And how does that behavior make one a "wannabee Lance"?

Oh great, now I have to defend my other premise... actually for you, this is a no brainer... Consider the lycra clad cyclists that only have speed in mind, that casually cruise through red lights and stopsigns... They are not doing any VC cyclist any favors at all.

Did I really have to paint that picture... These are the very souls you want to step up to the plate.

genec

03-27-07, 07:16 PM

I believe that in all but some very rare collisions, all drivers involved are complicit to some degree.

What, aren't motorists too responsible for their individual safety? :rolleyes:

Brian

03-27-07, 07:30 PM

If I'm not mistaken, there is an implication here that "someone hit by someone else" did nothing wrong. If that is the intended implication, I must disagree.

Disagree if you must, but you are disagreeing with a fact. Based on the thousands of claims that crossed my desk, the very expensive or "Sports" cars were usually hit by someone else. I did not see claims where the doctor's wife plowed into a Sentra in her Rolls, ($10k deductible, plus the first 20% of damages = $ouch$) or a guy in a 930 rear-ended a Buick. I did see a Ford truck back into a Mercedes, breaking both $3k HID headlights.

Some owners of expensive cars might be arrogant, but true sports car owners are not careless with their autos.

chipcom

03-27-07, 07:35 PM

Hey gang, just for fun, let's look up the definition of 'complicit' :D

com·plic·it /kəmˈplɪsɪt/
–adjective
choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act, esp. with others; having complicity.

com·plic·it (kəm-plĭs'ĭt)
adj. Associated with or participating in a questionable act or a crime; having complicity: newspapers complicit with the propaganda arm of a dictatorship.

wompwomp

03-27-07, 07:51 PM

2) My wife was in a left turn lane waiting for the signal to change. When she got her signal she was half way through the intersection when a guy (no insurance) blew through the red light and broadsided her. How was she complicit?

Soft lob: Because she married you.

Helmet Head

03-27-07, 08:06 PM

If I'm not mistaken, there is an implication here that "someone hit by someone else" did nothing wrong. If that is the intended implication, I must disagree.

Wow, now HH is an insurance investigator too! Tell us, oh wonderous one, what don't you know better than everyone else? :rolleyes:
Chip, please stop being so argumentative.

Are you seriously saying only an insurance investigator could say whether or not "someone hit by someone else" necessarily implies that he did nothing wrong?

Are you disagreeing with my point? If so, how? If not, why are you being argumentative? Is that good for the forum?