The jury is not allowed to consider a scenario that fits the facts, but is different from the one the prosecution has presented? How does one determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if not by trying to hypothesize an alternative scenario that fits the facts, but failing to do so?

They are allowed to hypothesize, but only on the facts set before them... no added speculation is allowed. If it is not in your notes, someone will call you on it and any added speculation will be thrown out by the other 11 members.

Of course the real frustrating part is that you only have the facts based on the questions the lawyers asked... in the back of your mind is that "other question" you really wanted asked. (some judges will allow the jury to pass notes to the judge for inclusion by either side... but not always) And no, this is not speculation on my part, I have been on a few juries... and I know a retired judge. Try jury duty some time if you are called... it ranges from incredibly boring to somewhat interesting.

People sitting on a jury should ideally be open-minded and without judgment until they have all of the evidence. That's when they begin deliberations after all.



Should be, but that isn't always the case. I was on a drunk driver case once where at the first vote, one woman said "guilty" simply because "well, the police arrested him." (so much for all the evidence and testimony)

Juries are made up of humans... holding judgment and being open minded is not always one of our best suits. Lawyers work to balance what they perceive are the weaknesses and strenghts of the jury in the "voir dire" process... but the lawyers perceptions are only based on a few minutes of questioning. It usually works, but not always.

The jury is not allowed to consider a scenario that fits the facts, but is different from the one the prosecution has presented? How does one determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if not by trying to hypothesize an alternative scenario that fits the facts, but failing to do so?

Why are you people still discussing this? VC couldn't/didn't save them. My take on it is that the first and possibly second cyclist were unlucky that some dumb*** pulled out in front of them. The rest were tailgating each other and crashed (their own fault).

/thread

Why are you people still discussing this? VC couldn't/didn't save them. My take on it is that the first and possibly second cyclist were unlucky that some dumb*** pulled out in front of them. The rest were tailgating each other and crashed (their own fault).

/thread
Of course VC couldn't save them - they were already riding VC - if you ignore the tailgating. I don't understand why this thread was moved to the VC subforum.

As to why we are discussing it? The same reason we discuss any scenario -- real, hypothetical, or real-enhanced-by-speculation -- to see what if anything we can learn from it.

They are allowed to hypothesize, but only on the facts set before them... no added speculation is allowed. If it is not in your notes, someone will call you on it and any added speculation will be thrown out by the other 11 members.

Right. But we're not a jury, so we can go beyond. Added speculation IS allowed here, or at least should be. Again, I'm baffled as to why there is so much resistance to it.

(I've been on two juries - one criminal, one civil)

Why are you people still discussing this? VC couldn't/didn't save them. My take on it is that the first and possibly second cyclist were unlucky that some dumb*** pulled out in front of them. The rest were tailgating each other and crashed (their own fault).

/thread

Tailgating... funny. It's called drafting. If they are in a line, it's called pacelining.

A time honored practice in cycling. You should try it sometime, it's a load of fun and the only way to get the most performance out of a bicycle. It's got its risks though, as we well can see. It's still the driver's fault for pulling out in front of the cyclists. It makes sense if you think of the peloton or paceline as a single vehicle instead of the classic loner view of a commuting cyclist.

These are easy cases. Purely the driver's fault for all 11 cyclists getting injured. Cyclists have right of way, motorist violates it; motorist's fault for the whole incident.

Now, all the speculation is about whether the cyclists could avoid this or not. It's funny, I don't think anyone has mentioned this, but if the sightlines were blocked for the driver, then the sightlines were also blocked for the cyclists to see the driver. I've personally experienced almost this exact situation, and despite being in the left tiretrack, it still required a skidding swerve to miss the car who pulled out. And this car only pulled out half way, not all the way. If he had not stopped for another cyclist, I would have gone over the hood at 40 mph.

Cycling, like driving, will never be made accident free. People make errors of judgements and downright mistakes as a rule. We can asymtotically decrease the risks to cyclists, but ultimately, the road works on a cooperative system, and sometimes that cooperation breaks down. Pullouts like this one are difficult because of the geometries involved with having an engine in the nose of the car. Think if, instead of a pack of cyclists, it were a car bearing down. The driver would be a dead man now. I'll bet he knows it too.

Oh well, back to our regularly scheduled entertainment starring HH and Pete. HH, you're as "intelligent" as ever, and Pete, well you, my man, are the king of contemptuous dialogue. You two would make for quite a skit on SNL.

and that .1%... what you are creamed? :D

Hey, I ride hard when I can, but I find that intersections are not the place for sprinting, and gauging traffic in other places also tempers my pace. For the "looong" unbroken stretches of maybe a quarter mile, I get to act like a dragster. And those unbroken stretches are few and far between.

So how exactly do you ready yourself for red light running motorists that come out blind from behind a line of SUVs/vans... or motorists that look right at you and pull out just as you are in front of them? Riding aggressively into those situations will get you flattened. Don't give me the move left noise... I do that, I also watch tires and all the rest... drivers don't aways make wise decisions when distracted, and that means you have to use caution, which is not riding flat out into harms' way.

No, I haven't gotten creamed yet. For the .1% that I'm not ready, I have to take quick evasive action, quickly followed by a volley of insults to the driver. In intersections I drive assertively, not necessarily aggresively. You have to be assertive otherwise drivers assume you are letting them do whatever they want which could be dangerous to you.

I ride with a paranoid mindset. I assume that every car that I encounter wants to kill me, I assess how that car could kill me, e.g., run the light and broadside me, turn left in front of me, slam on the brakes, etc, and then I make contingency plans for each scenario, so that I will be able to avoid the car. That includes assuming that a car is ready to fly out at me around every blind corner.

As I said, it works in 99.9% of the scenarios and I am still able to ride assertively, fast, but safely.

Sounds like my method is mentally draining and difficult but the same scenarios keep popping up over and over again and preparing for them becomes second nature. It only comes from a lot of experience, however.

Tailgating... funny. It's called drafting. If they are in a line, it's called pacelining.

A time honored practice in cycling. You should try it sometime, it's a load of fun and the only way to get the most performance out of a bicycle. It's got its risks though, as we well can see. It's still the driver's fault for pulling out in front of the cyclists. It makes sense if you think of the peloton or paceline as a single vehicle instead of the classic loner view of a commuting cyclist.

These are easy cases. Purely the driver's fault for all 11 cyclists getting injured. Cyclists have right of way, motorist violates it; motorist's fault for the whole incident.




That's the thing about cyclists having to follow the same rules as cars, they "Failed To Stop Within Assured Clear Distance Ahead". The cyclists in front have the right of way, the ones behind do not. Since the law doesn't specifically allow bicycles an exception to following too close, then doesn't it apply here? If a car pulled out in front of other cars, and a car hit it, would the other cars rear ending that car not be at fault for their rear end collisions?
What about large groups of cyclists at stop signs? If they all want to go through at the same time, instead of waiting their turn, shouldn't they get a parade permit?

If this street really has a bike lane, then it's likely the cyclists were drawn to ride in it or near it - too far to the right - especially given their speed and the absence of other fast traffic. The driver may have looked left and really didn't see them due to the obstructing parked cars if the cyclists were riding too far to their right, which almost all cyclists do.

Well, if you want to talk VC, perhaps all the bicyclists were following each other too closely. It's the responsibility of each driver to make sure that there is enough room in front of them. If these guys were truly being VC, then the motorist would have hit exactly 1 of them. ;)

Of course VC couldn't save them - they were already riding VC - if you ignore the tailgating.
Of course,:rolleyes: Everybody is always riding "VC"; except when they ain't.

Tailgating... funny. It's called drafting. If they are in a line, it's called pacelining.

A time honored practice in cycling. You should try it sometime, it's a load of fun and the only way to get the most performance out of a bicycle. It's got its risks though, as we well can see. It's still the driver's fault for pulling out in front of the cyclists. It makes sense if you think of the peloton or paceline as a single vehicle instead of the classic loner view of a commuting cyclist.

These are easy cases. Purely the driver's fault for all 11 cyclists getting injured. Cyclists have right of way, motorist violates it; motorist's fault for the whole incident.

Now, all the speculation is about whether the cyclists could avoid this or not. It's funny, I don't think anyone has mentioned this, but if the sightlines were blocked for the driver, then the sightlines were also blocked for the cyclists to see the driver. I've personally experienced almost this exact situation, and despite being in the left tiretrack, it still required a skidding swerve to miss the car who pulled out. And this car only pulled out half way, not all the way. If he had not stopped for another cyclist, I would have gone over the hood at 40 mph.

Cycling, like driving, will never be made accident free. People make errors of judgements and downright mistakes as a rule. We can asymtotically decrease the risks to cyclists, but ultimately, the road works on a cooperative system, and sometimes that cooperation breaks down. Pullouts like this one are difficult because of the geometries involved with having an engine in the nose of the car. Think if, instead of a pack of cyclists, it were a car bearing down. The driver would be a dead man now. I'll bet he knows it too.

Oh well, back to our regularly scheduled entertainment starring HH and Pete. HH, you're as "intelligent" as ever, and Pete, well you, my man, are the king of contemptuous dialogue. You two would make for quite a skit on SNL.

So if I have a NASCAR sticker on my car, it's okay to "draft" the people in front of me? Giving it another name doesn't make it okay. Aren't they riding for the exercise anyway? Racing isn't allowed by mountain bikes on trails when there is no race, it's not allowed by cars on the street.......

Of course VC couldn't save them - they were already riding VC - if you ignore the tailgating. I don't understand why this thread was moved to the VC subforum.

As to why we are discussing it? The same reason we discuss any scenario -- real, hypothetical, or real-enhanced-by-speculation -- to see what if anything we can learn from it.

And what have we learned? That HH will argue about anything and then change the argument so it can keep going. Your first argument was that they were riding too far right. Now you're saying that they were riding VC but you're still going on like a 6th grader.....mr poopy pants.

The only thing that pisses me off are folks such as my example #6 in my previous post - a mind-numbingly stupid decision on the part of another (may that be cyclist, motorist, ped, dog, God - take your pick) to the point of disbelief.

I made a little animation of that incident. Not a great animation (timing is off, and it looks more as if he began his sharp turn after I had passed - in the actual happening, it was nearly nose-to-nose), but serves the purpose. I added some of the usual cyclist humor to it:

http://www.jaysmarine.com/BIKE_animation.gif

Take care,

-Kurt

Great illustration of how "predictable" some motorists can be... I had a guy go right from a left only lane yesterday... and he had to drive around an island to do it...

Yup, just exactly the kind of stuff I am talking about... not the basic "watch the tires" crap... the extra effort to be stupid crap. Sigh!

Yeah, cyclists do it too... but let me know when cyclists start taking out whole cars... :rolleyes:

The jury is not allowed to consider a scenario that fits the facts, but is different from the one the prosecution has presented? How does one determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if not by trying to hypothesize an alternative scenario that fits the facts, but failing to do so?The prosecution either proved its case, or it didn't. The defense may have raised enough doubt about the prosecution's case that the jury won't convict. Or the prosecution's case may be so weak that the defense moves to have the case dismissed without even presenting a defense. Alternatively, the prosecution presents a strong case and the defense makes a weak defense.

Regardless of how it plays out, the jury deliberates on the evidence presented, and is only allowed to deliberate on the evidence presented. If the jury starts hypothesizing about evidence that wasn't presented-- something I'm beginning to suspect you've done in the past-- it's grounds for a mistrial.

Don't believe it? Look up Previs v. Dailey. A cyclist lost her case, but was granted an appeal and a new jury trial after a juror told the court that he was bothered by the fact that the jury had deliberated on issues not raised at trial.

How does a jury convict on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Or on liability by a preponderance of the evidence? On the strength of the cases presented.

(I've been on two juries - one criminal, one civil)That's what scares me...

That's what scares me...

:roflmao::lol:

That's the thing about cyclists having to follow the same rules as cars, they "Failed To Stop Within Assured Clear Distance Ahead". The cyclists in front have the right of way, the ones behind do not. Since the law doesn't specifically allow bicycles an exception to following too close, then doesn't it apply here? If a car pulled out in front of other cars, and a car hit it, would the other cars rear ending that car not be at fault for their rear end collisions?
What about large groups of cyclists at stop signs? If they all want to go through at the same time, instead of waiting their turn, shouldn't they get a parade permit?


You will find that most cycling 'advocacy' groups want bicycles to be treated as cars (vehicles) when it benefits them; and as bicycles (non vehicles) when it benefits them. Peloton-schmeloton! The cyclists in the front who were cut off by the car were victims of neglect, and should be fully compensated and made whole under the law. The morons 'drafting behind them' (aka tailagating) were victims of a risk they were willing to take.

roughstuff

No, I haven't gotten creamed yet. For the .1% that I'm not ready, I have to take quick evasive action, quickly followed by a volley of insults to the driver. In intersections I drive assertively, not necessarily aggresively. You have to be assertive otherwise drivers assume you are letting them do whatever they want which could be dangerous to you.

I ride with a paranoid mindset. I assume that every car that I encounter wants to kill me, I assess how that car could kill me, e.g., run the light and broadside me, turn left in front of me, slam on the brakes, etc, and then I make contingency plans for each scenario, so that I will be able to avoid the car. That includes assuming that a car is ready to fly out at me around every blind corner.

As I said, it works in 99.9% of the scenarios and I am still able to ride assertively, fast, but safely.

Sounds like my method is mentally draining and difficult but the same scenarios keep popping up over and over again and preparing for them becomes second nature. It only comes from a lot of experience, however.

I hear ya... :D

Now it seems like some here on BF might call that "Fear;" to me, it is simply "managing the situations."

We each have to do whatever it takes to manage our unique situations... there is no pat set of rules that work everywhere... other than those big blanket "keep your head on a swivel" type rules.

You know, in every post accident I have spoken to others about (the bad hospital stay type situations) it was always the guy they didn't see that got them. The one you don't have a scenario for... as they simply were not in the picture. (probably in that less than .1% group)

That's what scares me...

There were 11 others to maintain the right direction... juries usually work.

You will find that most cycling 'advocacy' groups want bicycles to be treated as cars (vehicles) when it benefits them; and as bicycles (non vehicles) when it benefits them. Peloton-schmeloton! The cyclists in the front who were cut off by the car were victims of neglect, and should be fully compensated and made whole under the law. The morons 'drafting behind them' (aka tailagating) were victims of a risk they were willing to take.

roughstuff

I kind of agree with the point, but not with tone, and almost made a similar post. I disagree as to calling the drafters morons. Most folks who draft are (or really should be) aware of the increased risks. However this increased risk is not so substantial as to be a moronic decision. It is still a relatively safe activity.

Al

I kind of agree with the point, but not with tone, and almost made a similar post. I disagree as to calling the drafters morons. Most folks who draft are (or really should be) aware of the increased risks. However this increased risk is not so substantial as to be a moronic decision. It is still a relatively safe activity.

Al


I would buy your point Al, except that from what I read drafting requires a great deal of attention to your position in th peloton and your front wheel relative to the rear wheel of the forward rider. And that diverts your attention from the roadway. That may be fine on a track or a closed circuit, which is how most bike races are conducted. But it is wholly inappropriate for cycling on a multiple use facility.

roughstuff

hahaha.

tragedy aside, I wonder if the weekend peloton HH rides with will even hear about the 'no tailgaiting' theory. will the most verbose A&S poster attempt to institute a 'no tailgaiting' rule this Saturday?

There are places where it is safe for 40 guys to ride 35 mph in a pack. But, an urban street that runs through a neighborhood full of parked cars, children playing, cars entering and leaving driveways, cars turning into intersections is not one of them.

I always thought that the "Critical M@ssh*les" were the most dangerous people in terms of hurting the image of cylists with the general public. But, guys who would ride in packs at 35 mph on urban streets are more dangerous. If a child wanders into the road, or a pet, or someone's grannie...the family would just be looking for arms and legs afterwards.

Sometimes, I see folks on bikes that make me embarrassed to own a bike.

I would buy your point Al, except that from what I read drafting requires a great deal of attention to your position in th peloton and your front wheel relative to the rear wheel of the forward rider. And that diverts your attention from the roadway. That may be fine on a track or a closed circuit, which is how most bike races are conducted. But it is wholly inappropriate for cycling on a multiple use facility.

But the reality is that by far the most common place for drafting is on shared roadways and that there are no statistics showing cyclists involved in such 'club', 'training', and 'casual racing' activities have a higher fatality rate. I will not argue one way or the other that they have a lower accident rate though.

Yes, there is more reliance on the peloton leaders to assess conditions, good leaders know this and communicate and take actions knowing they are 'towing' a long 'vehicle.' However it is also possible if further down the line to pay attention to surrounding and to the wheels ahead without substatially degrading ones awareness of the potential risks in the environment. Unfortunately not all drafters do this, experienced ones do.

Al

But the reality is that by far the most common place for drafting is on shared roadways and that there are no statistics showing cyclists involved in such 'club', 'training', and 'casual racing' activities have a higher fatality rate. I will not argue one way or the other that they have a lower accident rate though.

Yes, there is more reliance on the peloton leaders to assess conditions, good leaders know this and communicate and take actions knowing they are 'towing' a long 'vehicle.' However it is also possible if further down the line to pay attention to surrounding and to the wheels ahead without substatially degrading ones awareness of the potential risks in the environment. Unfortunately not all drafters do this, experienced ones do.

Al

If that car pulled out in front of the tour de france peleton it would be a similar result.

Regardless of the outcome or level of experience, there is no excuse for tailgating on public streets. A cop would still pull over dale earnhart for tailgating....even with a NASCAR bumper sticker.

If that car pulled out in front of the tour de france peleton it would be a similar result..

Did I or anyone else suggest otherwise?

Al

If that car pulled out in front of the tour de france peleton it would be a similar result.

Regardless of the outcome or level of experience, there is no excuse for tailgating on public streets. A cop would still pull over dale earnhart for tailgating....even with a NASCAR bumper sticker.

Which is why they close the streets for such activities...

I agree with you... the street is "not for play" as someone else said.

That said, there are roads quite suitable for this type of activity... but they tend to have long stretches of intersectionless road. And even then the occasional stray dog may still be an issue.

And what have we learned? That HH will argue about anything and then change the argument so it can keep going. Your first argument was that they were riding too far right. Now you're saying that they were riding VC but you're still going on like a 6th grader.....mr poopy pants.
You should achieve a 6th grade reading level before you accuse others of "going on like a 6th grader".

I never argued they were riding too far right, and, if they were, that wouldn't have been not VC.

What I said was that IF (do you understand the meaning of the word "IF"?) they were riding too far right, THEN riding further left may have helped.

And I argued that it was likely that they were riding too far right (do you understand the difference between arguing something IS and something IS LIKELY?)

But my main point is that the first point is valid regardless of where they were riding: In a situation with sight lines limited due to parked cars (or any other obstructions), it can be helpful to be further left, pay extra attention, and to adjust speed as appropriate.

The other thing is events like this can serve as a reminder, because it's easy to forget this kind of stuff, especially when riding in a frenzied group of fast riders near your cardio limits.

That's the kind of stuff we could be discussing and learning about if it wasn't for all the whining and complaining about speculation and some silly need to learn all the facts first. :rolleyes: Last I checked it didn't say State Farm insurance investigator on my business card. And even if it did, by duties in that regard would have no application on this forum.

Which is why they close the streets for such activities...

I agree with you... the street is "not for play" as someone else said.

That said, there are roads quite suitable for this type of activity... but they tend to have long stretches of intersectionless road. And even then the occasional stray dog may still be an issue.
Here's the thing. Without those cars parked there, this street may have very well been appropriate for that kind of actiivity too. If the sight lines were good into that apartment complex parking lot (without the parked cars there), then maybe how they were riding was reasonably safe. In fact, this was a regular route and so they were accustomed to riding there like that. The mistake was to not adjust for the curtailed sight lines caused by the (illegally?) parked cars in the bike lane.

That said, there are roads quite suitable for this type of activity... but they tend to have long stretches of intersectionless road.

Are you suggesting that the type of roads appropriate for drafting are the same type as appropriate for bike lanes? :)

Al

Here's the thing. Without those cars parked there, this street may have very well been appropriate for that kind of actiivity too. If the sight lines were good into that apartment complex parking lot (without the parked cars there), then maybe how they were riding was reasonably safe. In fact, this was a regular route and so they were accustomed to riding there like that. The mistake was to not adjust for the curtailed sight lines caused by the (illegally?) parked cars in the bike lane.

Exactly. But it was not just the cyclists who didn't adjust for new conditions, but the driver too. They were most likely accustomed to a quick glance to check for x-traffic before proceding. They may have done the quick glance, seen no moving vehicle and pulled out quickly. Habits, bad ones.

Al

True enough. But, if you want to construct hypothetical situations, start another thread for it. If you want to comment on an actual collision that happened, it's better to stick with the facts at hand.+1

Blue Order, do you realize how hypocritical you are? Look at how you yourself have constructed hypothetical situations (and good ones I might add) in the other thread on this topic:

It's an interesting issue. Were the cyclists riding over the speed limit? At 30 MPH, it's doubtful. On the other hand, were the cyclists riding in observance of the basic speed law-- not going too fast for conditions? Were the cyclists negligently riding too close together? Were the cyclists "racing" in violation of the law? Were the cyclists keeping a proper lookout?
Were they? It's doubtful? How dare you speculate like that! :rolleyes:

How is this substantively any different from the questions that I raise? Were the cyclists riding too far to the right? Were they riding too fast for the conditions?

The implication of all of these questions is the same: IF the answer is YES to any of them, then MAYBE there was something they could have done to prevent this type of crash.

More importantly, these types of speculative questions (and the implied answers) raise awareness. That's the one and only reason to even discuss these events in a safety forum. To say another thread should be started for it is missing the entire point of having these threads here in the first place.

You should achieve a 6th grade reading level before you accuse others of "going on like a 6th grader".

I never argued they were riding too far right, and, if they were, that wouldn't have been not VC.

What I said was that IF (do you understand the meaning of the word "IF"?) they were riding too far right, THEN riding further left may have helped.

And I argued that it was likely that they were riding too far right (do you understand the difference between arguing something IS and something IS LIKELY?)

But my main point is that the first point is valid regardless of where they were riding: In a situation with sight lines limited due to parked cars (or any other obstructions), it can be helpful to be further left, pay extra attention, and to adjust speed as appropriate.

The other thing is events like this can serve as a reminder, because it's easy to forget this kind of stuff, especially when riding in a frenzied group of fast riders near your cardio limits.

That's the kind of stuff we could be discussing and learning about if it wasn't for all the whining and complaining about speculation and some silly need to learn all the facts first. :rolleyes: Last I checked it didn't say State Farm insurance investigator on my business card. And even if it did, by duties in that regard would have no application on this forum.


Blah, blah, blah...

Here we go again with this IF crap and LIKELY scenarios. What the heck are you arguing about now anyway? You make up a scenario and then argue it? How about this one then: IF the riders were all blind, THEN IT IS LIKELY that one of their white canes became lodged in the spokes of a fellow rider, sending them out of control into the car.

IF HH had any common sense and a little bit of an open mind, HE WOULD LIKELY shut up and ride his bike.


This thread was amusing, but now I'm bored with no-it-alls who rarely ride a bike preaching to others about how it should be done.

Peace

Exactly. But it was not just the cyclists who didn't adjust for new conditions, but the driver too. They were most likely accustomed to a quick glance to check for x-traffic before proceding. They may have done the quick glance, seen no moving vehicle and pulled out quickly. Habits, bad ones.

Al
The driver's errors that contribute to a bike-car crash are only relevant in a cycling safety forum to the extent that discussing it raises awareness about the stupid stuff that drivers do, that we should expect it, and ride accordingly.

It's the same reason we should check for red-light runners before entering any signalled intersection on green.

Blaming the inevitable-to-encounter (sooner or later) behavior of the driver doesn't shorten the hospital stay, if you're still alive to complain.

Blah, blah, blah...

Here we go again with this IF crap and LIKELY scenarios. What the heck are you arguing about now anyway? You make up a scenario and then argue it? How about this one then: IF the riders were all blind, THEN IT IS LIKELY that one of their white canes became lodged in the spokes of a fellow rider, sending them out of control into the car.

IF HH had any common sense and a little bit of an open mind, HE WOULD LIKELY shut up and ride his bike.


This thread was amusing, but now I'm bored with no-it-alls who rarely ride a bike preaching to others about how it should be done.

Peace
Obviously, your hypothetical is practically unlikely to actually occur, and, so, is not worth discussing. That is not the case for the hypothetical scenarios I raise.

If you cannot understand and appreciate the difference, I don't understand what value you see in participating in a cycling safety forum.

The driver's errors that contribute to a bike-car crash are only relevant in a cycling safety forum to the extent that discussing it raises awareness about the stupid stuff that drivers do, that we should expect it, and ride accordingly.

It's the same reason we should check for red-light runners before entering any signalled intersection on green.

Blaming the inevitable-to-encounter (sooner or later) behavior of the driver doesn't shorten the hospital stay, if you're still alive to complain.

I wasn't so much trying to place blame as noting that us habitual humans often get into the most trouble wit sudden changes in environment (in this case parked cars where they have never been before)

That change likely affected the behaviors (or more correctly the lack of change in behaviors) for all parties involved.

If this had been the first time* this driver existed the parking lot and/or the first time* the cylists had ever been down this street, the accident may not have happened, even if the cars were parked where they were.

*yes, I am speculating, it very well may have been virgin territory for all involved.

Al

I wasn't so much trying to place blame as noting that us habitual humans often get into the most trouble wit sudden changes in environment (in this case parked cars where they have never been before)

That change likely affected the behaviors (or more correctly the lack of change in behaviors) for all parties involved.

If this had been the first time this driver existed the parking lot and/or the first time the cylists had ever been down this street, the accident may not have happened, even if the cars were parked where they were.

Al

Excellent point. I couldn't agree more.

But, of course, that's just constructing hypothetical situations based on pure speculation. According to Bike Monkey, Allister and Blue Order, you should have started a separate thread to say that. "It's better to stick with the facts at hand." :rolleyes:


True enough. But, if you want to construct hypothetical situations, start another thread for it. If you want to comment on an actual collision that happened, it's better to stick with the facts at hand.+1


...
Here we go again with this IF crap and LIKELY scenarios. What the heck are you arguing about now anyway? You make up a scenario and then argue it?

But, of course, that's just pure speculation. According to Allister and Blue Order, you should have started a separate thread to say that. :rolleyes:

Funny, just as you were commenting, I was editing my post to add the disclaimer you can now see above, to avoid that rat-trap. Gotta step carefully here in BFs.

Al

Blue Order, do you realize how hypocritical you are? Look at how you yourself have constructed hypothetical situations (and good ones I might add) in the other thread on this topic:


Were they? It's doubtful? How dare you speculate like that! :rolleyes:I raised questions about the accident that any insurance company lawyer will also raise. I did not do what you-- I did not use "logic and reason" to "prove" my favorite hypothetical scenario, which just so happens to support my cyclo-political© agenda.

I raised questions about the accident that any insurance company lawyer will also raise. I did not do what you-- I did not use "logic and reason" to "prove" my favorite hypothetical scenario, which just so happens to support my cyclo-political© agenda.
You're splitting hairs, buddy.

You just don't like the implications of my questions.

Were they? It's doubtful? How dare you speculate like that! :rolleyes:Is the speed limit on a 4 lane road less than 30 MPH? I doubt it.

But will I argue the point as the virtual equivalent of fact, based on "logic and reason"? No. I'll ask to see the posted speed limit for proof of what the speed limit is.

Obviously, your hypothetical is practically unlikely to actually occur, and, so, is not worth discussing. That is not the case for the hypothetical scenarios I raise.

If you cannot understand and appreciate the difference, I don't understand what value you see in participating in a cycling safety forum.

I still haven't figured out what you contribute to this forum. But it is pretty easy to get you fired up:rolleyes:

I've put in my 2 cents....and you've added your $203948209384029384092834 in monopoly money, FWIW.

Maybe one day when you are old and tired of arguing, you'll enjoy cycling like the rest of us:p

You're splitting hairs, buddy.

You just don't like the implications of my questions.:lol:

Somebody else suggested the point. I acknowledged that it raised interesting questions, and I listed some of the questions raised. That is not even close to the same thing as your wild flights of fancy in support of a cyclo-political© agenda.

:lol:

Somebody else suggested the point. I acknowledged that it raised interesting questions, and I listed some of the questions raised. That is not even close to the same thing as your wild flights of fancy in support of a cyclo-political© agenda.
What you imagine to be the motivations for you asking your speculative questions and me asking mine is irrelevant to determining whether they are appropriate and relevant or not.

Content, focus on content, objectively, not on personalities or perceived motivations.

Edit: If Michael Moore raises questions about the practices of a health insurance company, his pro-single-payer motivations are irrelevant. What's relevant is whether his question raises valid issues or not.

What you imagine to be the motivations for you asking your speculative questions and me asking mine is irrelevant to determining whether they are appropriate and relevant or not.

Content, focus on content, objectively, not on personalities or perceived motivations.OK, your content is usually nothing more than wild flights of fancy. :lol:

Is the speed limit on a 4 lane road less than 30 MPH? I doubt it.

But will I argue the point as the virtual equivalent of fact, based on "logic and reason"? No. I'll ask to see the posted speed limit for proof of what the speed limit is.
Regardless of what the speed limit is, they may still have been going too fast given the (sight line obstructing) conditions.

There is a TV video with interviews with some of the witnesses, and some of the folks who live in the neighborhood that is being victimized by these arrogant "pretend racer" jerks:


http://video.nbc6.net/player/?id=149887#videoid=149887

Regardless of what the speed limit is, they may still have been going too fast given the (sight line obstructing) conditions.One of the questions I raised-- without offering "proof" that they were riding too fast for conditions using "logic and reason."

Now, if I had more facts about the road conditions, I could offer proof of something-- that is, after all, what prosecutors do when they prosecute a case. But the emphasis is on having the relevant facts. What were the road conditions? What were the circumstances of the accident? What is the relevant law? What legal conclusions can be drawn from that set of facts? That's what prosecutors and defense attorneys both engage in. What they don't engage in is wild flights of fancy based on an extremely limited set of facts with most of the variables unknown.

Are you suggesting that the type of roads appropriate for drafting are the same type as appropriate for bike lanes? :)

Al

Let's just say long intersectionless roads are the best type of roads for cycling, and leave it at that. :)

There is a TV video with interviews with some of the witnesses, and some of the folks who live in the neighborhood that is being victimized by these arrogant "pretend racer" jerks:


http://video.nbc6.net/player/?id=149887#videoid=149887

Verses the "pretend NASCAR jerks... ?" :rolleyes: