Angry driver takes out 50 riders

[JusticeZero]

Interesting, since I am not a roadie; i'm a commuter who rides the three cycles listed in my sig below. None, you will note, have anything vaguely resembling drop bars. I'm saying that it's pretty damned pathetic to blame someone for being intentionally hit by a car.

[stevegor]

Roadie Zealots are a real piece of work when defending race day type activities in traffic on public roads, no matter what the results.

True, and as much as I don't like to admit it, your opinion does have merit, however, the peleton I ride with are law abiding, (even if you don't think they should ride so close to each other), well behaved and courteous and we only ride at race pace when clear of the city on quiet roads. If any rider behaves poorly they are rebuked strongly and told to ride elsewhere if they don't like it.

I think the whole point of the OP's thoughts are that the accident would not have happened if the car driver was not intentionally trying to cause it, believe me, here in Australia as not doubt in the USA, some drivers will single out solo riders as well and try to run them off the road even when there is clear road ahead for them to safely pass. It is an indescrible hatred for cyclists that has no valid basis, or by incorrectly judging the few bad riders as an example of what the rest of us do.

[starkmojo]

you know i think the first rule of driving is not to injure others. It sounds like weather this guy is lying (as I believe) or not, he acted in a way that through malice or negligence caused the injury of others. I am a car diver as well as cyclist, and if my car had stalled in front of a anyone else (bike or car) i would have put on my hazards and slowly come to a stop while getting completely off the road.

[littlewaywelt]

False. The proximal cause was an intentionally dangerous act by the driver. You and commuterflee should start a club

No that's the root cause. The proximal cause of the injuries and wrecks for each rider beyond those in front was not having enough space to avoid crashing into the bike in front.

[littlewaywelt]

When in a group/paceline one also keeps an eye on the road ahead. When riding the key things to look for are not just real hazards, but also more pro actively potential hazards: an intersection, pedestrians on sidewalk, a car passing, etc - those are clues to slow down and/or increase space ahead or move out of line because the potential hazard may become a real one. With clean pavement ahead, no signals from riders ahead and no intersections ahead and a driver passing in adjacent lane there would be no reason to increase following distance or slow down as there would be no potential non-intentional hazards beyond the riders ahead of you.

Al

I've spent my fair share of time in groups and pacelines. I think it's almost/nearly impossible to be aware of what's happening in front. You're eying the near riders for signs that they pass back regarding hazards ahead. When you're front wheel is 6-12 inches from the rider in front of you, you just can't see around the other riders around you.

[st0ut]

What if I where to shoot at a car but aimed for the mirror. I hit the mirror. using some of the logic here I am not legally responcible for either attmemptd murder, or any of the consequenes for the resulting crashes.

[noisebeam]

I've spent my fair share of time in groups and pacelines. I think it's almost/nearly impossible to be aware of what's happening in front. You're eying the near riders for signs that they pass back regarding hazards ahead. When you're front wheel is 6-12 inches from the rider in front of you, you just can't see around the other riders around you.

Thats very different than how I ride in a pace line. I watch the road (not meaning the pavement, but potential hazards like intersections) ahead, by looking around the riders and monitor my wheel-wheel distance in peripheral vision, keeping that following distance is more of a sub-conscious activity. Signals from riders ahead are primarily for debris that is within +/- a foot of the line that are blocked by the riders ahead. Other rider to rider signals are for getting off the front, turning or for slowing/stopping when road situation normally doesn't call for it. Of course other rider signals are used to supplement road signs, but these are always visible if one doesn't fixate on the wheel ahead.

I've never been in a pace line when I could not tell if there was a vehicle ahead or approaching an intersection. Cyclist are not that wide.

Anyway that is not the point. If the lead riders were approaching a typical hazard that could result in sudden slowing or swerving they would have slowed, adjusted lane position, signaled to drivers behind, or yelled, etc - all apparent to following riders even if they were not watching the road ahead.

Al

[littlewaywelt]

Thats very different than how I ride in a pace line. I watch the road (not meaning the pavement, but potential hazards like intersections) ahead, by looking around the riders and monitor my wheel-wheel distance in peripheral vision, keeping that following distance is more of a sub-conscious activity. Signals from riders ahead are primarily for debris that is within +/- a foot of the line that are blocked by the riders ahead. Other rider to rider signals are for getting off the front, turning or for slowing/stopping when road situation normally doesn't call for it. Of course other rider signals are used to supplement road signs, but these are always visible if one doesn't fixate on the wheel ahead.

I've never been in a pace line when I could not tell if there was a vehicle ahead or approaching an intersection. Cyclist are not that wide.

Anyway that is not the point. If the lead riders were approaching a typical hazard that could result in sudden slowing or swerving they would have slowed, adjusted lane position, signaled to drivers behind, or yelled, etc - all apparent to following riders even if they were not watching the road ahead.

Al

My post wasn't clear. I meant that it's impossible for riders in the pack to see what's going on in the front. That's my experience unless you're in a single paceline. I look for hand signals, but that's about all I can see in a large group. I agree that in a single paceline it's easy to see what's going on up front. In a group of 50+ riders like the one in the accident, though, it is much harder if not impossible to see what's going on up front.

[littlewaywelt]

What if I where to shoot at a car but aimed for the mirror. I hit the mirror. using some of the logic here I am not legally responcible for either attmemptd murder, or any of the consequenes for the resulting crashes.

First, if you shoot at a car, aiming at the mirror, it's not attempted murder because you aren't intending to shoot someone. You could be charged with a multitude of other crimes, however. Second, yes, cars are required to maintain a safe distance allowing for emergency maneuvers so they don't hit the car in front. The problem is that no one does this anymore. When was the last time you maintained 6-7 vehicle spaces in between the car in front of you on the highway?


The law regarding rear end collisions for vehicles makes logical sense and is the closest thing that can be applied here.

There have been many similar circumstances where a van, loaded up with soon-to-be "injurred" ppl will pull in front of another car and hit the brakes (later claiming that they were avoiding an obstacle or animal). While the initial or first car to hit the van can sometimes prove what happened and will then not be held responsible, any subsequent rear endings are going to be the responsibility of the vehicles rear ending the car directly in front of it. You have to maintain a safe distance.

[DCCommuter]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the driver is not criminally responsible for the accident. There is a question, however, whether the cyclists contributed to the severity of the accident through their negligent operation, which could cause a court to find them partially responsible for any monetary damages in this case.

Some states have laws regulating vehicles traveling in processions. For instance, here is what Delaware law says :

Vehicles being driven upon any roadway outside of a business or residence district in a caravan or motorcade, whether or not towing other vehicles, shall be so operated as to allow sufficient space between each such vehicle or combination of vehicles so as to enable any other vehicle to enter and occupy such space without danger. This provision shall not apply to funeral processions.


(I chose Delaware because it was the first example I could find.)

In a jurisdiction with such a law, a paceline would be illegal. In certain parts of the US, contributory negligence is an absolute defense and a defendant who has contributed to his injuries through his own negligence is unable to collect anything. In a jurisdiction where pacelines are illegal and contributory negligence is the legal doctrine, the defendants in this case would be unable to collect anything. (I don't know if any such jurisdictions exist).

There is no doctrine of contributory negligence for criminal acts.

From an advocacy perspective a paceline on a public road is very difficult to defend.

[st0ut]

Right i dont thank anyus disagree on the fact that the cyclist where too close to each other...
I think the MAIN difference is the balence of blame Some of US (myself included) think that 99.9 % of the blame and liability falls on the agresive driver. while others tend to lay blame and liability equally or more so on the cycelist.

[noisebeam]

Right i dont thank anyus disagree on the fact that the cyclist where too close to each other...

I disagree. They were not too close to each other for the current* road and traffic conditions and the understood risks of others in the pack causing an accident.

*Assuming multi-lane road with clean pavement and not approaching an intersection of any kind.

Al

[Hair]

The driver did it on purpose. Unless you were there, you cannot say the cyclists wuld have had time to stop if they had been paying attention. How much room did the driver leave before slamming on the brakes? Probably not much since the intent was to cause harm (or at least fear). It's the driver's fault, plain and simple. Attempted murder. Should get life in prison. Doesn't matter if they tried to brake-check a car, a bicycle, or a pedistrian. When you stop quickly to cause a collision or fear, you are responsible for the result.

If someone shoots a gun at you, it isn't your fault if you get hit just because you weren't paying enough attention and didn't dodge the bullet in time.

[littlewaywelt]

The driver did it on purpose. Unless you were there, you cannot say the cyclists wuld have had time to stop if they had been paying attention. How much room did the driver leave before slamming on the brakes? Probably not much since the intent was to cause harm (or at least fear). It's the driver's fault, plain and simple. Attempted murder. Should get life in prison. Doesn't matter if they tried to brake-check a car, a bicycle, or a pedistrian. When you stop quickly to cause a collision or fear, you are responsible for the result.

If someone shoots a gun at you, it isn't your fault if you get hit just because you weren't paying enough attention and didn't dodge the bullet in time.

Pay attention and re-read the comments more carefully. No one is saying that the riders at the very front of the pack are responsible. The vehicle passed in front and then hit it's brakes. We're saying the riders behind them are responsible for their injuries. Bikes, like cars are vehicles under the law, and vehicles must maintain an adequate safety distance between them precisely to avoid this type of thing. What precipitates the original wreck up front is irrelevant to the pile up. If the bikes were maintaining a safe distance between themselves, they wouldn't have smashed into each other and only the riders up front would have been injured.

Unless he intended to kill them it's not attempted murder. He was probably trying to teach them a lesson/maybe make them crash, and that's not the same thing. Not even close.

[dwightonabike]

Some people on this forum seem to believe that their preferred method of riding a bicycle is the only acceptable and safe method. I'm inclined to believe that these same people are VC zealots.

Contributory negligence only applies when both parties are negligent. If the cyclists were negligent - and I don't necessarily think they were - it doesn't matter. The attacking driver was not being negligent, with failing brakes or something of the sort. If so, then all the parties would share negligence, and you could sit here and preach about how other people are not good riders like you are. As the situation is described, the cyclists alleged negligence is nothing in court compared to the drivers criminal intent.

I know its easy to get distracted by the pretty bikes and bright colors, but competitive cyclists deserve to not get killed on the road, too. It seems from some comments that there there are people that seem to beleive that these cyclists got what they deserved.

Spreading out 50 cyclists with 4 seconds lag time between each at 20 mph spreads the riders out over 6000 feet. More than a mile. A whole mile where they're legally allowed to take the lane. Is that safer than grouping together for visibility and motorist convenience? It also allows the pack to travel at a faster rate, so there is not as much speed disparity between bikes and cars, and the pack will travel out of busy areas faster.

I think it is fair to debate if this type of riding is safer than spreading out. Regardless, this is the only option available for those who wish to train to race. NASCAR analogies just show how hostile you are towards road cyclists. You wish to impose a restriction on them that would eliminate amature participation in the sport. You might not road cyclists very much, but they deserve your support, too.

Or is the revenue from pure cyclists like commuters enough to keep your LBS open and keep the technological improvements coming?

[noisebeam]

P Bikes, like cars are vehicles under the law, and vehicles must maintain an adequate safety distance between them precisely to avoid this type of thing. What precipitates the original wreck up front is irrelevant to the pile up.
What caused the initial wreck is very relevant. One can anticipate and prepare for the potential actions of another driver or pedestrian unless those actions are made with the intent to cause harm.

Al

[bkrownd]

I have nothing but contempt for anyone who shows up in this thread and tries to argue that the predator who intentionally hit a cycle group with their car is somehow less than 100% responsible for the FULL consequenses of their intentionally violent act, just because of how close the cyclists were riding together. If this were an accident it would be a different story, but this was a violent act intended to harm to ALL of them as a group. Whether or not they should ride in groups on this or any road is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the fact that they were all attacked by a road rager intent on causing potentially FATAL harm. It doesn't matter if you call it "murder", "manslaughter" or whatnot, dead is dead. Maimed is maimed. Violence is violence. There is no lesser degree of harm because of words or technicalities. You people should be ashamed of yourselves!

[damnable]

I disagree. They were not too close to each other for the current* road and traffic conditions and the understood risks of others in the pack causing an accident.

*Assuming multi-lane road with clean pavement and not approaching an intersection of any kind.

Al

The main reason for the laws of safe distance is because conditions can change, and change suddenly. eg. dog, child run onto a road, a load suddenly comes off a car, someone throws something out a window, the possibilities are pretty much endless.

[noisebeam]

The main reason for the laws of safe distance is because conditions can change, and change suddenly. eg. dog, child run onto a road, a load suddenly comes off a car, someone throws something out a window, the possibilities are pretty much endless.

If those happen and the cyclist were not prepared, then they were not watching for changing conditions and then if the rear rider crash into the front, the rear are responsible.

For example if in an area where there are children adjacent to road or if it is even a potential even if children can not be seen (a school zone for example), slow down move away from road edge, increase following distance - then when one runs into road one will be prepared.

But if every time one sees another vehicle one can not reasonably be prepared in anticipation of it's driver using it to intentionally inflict harm.

Al

[I-Like-To-Bike]

If those happen and the cyclist were not prepared, then they were not watching for changing conditions and then if the rear rider crash into the front, the rear are responsible.

For example if in an area where there are children adjacent to road or if it is even a potential even if children can not be seen (a school zone for example), slow down move away from road edge, increase following distance - then when one runs into road one will be prepared.

But if every time one sees another vehicle one can not reasonably be prepared in anticipation of it's driver using it to intentionally inflict harm.

Al

Do you think it is responsible for a group of motorists to practice NASCAR style high speed drafting of each other on limited access roads where there is no 'reasonable " expectation for problems to occur?

[noisebeam]

Do you think it is responsible for a group of motorists to practice NASCAR style high speed drafting of each other on limited access roads where there is no 'reasonable " expectation for problems to occur?

I think it would be perfectly reasonable for drivers to do such at or below posted speeds on a near empty or empty multilane freeway - assuming too that the lead driver can communicate any potential hazards ahead in real time to the following drivers. If a non-associated driver passed them while they were doing such and suddenly merged in front and slammed on the brakes, then that driver is should be responsible for all resulting collisions as they were well aware of the close following going on and result their actions would have. However if a coyote ran in front of lead driver and the lead one slammed on brakes, every driver that crashed into the one in front of them is responsible.

Al

[genec]

Do you think it is responsible for a group of motorists to practice NASCAR style high speed drafting of each other on limited access roads where there is no 'reasonable " expectation for problems to occur?

Since the Long Beach Grand Prix (http://www.gplb.com/) takes place under the very conditions you mention... the answer is yes.

But it really comes down to the fact that motorists can cause much more physical harm than cyclists.

Comparing the results of 50 cyclists and their 200 pounds each on two wheels to a group of motorists with their 2000+ pounds and several hundred horsepower each on four wheels is very much an apple to oranges comparison.

Cyclists in a large pack increase their visibility and thus make the group more visible to motorists who tend to look only for other motorists. Motorists have no need for pack formations to make themselves more visible.

While I do tend to think that cyclists riding in pelotons are at risk, in such examples such as this... when riding in city... I also feel that trying to compare the physics of human powered vehicles to fuel powered vehicles, many times the weight of a bicycle, is an exercise in ridiculousness.

Consider this as the ultimate example... can a single pedestrian strike a group of racing motorcars and cause them to crash in heap? A single pedestrian CAN do that to a peloton of cyclists... as witnessed in TDF a couple years ago when a bag caught Lance Armstrong and tumbled the field of cyclists.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Since the Long Beach Grand Prix (http://www.gplb.com/) takes place under the very conditions you mention... the answer is yes.
I expect to hear no more rants from you about speed limits and the speeds of motor vehicles on the highway; after all how can any driver train for (or make pretend that they are) driving in the Long Beach Grand Prix with such restrictions?


A single pedestrian CAN do that to a peloton of cyclists... as witnessed in TDF a couple years ago when a bag caught Lance Armstrong and tumbled the field of cyclists.

If I recall the TDF incident, only Lance and maybe one other cyclist fell because the others were not in a peloton at the time Lance got tangled up with the spectator's bag. The other cyclists had enough space to avoid the fallen cyclists ahead of them

[Jono L]

Roadie Zealots are a real piece of work when defending race day type activities in traffic on public roads, no matter what the results.

It's funny how these zealots you speak of never cause any trouble until some swerves in front of them and slams on the brakes.

When riding in a bunch you accept that you may crash due to the error of other riders, but you don't accept some idiot in a car trying to take you out.

Now please, leave this thread, go eat some lentils and ride your recumbant somewhere.

[CaseLawZ28]

There is some brilliant misapplication of the common law of negligence here. Just because you see someone being negligent all by themself (for sake of argument, assume the cyclists in the paceline are negligent for following each other closely) does not give you carte blanche to act in any way you chose and abscond yourself of liability (i.e. driver swerving in front of the group and only being liable for the first 2 or 4 riders). The driver would have been well aware of the group of ~50 and the manner in which they were riding (following each other in the way they were). Your own act is an act of negligence (the driver here was reasonably aware of the danger created), and arguably here crossed over into an intentional tort (intent does not mean intend to cause the exact consequence that occured).

Although depending on the jurisdiction, doctrines of comparitive negligence and contributory negligence may apply.

[genec]

I expect to hear no more rants from you about speed limits and the speeds of motor vehicles on the highway; after all how can any driver train for (or make pretend that they are) driving in the Long Beach Grand Prix with such restrictions?

Hey as long as they do it on limited access roadways... as you mentioned... fine. It is the "training" on public roads, that are far from limited access, that bothers me.



If I recall the TDF incident, only Lance and maybe one other cyclist fell because the others were not in a peloton at the time Lance got tangled up with the spectator's bag. The other cyclists had enough space to avoid the fallen cyclists ahead of them

But my point is still made... a pedestrian can bring down a cyclist, but not hardly a racing car.

Thus comparing the two types of vehicles in race mode is hardly a fair or realistic comparison.

[Hickeydog]

I would love to be judge, jury, and executioner on cases like these....

[CommuterRun]

I have nothing but contempt for anyone who shows up in this thread and tries to argue that the predator who intentionally hit a cycle group with their car is somehow less than 100% responsible for the FULL consequenses of their intentionally violent act, just because of how close the cyclists were riding together. If this were an accident it would be a different story, but this was a violent act intended to harm to ALL of them as a group. Whether or not they should ride in groups on this or any road is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the fact that they were all attacked by a road rager intent on causing potentially FATAL harm. It doesn't matter if you call it "murder", "manslaughter" or whatnot, dead is dead. Maimed is maimed. Violence is violence. There is no lesser degree of harm because of words or technicalities. You people should be ashamed of yourselves!

You would be right if the driver had struck the cyclists from the rear.

[bkrownd]

You would be right if the driver had struck the cyclists from the rear.

Uh? You think there's an "OK" direction to strike someone with an automobile? :notamused:

[st0ut]

Commuter i think you are just simply wrong in this case.

[CommuterRun]

Uh? You think there's an "OK" direction to strike someone with an automobile? :notamused:

Of course not. However, once again, the driver did not strike the cyclists behind the first few. How could he? He was stopped. The cyclists behind the first few ran into those in front of them.

Commuter i think you are just simply wrong in this case.

Wouldn't be the first time. I'd like to see how this ends in the courtroom.

[cudak888]

Now that everyone has had their expert rant on who caused what, when, how, and why - have there been any updates as to the disposition of this case, the motorist, and the cyclists?

-Kurt

[bkrownd]

Of course not. However, once again, the driver did not strike the cyclists behind the first few. How could he? He was stopped. The cyclists behind the first few ran into those in front of them.


His intention was to hit them as a group. That's the ONLY thing that matters!

[CommuterRun]

His intention was to hit them as a group. That's the ONLY thing that matters!

Oh, so now you've read his mind?

I see. Well that certainly throws a whole new light on things.

Even if that were true, he wouldn't have been able to get more than the first few if the cyclists had maintained a safe following distance between vehicles.

[CaseLawZ28]

Oh, so now you've read his mind?

I see. Well that certainly throws a whole new light on things.

Even if that were true, he wouldn't have been able to get more than the first few if the cyclists had maintained a safe following distance between vehicles.

You have no clue as to which you speak...unless Australia has some obscure form of common law negligence that somehow deviated from its relationship with England.

[st0ut]

from LIVE News Austrialia


A man has been charged over last week’s mass cyclist crash near Mascot.
A 34-year-old Claymore man has been charged with failing to stop after the cyclist pile up on Southern Cross Drive last Thursday morning.
The group of bike riders including Olympian Ben Kersten, claim the driver of a Ford Falcon sped past them and then jammed on its brakes, causing the cyclists to collide with each other.
It’s alleged the driver failed to give particulars, he appears in Waverley local court on the failing to stop charge next month.
His car has already been examined in relation to the incident, investigations are continuing.

There is another report on the 12th the man went missing as well.

At the very least i think is insurance is going to have the pay the damages if he is found guilty.

[st0ut]

CommuterRun also i found out a another little tidbit of information.....

after he attempted to harrass the rear of the pack... as he was passing he then swerved into the pack then he swerved into the frount of the pack and hard stopped.

so it appears that not all the wreckes where caused by the hard braking and that a few might have been when he attempted to side swipe the pack as well.

[Kerlenbach]

Despite all the smoke, there are some good things being discussed here. Let me clarify some things: First, from a criminal perspective (at least under US law in most places - I don't know Austrailian law, but I will assume it is similar), this guy is clearly guilty of leaving the scene of an accident, and probably an aggravated battery / aggravated assault-type crime. It's his civil liability that is more interesting. Assumnig he intentionally stopped short in front of the peleton, it is a very different situation than if he negligently stopped his car. If he negligently stopped (say, for example, the car stalled and he pulled over in front of the group without looking), then the comparative negligence arguments made in this thread would apply. If he was negligent, then the negligence (if any) of the riders riding "too close" to the others could result in a reduced jury verdict for them. I think it's a very good law school question whether the riders' acts in riding in a standard peleton or paceline would constitute comparative neglgence. From my own experience as a cyclist, driver, and from watching juries, my guess is that there would be a finding of some comparative neglgience on the part of the riders (~25%).

The issue is different, however, if the driver's actions in stopping short were found to be intentional. Comparative negligence does not apply to reduce liability for an intentional tort, so whether the cyclists were riding too close to each other would not matter. There would be a foreseeability issue (whether it is foreseeable that intentionally stopping short in front of the group would cause injury to someone in the back), and each injured person's claim would be anaylzed somewhat differently as a result. In an intentional tort, the defendant is liable for all damages (including possibly punitive damages) that are reasonably foreseeable.

[soze]

BTW an article about this incident is about to hit the Fark.com mainpage at 9pm EDT, so if you feel like working out some stress by internet-yelling at retards tonight's your night.

[wagathon]

If I were the judge, I'd give the dude twenty years. Too harsh? Obviously ... I don't thinks so but then ... I'm not a judge; just another potential victim.

[st0ut]

the comments on fark are frightening. This BEST thing about them is they are all talk and no action. But this is pushing me more and more to take more aggresive action politically.....

do cyclist have a PETA type orginization?

[J A Holman]

CummuterFlee's point is that if the professional & amateur racing cyclists would simply take their cues from CommuterFlee and live in fear that it would have been a better situation for them.

Instead of training on the road, riding legally and in a coordinated manner, they should just ASSUME that someone will eventually get angry and intentionally try to harm them with a motor vehicle.

In CommuterFlees mind everything was avoidable if the 50 rider pack would have just strung itself out, 2-3 vehicles lengths apart from one another. The resulting mile long line of riders would anger less civilized drivers even more, but at least the out of control road rage driver would only be able to bring harm to one rider at a time.

Living in fear, the CommuterFlee way, for a better tomorrow

[st0ut]

bTW i thought of SEVERAl other racing spor that where the traing is held in normal traffic.

1. Yahting. (Sailboat racing). This sport while the races are performed on courses that are setup and approved by the US Coast guard (in the USA). the practice sessions are executed in open water. and all navigaiontional responcibility are placed on the captain of that particular vessel. If you have never attempted to navigate a busy harbor froma ship with a bunch of sailboats this is EXACTLY the same circumstance.

2. Powerboat Racing. See above.

3. Cross Country running. the prctice is excueinted on public trails and sidewalks.

4. Air plane racing. (if anyone is apilot your insight is appreciated)

So basically the ONLY forms of racing with vehicles that are cordined off from the general public spaces are Auto and motorcycle racing.

[Catweazle]

So basically the ONLY forms of racing with vehicles that are cordined off from the general public spaces are Auto and motorcycle racing.

Because the roads and streets, amidst commuter traffic, are not an appropriate place?

[genec]

bTW i thought of SEVERAl other racing spor that where the traing is held in normal traffic.

1. Yahting. (Sailboat racing). This sport while the races are performed on courses that are setup and approved by the US Coast guard (in the USA). the practice sessions are executed in open water. and all navigaiontional responcibility are placed on the captain of that particular vessel. If you have never attempted to navigate a busy harbor froma ship with a bunch of sailboats this is EXACTLY the same circumstance.

2. Powerboat Racing. See above.

3. Cross Country running. the prctice is excueinted on public trails and sidewalks.

4. Air plane racing. (if anyone is apilot your insight is appreciated)

So basically the ONLY forms of racing with vehicles that are cordined off from the general public spaces are Auto and motorcycle racing.

Be careful with your references to boat racing and in particular sail racing... there are a whole host of rules that have to be followed by sail racers, including Rule 9 which means that boats restricted in draft have ROW in a narrow seaway.

Otherwise, sailboats under sail have ROW over just about any other craft out there... (smaller kayaks excepted).

[st0ut]

Be careful with your references to boat racing and in particular sail racing... there are a whole host of rules that have to be followed by sail racers, including Rule 9 which means that boats restricted in draft have ROW in a narrow seaway.

Otherwise, sailboats under sail have ROW over just about any other craft out there... (smaller kayaks excepted).

You are correct that is why events like local races are out of shipping channel and bike races are on closed roads. however practice is held in open water as bikes are held on open road.

Having said that. a vessel that is restricted in draft may not implicently ram a smaller slower vessel, or deliberatly introduce a haard to navigation.



Bottom line is that not all professional / amature sports are restricted feilds and courses that are only designed for those sporting events.

[genec]

You are correct that is why events like local races are out of shipping channel and bike races are on closed roads. however practice is held in open water as bikes are held on open road.

Having said that. a vessel that is restricted in draft may not implicently ram a smaller slower vessel, or deliberatly introduce a haard to navigation.



Bottom line is that not all professional / amature sports are restricted feilds and courses that are only designed for those sporting events.

Even that situation of open water practice still has to adhere to ColRegs.

Frankly I have mixed feelings about this pace line stuff in the city... But then I have very strong feelings about idiots that can't use other available lanes for their motoring, nor drive in a safe manner.

[Houston]

The issue is different, however, if the driver's actions in stopping short were found to be intentional. Comparative negligence does not apply to reduce liability for an intentional tort. In an intentional tort, the defendant is liable for all damages (including possibly punitive damages) that are reasonably foreseeable.

Kerlenbach, you seem to have a handle on this law thing. You mention damages and punitive damages. If this had happened in the US what about Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Hate Crimes (torts resulting from road rage has been interpreted as such), or Assault with Intent to Kill or Maim? Couldn't this be interpretted as a felony?

[st0ut]

Even that situation of open water practice still has to adhere to ColRegs.

Frankly I have mixed feelings about this pace line stuff in the city... But then I have very strong feelings about idiots that can't use other available lanes for their motoring, nor drive in a safe manner.


That point is really moot. this is a case where people have said that in competitive sports cycling is alone in practicing intermixed with non competitive traffic.
This simply isnt the case.

[woodduck]

After 6 pages sure it's off topic a bit.

but was anyone actually there?

Lots of opinions about what happened.

Only people who know what happened were the ones riding who saw the car and the driver and his passenger.

I feel he did it on purpose. There actually is a full car width break down lane on that road also, he only pulled in front (about 2-3 car lengths) of the cyclist riding in lane 1.

Why not go to the break down lane?

Why the sudden "jumping" on the brakes? When a engine stalls the wheels do not suddenly stop spinning.

Why take off after being riden into? I'm sure he would not pull that close in front of other traffic and if another car hit his (actaully his mothers car, borrowed while she was away) he would want some details, insurance or what not to get the car reparied if it needed it.

Why were they laughing while being confronted by the cyclists, then speed off again?

this thing really drives me nuts.

EDIT: did I mention that he is a bouncer (doorman) in the red light district of Sydney, on his way home from work with a young woman passenger. Imagine standing out there all night in the cold (around 7-8c this time of year) then being held up by a bunch of cyclists on the way home.