Old 11-17-09, 01:35 PM
  #10  
Digital_Cowboy
Senior Member
 
Digital_Cowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352

Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by mikeshoup
Not enough details given in the article. Details like the intersection's configuration and where the cyclist was with respect to the van are all important. I'm going to give the police benefit of the doubt. It very well could have been a situation the cyclist was supposed to yield ROW and failed to.

Unrelated. That argument goes many ways. Nelson would not have been hit had he not been riding in the first place. Its important to keep the traffic infractions separate.

Suppose Nelson survived without injuries and damaged Hearnes' van. Also, suppose Nelson was determined to be at fault. Is Nelson simply excused from any criminal or civil charges simply because Hearnes wasn't driving with a valid license? Would we consider it the same if Nelson was driving a car instead of riding a bicycle?
Exactly, and doesn't the fact that the crash was described as being head-on imply that they were both on the same road in opposite directions? And not one turning from one to the other.

I don't necessarily agree. The driver had a suspended license, and as such shouldn't have been driving. Had he not be driving while having a suspended license then he never would have been on the road and he never would have hit Nelson.
Digital_Cowboy is offline