Originally Posted by
oronzous
That is YOUR logic. I'm pretty sure that if you remove reflectors from ninja's bikes, they won't go and buy lights.
Some of the ninja's are going to ride dark no matter what...you just can't cure stupid. But without reflectors, many of the (unintentional) ninjas would probably not ride at night. Self preservation kicks in at some point.
Originally Posted by
01 CAt Man Do
Well I read over some of the clips from the transcripts. There is so much BS in those clips that if I was setting in the jury I would be thinking the whole time, "This is such BS. The guy ( on the bike ) ran into a car making a bad turn. If you're going to sue someone you sue the people responsible for causing the accident". Yes, I agree with you, Mr. Johnson could have sued the CSPC. However if they did that they probably would have lost. That's because government agencies can afford to hire expensive lawyers who would undoubtedly spend tons of our money to Cover their ...butts
Well, governments have sovereign immunity so they can't be sued unless they want to be. They don't need a ton of money for CYA.
I agree that Mr. Johnson should have been held at mostly culpable for his actions. I would also argue that since Derby was following CSPC regulations, they shouldn't have been held culpable. But I also see the point of the plaintiff's case. A complete reflector kit could lead someone to think that it is sufficient for night time riding. Why have it and why does the CSPC require it if the reflectors don't provide sufficient warning? Any person of reasonable intelligence can clearly see that the reflectors are inadequate but too often people aren't being reasonable.
Originally Posted by
01 CAt Man Do
Well, of course they have to use lights. If they don't the 2 tons worth of metal they are riding in can kill *innocent people. ( * other than [ but not excluding ] the operator of the vehicle. ).... If a cyclist doesn't use a light it is the cyclist that gets killed. Rarely in any bike/automobile accident is the motorist going to be the one to get killed ( regardless of who has lights and who doesn't ).
My point was that cars come with lights as standard equipment. They have since around 1920 because cars are used at night. You cannot buy a car for street use that doesn't have lights on the vehicle
from the factory. I, personally, don't want bikes to have lights as standard equipment because the lights would be incredibly crappy...just look at the lights that came on 1950's bikes for examples. But the reflectors that are added to bicycles are bandaids at best and are incentives to ride without active lighting at worst. I have reflectors on my bike for the simple reason that they are required by my state's laws. I don't depend on them for anything other than to cover me if I get hit and I need to file a lawsuit. I don't want to give ammunition to a cleaver lawyer who could get my case thrown out because I didn't have the proper reflectors.
Originally Posted by
01 CAt Man Do
Likely you are right. Just remember even if you are completely decked out in lights it doesn't mean someone won't hit you. It increases your visibility which increases your chances of not being hit but there are never any guarantees.
I agree that there are no guarantees. But my chances of avoiding an accident are much better with active lighting than with passive lighting. I also subscribe idea that, when it comes to bicycle light, if it can be done, it can also be overdone. I throw enough light in front of me and behind me that people in cars wonder what is coming at them. If they confuse me for a train that is off the tracks and think twice before pulling out in front of me, so much the better.