Originally Posted by Pete Fagerlin

You're much more of a fool than I originally thought if you think that hypothesizing is as good as it gets for a jury.

Let's expand your jury analogy a bit Serge.

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.

You, on the other hand, immediately begin going on about your pet theory about lane positioning before you have looked at all of the available evidence*. Looking at the evidence is quite different than hypothesizing after all.

The folks that have looked at the evidence, even if they could overcome your typically boorish behavior of assuming that "it's likely" that the cyclists were riding too close to the right, know that you're an idiot based upon the evidence that they have seen (that you have either willfully ignored, are too lazy to review, or too technologically challenged to review) and the fact that you're arguing about your hypothesis, which flies in the face of said evidence.

Rather than pause and gather facts, you start yet another crusade based upon your assumption just because the roadway has a bike lane, the cyclists involved in the accident were likely to be drawn to the lane, or that side of the road.

I pity the poor soul who finds you sitting in their jury box.

*eyewitness accounts, police statements, photos, and video