Originally Posted by
Pete Fagerlin
Originally Posted by
Helmet Head
I got news for you. None of us were there. We don't know exactly what happened. We will never know exactly what happened. Why does that matter? Hypothesizing about what might have happened, based on what apparently happened, or what was most reasonably likely to have happened, is as good as it gets for a jury. It's certainly as good as it gets here.
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
You missed my point. What a jury does is different from what we do here, of course. But ultimately it is just hypothesizing because even they don't know anything for sure. That's why the standard in even criminal trials is
beyond any reasonable doubt, not
beyond any doubt. Plus if the defense or even the jurors in deliberation can hypothesize a reasonably likely scenario that fits the facts and exonerates the accused, that establishes reasonable doubt. That what I mean by it getting as good as it gets for a jury.
We can and do go beyond that in this forum, of course. We have no obligation to limit our hypothesizing to fitting the facts. And why not? What is the purpose of discussing these actual events in a safety forum if not how to learn from them? What truly actually happened has little relevance to discussing a scenario from which we can learn. Actual events are useful in that they illustrate things that can happen, in case someone has a hard time believing that to be possible. In general we can talk hypothetically about what can happen to us while we're riding out there, and what we can and should do to protect ourselves accordingly, and actual true stories can feed our imaginations. That is their primary purpose here, is it not? If not, what is it?