fastturtle

Having frequent controls with systematic but moderate sanctions makes more than very high penalties to convince offenders that their behavior is not tolerated. Even if the fine is not very high, being caught and, e.g., forced to answer questionining, leave the car there and call somebody for a lift, causes most people to feel bad enough.

genec

The driver knows their intentions... therefore it must be asked, did the driver signal those intentions to the world? Did the driver, knowing they were about to turn, let others know he was about to turn... did the driver pass a cyclist and take heed of the fact that there was a cyclist on his right.

Or did the driver just blindly make a right turn, not bothering to let the world (and the cyclist know) and without maintaining awareness of the cyclist the driver may have just passed.

The driver has the responsibility for being aware of what is around him... was that responsibility dropped?

kingston 

@genec, I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that the driver did not intentionally run over the cyclist. It was an accident. He accidentally ran over the cyclist because he didn't know she was there, and the cyclist did not know that the back of the truck was about to run her over. You can decide for yourself who you think is responsible for the accident. It's irrelevant to me.

genec

Did the driver signal... Did the driver let the world know he was about to turn... did the cyclist have that knowledge?

That IS relevant to me. Poor behaviour by a motorist means that the motorist was responsible and the cyclist had no foreknowledge of impending doom.

Sure a cyclist should do everything in their power to avoid possible bad situations... but that goes both ways... the motorist too has that responsibility.

kingston 

Asking questions that I have already answered is growing tiresome. Try entering "Anastasia Kondrasheva" in your search bar and read some of the news articles that come up. After reading, let us know how you assess the responsibility in the case. I will be fascinated to hear the conclusions of your analysis.

GamblerGORD53

Too bad those witnesses didn't somehow stop what happened.
I used to drive trucks like that but mostly about 4 foot shorter. It was easy and fun really. This truck had a LITTLE load, not blocking a view in the least. The only real blind spot I believe is right beside the right door and must be where this girl was stopped. Apparently they both started at the same instant. The driver should still have been more aware.

I would NEVER be in that spot. I go way into the front of whatever is stopped there AND look to the driver and turn signal. Or else stay behind.
Buses in Vietnam have R turn/ pullover bweepers. Good idea IMO.

jeichelberg87

Why was he cited if he is not responsible?

jeichelberg87

Point out where I advocate state violence against law breakers. Demonstrate and provide an example that violence is the only tool.


Why?


Responsibility for all parties, with more of the responsibility placed on the shoulders of those with the most power in a given situation. In this situation, that would be the motorists.

I will write my own letter and send my own letter.

jeichelberg87

Show that research. Because it seems stiffening the work zone penalties is working:

https://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resou...ats/safety.htm

atbman

Regarding visibility of cyclists (or other road users) from truck cabs: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...afety-cyclists

jeichelberg87

Good article and good step.

kingston 

The definition of the State is the organization that claims a monopoly privilege on violence in a given landmass. Every single government intervention is backed by the threat of violence. Every. Single. One. Think of a State program, and I can show how it is either funded or enforced by threat of violence. This is a basic fact not an opinion.

jeichelberg87

Okay John Galt.

I imagine if you don't pay a fine, they might come and meet you at the door with a .50 caliber or send in a drone strike or cruise missile.

Absolutely insane.

kingston 

I believe we have uncovered the source of our difference of opinion. I'm going to stop posting on this topic as I believe the thread will go beyond what is appropriate for the A&S forum. My apologies to the moderator if I have already over-stepped that boundary.

KD5NRH

Still not enough, IMO; there's simply no excuse for any blind spots when everything comes with backup cameras these days. 2-3 more cameras tied into the turn signals, and you can see every relevant area of the vehicle. Even retrofitting that system would cost less than the chrome job on many trucks.

jeichelberg87

Using the argument that increased fines or stiffer punishment because it will not deter future acts needs to be shelved. It is foolish.

Each act needs to be dealt with on an individual basis. It is not always about the next guy.

In this case, the driver was cited. If Illinois had a similar law to that of Oregon, the driver would face a lot more than a citation.

howsteepisit

You are the advocating mandatory fines. With mandatory fines the case cannot be dealt with on and individual basis. If you were to day that judges are not passing stiff enough sentences, then I would be so against it. Even though studies show that making more severe sentences do not discourage crime, I am not against that in egregious cases, but the judge must have some discretion as you say, treating each case as the facts warrant.

atbman

Absolutely. The trouble is getting an entire industry, especially one which AFAIK in the US, resists even such a simple and relatively cheap improvement as sidebars to prevent riders from being dragged under the wheels

kingston 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/30/lorries-face-london-ban-plans-improve-safety-cyclists?CMP=share_btn_gp

jeichelberg87

Motorists killing pedestrians and cyclists are egregious cases! Mandatory fines are necessary and just part of the entire possible punishment. When I speak of the individual case, I am talking about the case in front of the bench, then and there. I am talking about a future case and how the mandatory fine in the present case might prevent future obedience and/or disobedience.


The person in front of the judge will be the one punished, and more severely than has been the case in past instances. There will always be another one coming up, but the one who is being dealt with right now is the one to be concerned with, not the future "what ifs..."

howsteepisit

How about a case of a ninja rider salmoning at midnight. Hardly egregious. Under your call for action, a driver who hit such a rider would be fined a mandatory $10,000. Plus whatever. Hardly seem right or fair to me.

But I am done arguing with extremist views. Clearly, your view of the world is different than mine. in my eyes, extremist views rarely get much done. As an example, I point to the Legislative Branch of the US government. But good luck with your letter campaign, Personally I hope it fails. There is better advocacy to be had.

jeichelberg87

Several other posters have shared this article here and I appreciate seeing it again. Thank you for sharing. Here is what I find to be a highly relevant quote:
Despite that study, here is a quote in the same article from an elbow representative of the trucking industry:
The rep is implying cyclists are not visible enough and even if they improved visibility it would not sort(solve?) the problem. No, placing a ban on lorries and setting reasonable times for deliveries (such as NIGHT TIME) might. And holding drivers more accountable for safe operation on the roads.

jeichelberg87

Such as?

Chris0516

On the inside of any vehicle. Don't let yourselves be boxed into the 'door zone', just so a motorist can 'step on the gas' to pass you.
This incident is why I stay in front of them. I have no problem if the pass me using the 'inside lane' or cross the double-yellow. But I won't let them force me out of the lane by fear.
Regardless of Boston then or now, regardless of the number of lanes on the road, and regardless of the size of the vehicle. This is sort of the situation that requires excellent reflexes. When someone passes you and suddenly changes lanes cutting you off. Either hit the brakes or, skillfully change lanes to pass the offending vehicle that cut you off.

The only problem becomes, deciding whether you can change lanes w/o being hit from behind at the same time.
Yes they are faster and bigger. But they also have distinctive noises to their engines'. That you won't hear with a car.

KD5NRH

That would be entertaining around here; it seems that none of the gas stations in the area can comprehend that 7-8AM and 5-7PM aren't good times for deliveries (especially when the truck blocks half their lot) or inventory. (meaning that only the trainee is working a register while everybody else is counting dusty $4.99 bottles of generic aspirin)