Good idea.

Hah! I knew that throwing that line in there would distract you from my point


Ah, but that's where we differ. I think that in this case both parties should share the blame. Aw, hell, in most cases, both parties should share the blame. It really sucks that it's usually the cyclist that bears the brunt of the consequences, but it's rare that one party is completely blameless. I don't even mean that in the sense of "The cyclist should have expected the driver to do something completely stupid, and should have accounted for it", but rather in the usual "The cyclist did something dumb" sense. Blame isn't some sort of binary value, only taking one of two values. It's a whole sliding scale.


This is another place where we differ. I don't care how you drive, as long as you take responsibility for it. Hell, I go at speed down the right side of cars stopped at a light, but I know that I'm taking a risk there, and if I get doored, I'm not going to put more than 50% of the responsibility on the person who opened the door. I'm also pessimistic enough to think that even if cyclists performed "perfectly", there would still be at most a 50% reduction in the number of accidents. There are just too many idiotic/clueless/psychotic/unaware (pick one) drivers out there, and using the road involves hundreds, if not thousands, of interactions between you and everyone else near you, and nothing you do can account for all of them.

I guess I'm more interested in people taking responsibility for their own actions. Sure, stuff is going to go wrong, but it usually takes a whole series of things going wrong for there to be an accident, and so the blame should be shared between the parties involved. Yeah, a middle-ground position. Unthinkable.

My turn!

I believe that it was the truckers fault. The trucker said there was a blind spot that he couldn't see around. Now I don't know if this makes too much sence, but if I can't see around a corner- regardless if I'm driving, biking, or walking- I slow down and take my time to make sure that the way I'm about to travel is safe. It sounds like the trucker may have assumed that there was no one there, and decided to go. No matter if the cyclist was on the street or not, the cyclist would STILL have the right of way.

What is also wierd is that it was a heavily trafficed street, so why would the trucker have gone if there was a lot of traffic?

My turn!

I believe that it was the truckers fault. The trucker said there was a blind spot that he couldn't see around. Now I don't know if this makes too much sence, but if I can't see around a corner- regardless if I'm driving, biking, or walking- I slow down and take my time to make sure that the way I'm about to travel is safe. It sounds like the trucker may have assumed that there was no one there, and decided to go. No matter if the cyclist was on the street or not, the cyclist would STILL have the right of way.

What is also wierd is that it was a heavily trafficed street, so why would the trucker have gone if there was a lot of traffic?

Can anyone point out a thread in which I-Like-To-Bike has disagreed with someone without making a personal attack? Just wondering.

As to this thread. The cyclist broke the law. The law makes sense. The cyclist deserves the ticket.

Welcome back.
I see the cure didn't take. You still revert to the same ole thread- a quirky obsession with finding "personal attacks" in legitimate criticism and/or opinions of postings with which you agree.

oblem with riding on the sidewalk is that drivers who plan to cross that sidewalk only look far enough down it to see peestrians who are close enough for concern. A bikerider is too far away to notice, even though he may be going fast enough to reach the driveway at the same time. Stay off sidewalks.