No helmet and according to only the driver, nobody else came forward, he swerved into the cars path.

So little reading on the discussion that those decisions are based on and the laws and procedures that are generally followed when a car rear-ends someone. You'd be a great detective. Not.

All due respect, but if I get rearended and bonk my head on the steering wheel because I'm not wearing a seatbelt, the guy who hit me is still to blame.

V, it's amazing to me how willing my fellow cyclists are to blame the cyclist in these reports. If there were a cycling version of the derisive term "sellout" I would oft be tempted to use them in these threads. A lot of riders here are like beaten wives, always making excuses for the motorists who abuse them.

I never wanted to be a detective.

You obviously want to be a either a journalist or a lawyer (I know a few who are both). But I'd suggest you go read some more lay opinions of law based on a four-line posting and see where that gets you.

By the by, in our jurisdiction, there are other pesky little laws that get in the way of the big ones like the rear-ender ones referred to here. But I dare not conjecture on what they are, because I don't have enough information about the circumstances of the incident.

Ahh, here we go, the degeneration into accusations of "sellouts" and beaten wives just for pointing out the bleeding obvious. You (and others) have made a number of conclusions based on a scant four-line posting, followed by equally scant and unconfirmed information about an incident on the other side of the continent from where you live.

And I really wouldn't like to be called your fellow cyclist. Our views are too disparate for that.

Was about to say the same thing. This discussion is pretty moot as it is.

Which doesn't keep you from lashing out at anyone who dares defend the apparently comatose young cyclist. Well done.

Me? Lashing out? I don't think so. Just seeking some evidence that might lead me to a personal opinion, which in turn may encourage me to continue following this icnident to its conclusion (unlikely, but possible).

Open mindedness is obviously an afflication with which you are not familiar.

Oh the injustice. Glad to see that the ancient art of baseles knee-jerk is alive and kicking in the good old USA. There's glory in over-sensationalising everything, I'm sure.

Pot, kettle, etc.

Wonderful.

Congratulations.

Good job.

But based on what I know about my jurisdiction, and the way cases are handled here I drew a conclusion about the man's guilt for hitting the kid from behind, and seeing as you don't even live in the same country I find it interesting that you're arguing what my perception is based on a similar state which most likely has similar laws. Based on what I know about the way these cases are generally decided (and the earlier piece I quoted on Findlaw.com, you know, a legal advice site), the person who rearended the kid is most likely the guilty party.

Now, you can say someone is most likely guilty without saying they are. I don't need evidence to draw a conclusion that someone who rear-ended someone is more often than not the guilty party.

You, with a PR background, should see the difference.

If all the ockers are ganging up on me, I must be doing something right.

Yawn...

What I don't get is if someone doesn't want to discuss something until they have more information, why do they continuously discuss something that they aren't going to get more information on?

It's like all the people who hate the Critical Mass threads but can't wait to get their damned opinion in on those same threads they so deplore.

This is a discussion forum with discussion threads where discussion happens. If you don't want to discuss something in these discussion forums, then feel free to click the "Next Thread" button and stop bashing the people who do want to discuss it.

Jeez.

Over here it's called sport. Keep swinging. We'll stop laughing later on.

As long as y'all keep posting, I'll never stop laughing. G'night. ;)

Ever heard of the court? The place where matters of true guilt or otherwise are decided?

Obviously not. Better to try and convict and execute based on the evidence of two scanty postings.

And funny, I don't ever recall mentioning CM in this thread. But now we know what the agenda is. Good'o.

Oh... ocker is such as passe term...cringe. You've got me on that one!

I was riding home today at around 25mph in a zone where cars were doing about 50, I cut across a lane, braked hard, and made a sharp left turn, the car behind me almost hit me and I yelled "sorry" as loud as I could. Why? Cause I know if I got hit, it would've been my fault. I forgot to signal, I didn't look behind me, I assumed the cars at the last light haven't caught up yet, I don't have brake lights to show that I'm braking hard for the turn. People have to take responsibility for their own actions, both drivers and bikers, even if the odds are against us.

I know of a special court Rowan: a kangaroo court. Seem familiar?

Jeez...

I'm not saying that responsibility for the accident being the person behind you gives you the right to act like an unapologetic jerk because it's not your fault if you get hit.

I don't even think I insinuated that.

Oh forget it. I'll just move on here...

No Agenda there, just making a point that the same types of people who can't stand CM get in a shot every chance they get, are the same people who pop in and out telling other people how stupid a discussion is, but they sure as hell make sure they get that point in. It's stupid, but it's okay to add to such a stupid discussion as long as you're informing the participants about its stupidity.

But if it makes you feel better to think I have an agenda, than good on you. Pat yourself on the back.

No one is convicting anyone of anything. Just discussing what we know based on what we know about the situation. Odds are the guy who hit him is the guilty party here. Does that mean he's guilty? Obviously not (here comes that whole reading comprehension thing again).

Like I said, if dismissing me as some agenda driven loon is what makes you feel better, good on you.

What I'm about to say, some of you, you know who you are, might be considered selling out to the automobile crowd.
But imagine if you were piloting a chunk of metal at around 25mph, now say some moron on a BMX bike decides to fly out of his driveway and hop onto the street right in the middle of the lane at 10mph. And your cat like refexes and formula one braking and handling just some how, by some sheer work of the devil and misfortune, fails at stopping your 2500 pound chunk of metal from 25mph down to <10mph and swerving out of the way in the 0.15 seconds that you have to respond.
Now you've got a kid in a coma, their bmx bike is part of your radiator, and before you know what the hell happened, you now find yourself in a situation where you've rear ended a kid and possibly killed him on a bmx bike. Who's fault would that be? That's right, according to some of you, YOURS, for a) not having a formula one car b) not having jedi predictive powers c) not having cat like reflexes.
So now you're in jail, your cell mate's name is Tiny Tim except he's 6' 5" and 280 and he has a thing for skinny cyclists. Who's fault was it again that the kid's dead?

On another sad note an American policeman touring Oz on his bike was killed (nee obliterated) by a road train (that's a very long truck) in Western Australia yesterday. According to the Daily Telegraph "police accident investigators are unsure whether the cyclist had been clipped by the truck, swerved into its path, or had been disturbed by the draught as it passed."

Should the truckie be charged? Go ahead, make a quick assessment and judgment call with no factual information other than the truck was passing a cyclist and the cyclist ended up dead.

Ummm... Guess what slvoid? You're in jail...

Wonder why that is...

Maybe because a hit from behind means the hitter is guilty most of the time?


What I'm about to say may surprise some of you, but I don't really give a damn who's guilty here. The kid's in a coma, and the guy who hit him put him there. Do I think he's guilty? Absolutely. He's guilty of putting the kid in the hospital. Do I need twelve jurors and a judge to tell me that? No. It's my opinion.

When was the last time you consulted a jury while punishing your kids? I don't need a jury to have an opinion.