Cyclist struck and killed near school, broad daylight... Why?
01-23-12, 02:04 PM
#26
genec
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
accident ? incorrect. in my opinion, too many folks like to use the term 'accident' to refer to an 'incident' with undesirable results. to me, an accident is an unavoidable and unforeseen 'incident', such as an act of God. in this situation, as is the case with just about any 'incident' involving a motorist, there are specific rules of the road designed to create predictibility, especially regarding right-of-way. deviations from predictable and expected actions are foreseeable and avoidable and thus, are not 'accidents', but 'incidents' with undesirable results. rules of the road are very specific, so to call an 'incident' an 'accident' is BS, and only creates an avenue of defense and excuse for the perp. if the cyclist had the ROW, and the motorist violated it, then this is an absolute no-brainer. motorist is guilty.
01-23-12, 02:49 PM
#27
You gonna eat that?
Of course it was an accident; did the driver mow down the cyclist on purpose? No. Ergo, it was an accident. Still, just like when someone gets a ticket for following too close when they accidentally rear end someone, a driver should get a ticket for causing an accident as a result of violating another road user's right of way. If death is involved, more serious charges are warranted, regardless of intent.
__________________
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi 
"However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
01-23-12, 02:59 PM
#28
genec
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Of course it was an accident; did the driver mow down the cyclist on purpose? No. Ergo, it was an accident. Still, just like when someone gets a ticket for following too close when they accidentally rear end someone, a driver should get a ticket for causing an accident as a result of violating another road user's right of way. If death is involved, more serious charges are warranted, regardless of intent.
Motor vehicle crashes and injuries are predictable and preventable events. “Since we can identify the causes of crashes, we can take action to alter the effect, and avoid collisions. These events are not “acts of God” but predictable results of the laws of physics. The use of the term “Accident” promotes the concept that these events (that is, accidents) are outside of human influence or control.
01-23-12, 03:27 PM
#29
I suppose if the car driver happened to be also an elderly (though maybe not in this case), then the driver would get away with it with the only possible penalty being license suspension. In other words the sympathy (or "understanding" or "toleration") for elderly drivers' physical limitations often seem to outweigh the sympathy for elderly victims' death or severe injuries.
Last edited by vol; 01-23-12 at 04:54 PM.
01-23-12, 03:55 PM
#30
Of course it was an accident; did the driver mow down the cyclist on purpose? No. Ergo, it was an accident. Still, just like when someone gets a ticket for following too close when they accidentally rear end someone, a driver should get a ticket for causing an accident as a result of violating another road user's right of way. If death is involved, more serious charges are warranted, regardless of intent.
yes to any of those ? then it was not an accident. just because an act is without intent doesn't make it an accident !!
think about it. just about everything people refer to as an accident really aren't. using your own example: someone drives too close and then rear-ends the car in front. an accident ? hardly, a completely avoidable situation. back off and the possibility of the incident decreases. back off enough and it disappears. how is that an accident ? it is an INCIDENT WITH UNDESIRABLE RESULTS.
if a deer flies out of the woods at full sprinting speed into the path of a vehicle at night while the driver is driving at posted speeds, then that could be argued to be an accident. unforseeable, unavoidable.
most everything is avoidable. it's a shame too many people hide behind the excuse of calling it an accident. that wreaks of a lack of accountability and responsibility for one's actions.
01-23-12, 04:05 PM
#31
You gonna eat that?
an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.
However, just because the collision was accidental does NOT remove any blame from the guy who hit the cyclist.
The problem, though, is when people say "just an accident" with the implication that it somehow exonerates the driver. It doesn't.
__________________
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
Last edited by Doohickie; 01-23-12 at 04:09 PM.
01-23-12, 04:19 PM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,415
Liked 1,422 Times
in
992 Posts
Originally Posted by cycling in AZ
the case of Maxwell v. Gossett reaches the somewhat surprising conclusion that cyclists riding in crosswalks (i.e. the continuation of riding on the sidewalk) have much the same right-of-way as pedestrians.
01-23-12, 04:23 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,415
Liked 1,422 Times
in
992 Posts
"Collision" is more neutral (and might be a better word to use).
Maybe legally all that matters, but the basic dictionary definition of accident is
Last edited by njkayaker; 01-23-12 at 04:29 PM.
01-23-12, 04:23 PM
#35
genec
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Maybe legally all that matters, but the basic dictionary definition of accident is
So from the common definition, avoidable, whether a driver made a bad decision or broke the law, or exercised poor judgment, has nothing to do with the definition. Basically there are two necessary conditions: Unintentional and harmful. The incident in the OP was an accident.
However, just because the collision was accidental does NOT remove any blame from the guy who hit the cyclist.
And and INCIDENT WITH UNDESIRABLE RESULTS is almost verbatim the dictionary definition of the word accident.
The problem, though, is when people say "just an accident" with the implication that it somehow exonerates the driver. It doesn't.
So from the common definition, avoidable, whether a driver made a bad decision or broke the law, or exercised poor judgment, has nothing to do with the definition. Basically there are two necessary conditions: Unintentional and harmful. The incident in the OP was an accident.
However, just because the collision was accidental does NOT remove any blame from the guy who hit the cyclist.
And and INCIDENT WITH UNDESIRABLE RESULTS is almost verbatim the dictionary definition of the word accident.
The problem, though, is when people say "just an accident" with the implication that it somehow exonerates the driver. It doesn't.
Recently, two other U.S. Department of Transportation agencies, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) joined NHTSA Administrator, Dr. Ricardo Martinez, endorsing his goal to eliminate “accident” from the agencies’ vocabulary. In this manner, attention will be focused on causes of crashes, and what can be done to prevent collisions and the resulting injuries.
01-23-12, 04:32 PM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,415
Liked 1,422 Times
in
992 Posts
People like this guy:
https://www.howwedrive.com/
01-23-12, 05:19 PM
#37
You gonna eat that?
The obvious problem with arguing for one of the dictionary definitions for a word is that your readers might be using the other definitions. A careful writer will keep those other definitions in mind. The word "collision" avoids the other meanings that "accidents" has.
My only problem with the word is when it goes from "accident" to "just an accident" where the implication is that no one in particular is to blame. This goes back to dealing with little kids: When they spill something and mommy says, "Don't worry, it's just an accident." The implication is that the perpetrator will not be held accountable.
When is the term "accident" not properly used in reference to a collision? Remember the doctor dude who slammed on his brakes, causing serious injury to a cyclist? That was no accident. That was intentional. That is when people should howl about the misuse of the word accident. In the context of the OP, though, it's fine.
__________________
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
01-23-12, 05:21 PM
#38
You gonna eat that?
Pedantic thread is pedantic.
__________________
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
01-23-12, 05:28 PM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,415
Liked 1,422 Times
in
992 Posts
I believe in dictionary parlance, the most common definition is listed first, and in this case it even refers to a "traffic accident." I think the reporter used the entirely correct term. I think all the people who read the article understand the primary meaning of the word. It's all the people taking exception to the term on this forum that have the problem. Why should we worry about using a word in a news article that is entirely within its primary definition?
My only problem with the word is when it goes from "accident" to "just an accident" where the implication is that no one in particular is to blame. This goes back to dealing with little kids: When they spill something and mommy says, "Don't worry, it's just an accident." The implication is that the perpetrator will not be held accountable.
When is the term "accident" not properly used in reference to a collision? Remember the doctor dude who slammed on his brakes, causing serious injury to a cyclist? That was no accident. That was intentional. That is when people should howl about the misuse of the word accident. In the context of the OP, though, it's fine.
"Collision" is correct regardless of whether the event turns out to be intentional or not.
Last edited by njkayaker; 01-23-12 at 05:36 PM.
01-23-12, 05:57 PM
#40
genec
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Was this also an "accident?"
https://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/...rrento-valley/
SAN DIEGO — A bicyclist suffered life-threatening injuries Thursday when he was struck by a motorist.
The bicycle rider, in his mid-40s, was riding east in the bike lane when he was rear-ended by an eastbound Toyota sedan driven by a 75-year-old woman, San Diego police Sgt. Art Doherty said.
The rider was thrown from his bike, then run over by the car, which travelled over the sidewalk and hit a tree.
The driver also went to a hospital with complaints of pain. Doherty said there were three witnesses, and one thought he saw the driver using a cell phone before the collision.
The bicycle rider, in his mid-40s, was riding east in the bike lane when he was rear-ended by an eastbound Toyota sedan driven by a 75-year-old woman, San Diego police Sgt. Art Doherty said.
The rider was thrown from his bike, then run over by the car, which travelled over the sidewalk and hit a tree.
The driver also went to a hospital with complaints of pain. Doherty said there were three witnesses, and one thought he saw the driver using a cell phone before the collision.
01-23-12, 07:57 PM
#41
24-Speed Machine
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Posts: 6,058
Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
In Maryland, it is the other way around. But motorists' consistently prefer that pedestrians give in to motorists. It even goes to the point that, while a motorist is supposed to yield to pedestrians, if the motorist stops at the light IN THE CROSSWALK, the motorist is LEGALLY NOT ALLOWED to backup to behind the crosswalk. In essence making the pedestrian have to wait almost a full light cycle before they get another chance to cross IN THE CROSSWALK. Otherwise, They have to walk between stop drivers that could care less, or almost into oncoming traffic. Because those same drivers could care less about blocking the crosswalk and how bad a pedestrians alternatives are.
01-23-12, 08:10 PM
#42
"Per Ardua ad Surly"
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Posts: 1,416
Bikes: Bianchi Specialissima, Mongoose Hilltopper ATB, Surly Cross-Check, Norco City Glide
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
01-23-12, 08:57 PM
#43
Senior Member
01-24-12, 01:25 AM
#44
Cycle Year Round
01-24-12, 01:34 AM
#45
Cycle Year Round
You have made that claim before while ignoring the fact that it is the motorist that is required to yield to pedestrians with the provision that the pedestrian cannot unreasonably jump in front of the motorist. You really like standing on your head.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
01-24-12, 02:18 AM
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
01-24-12, 08:38 AM
#47
You gonna eat that?
...and has a firm grasp of physics. Even where cars are required to yield to pedestrians, a pedestrian can stop a hella lot quicker than a car, so yeah, a pedestrian first has to check to see if the immediate area is clear before stepping out. It has nothing to do with the law really, and everything to do with the laws of nature- momentum and all that.
__________________
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
01-24-12, 08:54 AM
#48
genec
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
The actual law is below... note the words the "driver shall yield" and the words "pedestrian has duty of using due care;" the driver has the primary responsibility to yield to pedestrians.
21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.
(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.
Last edited by genec; 01-24-12 at 08:59 AM.
01-24-12, 08:58 AM
#49
genec
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Doohickie and others, the primary reason I started this post wasn't to get "pedantic" or discuss the specifics of ROW, but to show that here is a situation of a motorist, in a school zone, where caution should be very high, where motorists should be looking for children, and where the motorist fails to see and give way to a full grown adult.
Last edited by genec; 01-24-12 at 09:58 AM. Reason: changed wording for dohickie
01-24-12, 09:00 AM
#50
You gonna eat that?
Yeah, you never know how your children will turn out though, do you? 
__________________
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
