OT: Mayhem
Dan O
Andre Jute
> http://bikeportland.org/2009/10/10/tragedy-and-outrage-in-texas/#more...
It's worth quoting from this link, which describes how a driver in a
truck killed a couple on a tandem because he was driving too fast and
not paying attention to the road:
***
Deputy Chief Bennett told News 4 WOAI the office’s hands are tied. He
said under current law, unless a driver is drunk or high, it is
difficult to prove recklessness. And legally, charges can not be filed
for “an unfortunate accident.”
“Was he texting? Was he on the phone? What was the issue? Why was he
distracted? Why did he go off the road? Driver inattention…is
basically what it amounts to,” Deputy Chief Bennett said. “And there’s
nothing we can do about drivers not paying attention.”
***
This is amazing. In the other Anglophone countries this driver could
and would be charged with any of a huge number of offences. For a
start, negligence stands besides recklessness in the law and is also
culpable. Then the charge of manslaughter (short of murder which
requires malice to be proven) for any reason whatsoever in fact puts
the onus of proof on the offender.
This is utter bullshit and the subtext is that automobiles and drivers
own the road and can with impunity kill cyclists.
If that driver had been standing on a ladder and dropped a live
chainsaw because he was reaching for his phone, and killed two people,
he would be charged.
Why is it different when the murder weapon is an automobile?
I think the relatives of the child in the photograph, or some bicycle
advocacy group or some civil rights group should sue the truck driver
in a civil court for manslaughter and damages. Even if they don't win
a penny, they should should carry on long enough to ruin him and put
him in the gutter. Then they should crow about it, and say bluntly
that they were making an example of him as a warning, and are watching
for the next transgressor to whom they will do the same.
If American cyclists take such crap lying down, they deserve what
happens to them.
Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes
Dan O
> On Oct 11, 5:57 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://bikeportland.org/2009/10/10/tragedy-and-outrage-in-texas/#more...
>
<snip>
>
> If American cyclists take such crap lying down, they deserve what
> happens to them.
>
Gee, thanks.
Nate Nagel
> On Oct 11, 5:57 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://bikeportland.org/2009/10/10/tragedy-and-outrage-in-texas/#more...
>
> It's worth quoting from this link, which describes how a driver in a
> truck killed a couple on a tandem because he was driving too fast and
> not paying attention to the road:
>
> ***
> said under current law, unless a driver is drunk or high, it is
> difficult to prove recklessness. And legally, charges can not be filed
>
> �Was he texting? Was he on the phone? What was the issue? Why was he
> distracted? Why did he go off the road? Driver inattention�is
> basically what it amounts to,� Deputy Chief Bennett said. �And there�s
> nothing we can do about drivers not paying attention.�
>
> ***
>
> This is amazing. In the other Anglophone countries this driver could
> and would be charged with any of a huge number of offences. For a
> start, negligence stands besides recklessness in the law and is also
> culpable. Then the charge of manslaughter (short of murder which
> requires malice to be proven) for any reason whatsoever in fact puts
> the onus of proof on the offender.
>
> This is utter bullshit and the subtext is that automobiles and drivers
> own the road and can with impunity kill cyclists.
>
> If that driver had been standing on a ladder and dropped a live
> chainsaw because he was reaching for his phone, and killed two people,
> he would be charged.
>
> Why is it different when the murder weapon is an automobile?
>
> I think the relatives of the child in the photograph, or some bicycle
> advocacy group or some civil rights group should sue the truck driver
> in a civil court for manslaughter and damages. Even if they don't win
> a penny, they should should carry on long enough to ruin him and put
> him in the gutter. Then they should crow about it, and say bluntly
> that they were making an example of him as a warning, and are watching
> for the next transgressor to whom they will do the same.
>
> If American cyclists take such crap lying down, they deserve what
> happens to them.
>
> Andre Jute
> A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes
It's not a cycling issue, it's a driving issue. We hand out driver's
licenses like Betty Crocker points to anyone who can manage to complete
a short multiple-choice test and drive around a parking lot without
killing anyone (seriously, that's about what the driver's licensing test
procedure consisted of in Pennsylvania back when I was 16) and are loath
to issue citations for anything that can't be measured precisely (e.g.
speeding) therefore all sorts of egregiously stupid driving behaviors
are tolerated. Combine that with the fact that in many areas of the
country a driver's license is darn near a necessity to hold down a job,
feed oneself, etc. and you have our current situation.
There are some measures that attempt to stop distracted driving by
banning all sorts of activities that could be distracting (e.g. talking
on a cell phone) but as of yet I have not seen any major initiative to
get police to cite drivers for simply obviously driving like dumbasses,
instead of just sitting in the median of a freeway with a radar gun.
Heck, I've *seen* people cut off other drivers (including self,) merge
into 60+ MPH freeway traffic at 40 MPH, change lanes without signaling,
etc. etc. etc. right in front of marked cruisers with no action
whatsoever. Just don't speed, don't drink and drive (although how the
officer is going to tell you've been drinking since if you're not
speeding you won't get pulled over I don't know - I guess that's why we
have those awful checkpoints now) and don't talk on your cell phone or
text while driving and you can get away with a whole lot.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Dan O
Yeah, this bit was truly astounding:
"Deputy Chief Bennett said. “And there’s nothing we can do about
drivers not paying attention.”"
The page at the referenced original site is, well... heavy:
http://www.tucsonbikelawyer.com/heavy/
Andre, check this comment:
"A few years ago we stopped at a Texas tourist center and asked about
bicycle riding in the state. Response from a burly Texan wearing his
cowboy hat: “We don’t do that kind of stuff around here!”"
That is by no means an isolated sentiment in this country.
Andre Jute
Dan, this is a serious matter. You snipped my entire chain of
reasoning and reacted only with your ever-present, omni-directional
aggression. What do you think you're contributing. Put away your
testosterone and zip up your flies, sonny, and try to contribute
something useful. At the very least don't snip away my reasoning and
respond only to your uneducated miscomprehension of what I actually
intend to say.
Here is my original again, in which my argument clearly justifies my
call to action which poor Dan has mistaken for a judgement on him:
On Oct 11, 7:25 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 5:57 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://bikeportland.org/2009/10/10/tragedy-and-outrage-in-texas/#more...
>
> a penny, they should carry on long enough to ruin him and put
> him in the gutter. Then they should crow about it, and say bluntly
> that they were making an example of him as a warning, and are watching
> for the next transgressor to whom they will do the same.
>
> If American cyclists take such crap lying down, they deserve what
> happens to them.
>
Andre Jute
he started, that it is me who miscomprehended his intention rather
than he mine. -- Andre Jute
Dan O
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 5:57 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://bikeportland.org/2009/10/10/tragedy-and-outrage-in-texas/#more...
>
> > It's worth quoting from this link, which describes how a driver in a
> > truck killed a couple on a tandem because he was driving too fast and
> > not paying attention to the road:
>
> > ***
> > said under current law, unless a driver is drunk or high, it is
> > difficult to prove recklessness. And legally, charges can not be filed
>
> > “Was he texting? Was he on the phone? What was the issue? Why was he
> > distracted? Why did he go off the road? Driver inattention…is
> > nothing we can do about drivers not paying attention.”
You do realize that the type of drivers you seem to be suggesting
should have exclusive access to the public roadways may be more
capable of mastering your presumably more advanced certification
requirements, but probably still include the lion's share of self-
entitled, aggressive, intolerant, and unaccommodating drivers.
Andre Jute
We have them too, a hooligan element who swerve towards your bike to
be close enough to shout at you, "Get off the road!" Or the ones who
say, when you pull them up for some dangerous piece of driving, "I pay
my road tax!" as if that entitles him to endanger bicyclists!
Andre Jute
Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live -- Mark Twain
z
> On Oct 11, 5:57 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://bikeportland.org/2009/10/10/tragedy-and-outrage-in-texas/#more...
>
> It's worth quoting from this link, which describes how a driver in a
> truck killed a couple on a tandem because he was driving too fast and
> not paying attention to the road:
>
> ***
> said under current law, unless a driver is drunk or high, it is
> difficult to prove recklessness. And legally, charges can not be filed
>
> �Was he texting? Was he on the phone? What was the issue? Why was he
> distracted? Why did he go off the road? Driver inattention�is
> nothing we can do about drivers not paying attention.�
>
> ***
>
> This is amazing. In the other Anglophone countries this driver could
> and would be charged with any of a huge number of offences. For a
> start, negligence stands besides recklessness in the law and is also
> culpable. Then the charge of manslaughter (short of murder which
> requires malice to be proven) for any reason whatsoever in fact puts
> the onus of proof on the offender.
>
> This is utter bullshit and the subtext is that automobiles and drivers
> own the road and can with impunity kill cyclists.
>
> If that driver had been standing on a ladder and dropped a live
> chainsaw because he was reaching for his phone, and killed two people,
> he would be charged.
>
> Why is it different when the murder weapon is an automobile?
>
> I think the relatives of the child in the photograph, or some bicycle
> advocacy group or some civil rights group should sue the truck driver
> in a civil court for manslaughter and damages. Even if they don't win
> a penny, they should should carry on long enough to ruin him and put
> him in the gutter. Then they should crow about it, and say bluntly
> that they were making an example of him as a warning, and are watching
> for the next transgressor to whom they will do the same.
>
> If American cyclists take such crap lying down, they deserve what
> happens to them.
>
> Andre Jute
> A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes
This has nothing to do with cyclists. It just as easily could have been
a jogger, a work construction crew, or someone changing a flat tire on a
car.
Dan O
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 5:57 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://bikeportland.org/2009/10/10/tragedy-and-outrage-in-texas/#more...
>
> > It's worth quoting from this link, which describes how a driver in a
> > truck killed a couple on a tandem because he was driving too fast and
> > not paying attention to the road:
>
> > ***
> > said under current law, unless a driver is drunk or high, it is
> > difficult to prove recklessness. And legally, charges can not be filed
>
> > “Was he texting? Was he on the phone? What was the issue? Why was he
> > distracted? Why did he go off the road? Driver inattention…is
> > nothing we can do about drivers not paying attention.”
Maybe - and sometimes it is one of those other people that gets
creamed, which is no less unfortunate - but somehow I have this
feeling that maybe, just maybe, this guy was driving along (sort of)
minding his own business, suddenly notices a bicycle built for two on
the side of the road, freaks out at the unexpected sight of it (maybe
even target fixates a little), and wham! (Just a speculative
possibility.)
(I know it's a cosmic universe and shit happens, but it seems a little
too wildly coincidental that there happened to be a tandem bike on the
shoulder right at the very place where this guy randomly goes off the
road.)
I don't know about you, but I get "reacted to" all the time while just
riding along. Clearly plenty of drivers are surprised or startled by
my mere presence, even when I'm JRA in a predictable fashion. That is
a "cyclist" issue.
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 5:57 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://bikeportland.org/2009/10/10/tragedy-and-outrage-in-texas/#more...
>
> > It's worth quoting from this link, which describes how a driver in a
> > truck killed a couple on a tandem because he was driving too fast and
> > not paying attention to the road:
>
> > ***
> > said under current law, unless a driver is drunk or high, it is
> > difficult to prove recklessness. And legally, charges can not be filed
>
> > “Was he texting? Was he on the phone? What was the issue? Why was he
> > distracted? Why did he go off the road? Driver inattention…is
> > nothing we can do about drivers not paying attention.”
A tandem is bicycle with two cyclists pedalling in tandem rather than
side by side. Wherever they are now, the two cyclists killed by this
careless idiot will be very surprised to hear that their manslaughter,
in the opinion of some anonymous person, has nothing to do with
cyclists.
> It just as easily could have been
> a jogger, a work construction crew, or someone changing a flat tire on a
> car.
Far from being a reason for cyclists to walk away to DoNothingLand, as
you imply, that is a reason for joggers, workmen and other motorists
to join cyclists in a campaign to get some realistic laws put on the
statute book to deal with negligent drivers in charge of several tons
of lethal instrument.
z
> On Oct 11, 12:06 pm, z <N...@not.ca> wrote:
>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>> On Oct 11, 5:57 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://bikeportland.org/2009/10/10/tragedy-and-outrage-in-texas/#more...
>>> It's worth quoting from this link, which describes how a driver in a
>>> truck killed a couple on a tandem because he was driving too fast and
>>> not paying attention to the road:
>>> ***
>>> said under current law, unless a driver is drunk or high, it is
>>> difficult to prove recklessness. And legally, charges can not be filed
>>> �Was he texting? Was he on the phone? What was the issue? Why was he
>>> distracted? Why did he go off the road? Driver inattention�is
>>> nothing we can do about drivers not paying attention.�
I don't know, I just don't know. My gut feeling is that if I were to
think like you do, it might be enough to keep me off the bike.
I'd prefer to think that rather than most drivers being surprised or
startled, they see a rider's presence coming but are not sure how to
handle the situation to ensure both convenient and expedient passing as
well as passing the cyclist safely (even if only because hitting a
cyclist would be an inconvenience to their travel schedule). The
catch-22 being that more frequent car/bike encounters would develop more
experience, but at the cost of barely amicable driver/rider relations.
Dan, you're in MA, right? Although the tragedy could have occurred
anywhere and details are pretty vague, roads in Texas are comparatively
wide and wide open, with generous shoulders.
OTOH, legal charges aside, we have no idea what the driver is feeling.
AMuzi
> On Oct 11, 5:57 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://bikeportland.org/2009/10/10/tragedy-and-outrage-in-texas/#more...
>
> It's worth quoting from this link, which describes how a driver in a
> truck killed a couple on a tandem because he was driving too fast and
> not paying attention to the road:
>
> ***
> said under current law, unless a driver is drunk or high, it is
> difficult to prove recklessness. And legally, charges can not be filed
>
> �Was he texting? Was he on the phone? What was the issue? Why was he
> distracted? Why did he go off the road? Driver inattention�is
> nothing we can do about drivers not paying attention.�
>
> ***
>
> This is amazing. In the other Anglophone countries this driver could
> and would be charged with any of a huge number of offences. For a
> start, negligence stands besides recklessness in the law and is also
> culpable. Then the charge of manslaughter (short of murder which
> requires malice to be proven) for any reason whatsoever in fact puts
> the onus of proof on the offender.
>
> This is utter bullshit and the subtext is that automobiles and drivers
> own the road and can with impunity kill cyclists.
>
> If that driver had been standing on a ladder and dropped a live
> chainsaw because he was reaching for his phone, and killed two people,
> he would be charged.
>
> Why is it different when the murder weapon is an automobile?
>
> I think the relatives of the child in the photograph, or some bicycle
> advocacy group or some civil rights group should sue the truck driver
> in a civil court for manslaughter and damages. Even if they don't win
> a penny, they should should carry on long enough to ruin him and put
> him in the gutter. Then they should crow about it, and say bluntly
> that they were making an example of him as a warning, and are watching
> for the next transgressor to whom they will do the same.
>
> If American cyclists take such crap lying down, they deserve what
> happens to them.
>
> Andre Jute
> A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes
You forget , 'the law is a ass"
deliberate neglect maybe?
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/10/no-jail-for-sisters-who-neglected-elderly-mother.html
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
z
> On Oct 11, 8:06 pm, z <N...@not.ca> wrote:
>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>> On Oct 11, 5:57 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://bikeportland.org/2009/10/10/tragedy-and-outrage-in-texas/#more...
>>> It's worth quoting from this link, which describes how a driver in a
>>> truck killed a couple on a tandem because he was driving too fast and
>>> not paying attention to the road:
>>> ***
>>> said under current law, unless a driver is drunk or high, it is
>>> difficult to prove recklessness. And legally, charges can not be filed
>>> �Was he texting? Was he on the phone? What was the issue? Why was he
>>> distracted? Why did he go off the road? Driver inattention�is
>>> nothing we can do about drivers not paying attention.�
Autistic Jizzbag,
I made no implication of "DoNothingLand". You distorted my comments.
Fuck off, you puddle of diarrhea.
Peter Cole
>
> It's not a cycling issue, it's a driving issue.
Agreed. The US should adopt the policy of several European countries
that in such instances the driver is presumed to be at fault, and the
burden to prove otherwise falls to them. Simple.
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 8:06 pm, z <N...@not.ca> wrote:
> >> Andre Jute wrote:
> >>> On Oct 11, 5:57 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>http://bikeportland.org/2009/10/10/tragedy-and-outrage-in-texas/#more...
> >>> It's worth quoting from this link, which describes how a driver in a
> >>> truck killed a couple on a tandem because he was driving too fast and
> >>> not paying attention to the road:
> >>> ***
> >>> said under current law, unless a driver is drunk or high, it is
> >>> difficult to prove recklessness. And legally, charges can not be filed
> >>> “Was he texting? Was he on the phone? What was the issue? Why was he
> >>> distracted? Why did he go off the road? Driver inattention…is
> >>> nothing we can do about drivers not paying attention.”
It sounds to me, sonny, as if you're one of those sputtering, out of
control people who are part of the problem rather than a contributor
towards the solution. If you didn't mean to imply that cyclists should
do nothing, why did you post "This has nothing to do with cyclists."
If your sentiment was, "Negligent driving may be a problem for
cyclists, as for others, but the solution lies in driver education and
control," then why didn't you say so? For an example of how to say so
without being misunderstood, see Nate Nagle's post in reply to mine.
BTW, you should enquire about a course in remedial English
comprehension offered after hours somewhere in your community. Or at
least buy a dictionary: the last thing an articulate person like me
can ever be is "autistic".
Andre Jute
Patient even with sputtering spittle-sprayers
Peter Cole
> Far from being a reason for cyclists to walk away to DoNothingLand, as
> you imply, that is a reason for joggers, workmen and other motorists
> to join cyclists in a campaign to get some realistic laws put on the
> statute book to deal with negligent drivers in charge of several tons
> of lethal instrument.
The US is so auto-centric that most cyclists and pedestrians go along
with the "act of god" categorization. As in the "cycling to school"
thread, the typical response to hazards to cyclists and pedestrians is
to restrict, or ban outright, walking and cycling. The common police
attitude is that cyclists and pedestrians place themselves in harm's way
and deserve the consequences.
I philosophically oppose "vehicular cycling" on its basic thrust of
having cyclists conform to motoring conventions. I don't believe in the
"same rules, same roads" mantra -- quite the opposite. My opinion is
very much a minority among US cyclists (but perhaps not Dutch or Danish
ones). I believe it's ethical and sensible to give vulnerable road users
special protection under the law and lower liabilities because of their
comparatively benign nature. I hold those truths to be self-evident.
Nate Nagel
Sure, because actually evaluating incidents on a case by case basis and
assigning blame to the actual guilty party is just way too much work.
Dan O
> Dan O wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 12:06 pm, z <N...@not.ca> wrote:
> >> Andre Jute wrote:
> >>> On Oct 11, 5:57 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>http://bikeportland.org/2009/10/10/tragedy-and-outrage-in-texas/#more...
> >>> It's worth quoting from this link, which describes how a driver in a
> >>> truck killed a couple on a tandem because he was driving too fast and
> >>> not paying attention to the road:
> >>> ***
> >>> said under current law, unless a driver is drunk or high, it is
> >>> difficult to prove recklessness. And legally, charges can not be filed
> >>> “Was he texting? Was he on the phone? What was the issue? Why was he
> >>> distracted? Why did he go off the road? Driver inattention…is
> >>> nothing we can do about drivers not paying attention.”
I do not think that you quite know what it is to "think like [I]
do" :-)
I may be employing some deliberate selective thinking, such that I
will not allow myself be scared off the roads. Then I occasionally
see one of the statistics wonks citing something like a 1 in 80 (!)
chance of eventually being killed (!) on my bike. Not sure what I
think of that, but figure I can actively affect the odds quite a bit
myself, and just keep doing the best I can.
>
> I'd prefer to think that rather than most drivers being surprised or
> startled,...
Who said "most"?
> ... they see a rider's presence coming but are not sure how to
> handle the situation to ensure both convenient and expedient passing as
> well as passing the cyclist safely (even if only because hitting a
> cyclist would be an inconvenience to their travel schedule).
Right, and many of them get angry at being faced with this problem,
and blame the bike rider.
> The
> catch-22 being that more frequent car/bike encounters would develop more
> experience, but at the cost of barely amicable driver/rider relations.
>
> Dan, you're in MA, right? Although the tragedy could have occurred
> anywhere and details are pretty vague, roads in Texas are comparatively
> wide and wide open, with generous shoulders.
No, not in MA; and while I ride something like 75 miles a week in a
moderately large (and decidedly bike-unfriendly) city, the lion's
share of my daily miles are out in the great wide open.
Please note also that I am the guy who posted this link (fix line
wrap):
<http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2009/10/02/
five-steps-to-make-pdx-the-best-bike-city-in-the-world-and-destroy-
zoobomb-in-the-process>
... wherein I see real solutions. Admittedly, that's urban-oriented,
but it's about dismantling this insane car culture and making people
used to the fact that bikes belong.
>
> OTOH, legal charges aside, we have no idea what the driver is feeling.
Note also that I am not exhorting any sort of vindictive retribution.
Not hard to imagine sort of how the little girl feels. Sucks all the
way around.
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It's not a cycling issue, it's a driving issue.
>>
>> Agreed. The US should adopt the policy of several European countries
>> that in such instances the driver is presumed to be at fault, and the
>> burden to prove otherwise falls to them. Simple.
>
> Sure, because actually evaluating incidents on a case by case basis and
> assigning blame to the actual guilty party is just way too much work.
>
> nate
>
>
It would just change the current US convention where the driver is
presumed innocent (e.g. Texas case) to one where they're presumed
guilty. That's all. Presumption of guilt doesn't preclude investigation,
it's just a starting point and (different) default placement of burden
of proof.
Andre Jute
Exactly. When I saw your response to Nate, I said aloud, Hear, hear!
"The US should adopt the policy of several European countries that in
such instances the driver is presumed to be at fault, and the burden
to prove otherwise falls to them. Simple." It is indeed that simple.
However, considering political realities as so starkly laid out in
Dan's original reference, you might have to start smaller than with a
sweeping principle. We have a rule or perhaps a law here, in any event
a principle so commonly agreed that it is part of the formal driving
test, that a motorist must give a cyclist three feet of space, which
seems to me a very good start, because the motorist who hits a cyclist
(or is even seen closer than three feet) clearly broke the law and
must then explain himself, under oath and questioning if he is
charged. That modest-seeming law moves the burden of proof onto the
motorist.
Peter Cole
I have raised the issue of the "3 foot law" on our local cycling
advocacy forum. It was dismissed out of hand as being "impractical".
This is by people who call themselves cycling advocates. Their idea of
success is the recent passing of a law that raised the penalties on
cyclists for infractions, their sponsorship displaying the prejudice
(and misconception) that most collisions are the cyclist's fault. With
"friends" like this, who needs enemies? Such crazy attitudes are a
direct consequence of the "vehicular cycling" movement, an ideology
whose premise is that the way forward for cycling is to become more
car-like. Of course this has lead to a decline in cycling, only reversed
in those countries and communities that took a very different tack.
Scientific American had an article in September summarizing various
studies that found that female cyclists are the "indicator species".
Cycling doesn't really get popular until you attract women in large
numbers. Women are risk-averse and practical-minded. They need to use
cycling for everyday tasks and feel comfortable they'll be safe.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=getting-more-bicyclists-on-the-road
N8N
I responded to this yesterday, although I still do not see my
response... my apologies if it eventually shows up
anyway, I can't imagine anything more unAmerican. Our justice system
is based on the presumption of innocence, therefore arbitrarily
defining a certain class of people as "guilty until proven innocent"
goes against everything we stand for. Besides, under our current
system, *both* the cyclist and the driver are presumed innocent until
found at fault; if there's any prejudice one way or another locally,
it's just that, prejudice.
Besides, in my highly unscientific surveys, the average cyclist sucks
just as badly if not worse than the average motorist, so automatically
assigning blame to either side makes no sense.
nate
Peter Cole
The current laws are based on right of way violations, with rough parity
between cyclists/pedestrians and motorists. Presuming ROW violation by
motorists would, it seems, violate the principle of presumption of
innocence.
This is not to say that the laws couldn't be changed to make the
striking of a pedestrian or cyclist with a motor vehicle an offense in
itself, regardless of ROW. That would not violate presumption of innocence.
> Besides, in my highly unscientific surveys, the average cyclist sucks
> just as badly if not worse than the average motorist, so automatically
> assigning blame to either side makes no sense.
It's the vulnerability of cyclists and pedestrians that makes the basis
of liability entirely on ROW rules that doesn't make sense. It's like
the ham & eggs breakfast -- the chicken is involved, the pig is committed.
N8N
Exactly.
> This is not to say that the laws couldn't be changed to make the
> striking of a pedestrian or cyclist with a motor vehicle an offense in
> itself, regardless of ROW. That would not violate presumption of innocence.
All that would do would be to make motorists that much more unwilling
to share the road with cyclists and/or pedestrians and lobby to have
them legally stripped of their right to use most roads, as,
rightfully, they would be concerned about them being found guilty of
an offense due to some unavoidably stupid move on the part of a
cyclist or pedestrian.
> > Besides, in my highly unscientific surveys, the average cyclist sucks
> > just as badly if not worse than the average motorist, so automatically
> > assigning blame to either side makes no sense.
>
> It's the vulnerability of cyclists and pedestrians that makes the basis
> of liability entirely on ROW rules that doesn't make sense. It's like
> the ham & eggs breakfast -- the chicken is involved, the pig is committed.
Looking at it from a high level view, however, the costs to society
are the same no matter who violated the ROW of another. Someone is
injured, thus incurring costs on the part of emergency responders,
lost time due to congested traffic, increased health care costs, etc.
Deliberately or carelessly engaging in actions likely to cause an
incident is the problem, not the fact that cyclists are more
"vulnerable" etc. I'm not saying that one side or the other is more
often at fault - what I am saying is that unless/until someone can
show that the majority of cyclists in fact operate on the street with
due care for their and other road users' safety (good luck with that
one!) there's no way I could support such action as you propose. Just
as one would have to show that the majority of drivers do so before
arguing the converse. Neither is going to happen any time soon, at
least not unless consequences for careless/illegal operation are
imposed and enforced.
If you take this to an extreme you end up with communities like some
places in Montgomery County (MD) which in an effort to become "safer
for pedestrians" have become absolute hell for road users because of
the aggressive "the road user is always at fault" stance that they
have, which results in pedestrians simply stepping into crosswalks
whenever they feel like it and motorists or cyclists having to panic
stop for them.
nate
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
wrote:
>Looking at it from a high level view, however, the costs to society
>are the same no matter who violated the ROW of another. Someone is
>injured, thus incurring costs on the part of emergency responders,
>lost time due to congested traffic, increased health care costs, etc.
Let's take it to an even higher level, and look at it systemically and
over long periods of time. One outcome of the current way of looking
at these incidents in the US is that in many places (at least up until
the recent economic collapse and increasing popularity of "going
green") cycling and walking is kept as a fringe activity, and the
livability of cities and suburbs has declined. Kids can't walk to
school, let alone ride, and people w/o cars are screwed if they want
to get to work.
The attitude that the car is king and that other road users are at
fault for risking their lives is both a symptom and cause of messed
up land use policies.
N8N
<usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:23:05 -0700 (PDT), N8N <njna...@hotmail.com>
At least in my area, I do not see that. I generally see several
cyclists on the road before getting a mile or two away from my house
each morning. I see motorists going out of their way to be
"courteous" (e.g. yielding by default, even when they have the ROW) to
cyclists, who seem to play fast and loose with ROW rules. It's quite
easy to be a cyclist in this area, assuming you work somewhere within
easy cycling distance. In fact, I would say that on average,
motorists extend more courtesy to cyclists than happens the other way
'round.
nate
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
wrote:
>If you take this to an extreme you end up with communities like some
>places in Montgomery County (MD) which in an effort to become "safer
>for pedestrians" have become absolute hell for road users because of
>the aggressive "the road user is always at fault" stance that they
>have, which results in pedestrians simply stepping into crosswalks
>whenever they feel like it and motorists or cyclists having to panic
>stop for them.
That's hell? How many drivers are killed there by errant pedestrians
each year?
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
wrote:
>On Oct 12, 11:31�am, Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
><usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:23:05 -0700 (PDT), N8N <njna...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Looking at it from a high level view, however, the costs to society
>> >are the same no matter who violated the ROW of another. �Someone is
>> >injured, thus incurring costs on the part of emergency responders,
>> >lost time due to congested traffic, increased health care costs, etc.
>>
>> Let's take it to an even higher level, and look at it systemically and
>> over long periods of time. �One outcome of the current way of looking
>> at these incidents in the US is that in many places (at least up until
>> the recent economic collapse and increasing popularity of "going
>> green") cycling and walking is kept as a fringe activity, and the
>> livability of cities and suburbs has declined. �Kids can't walk to
>> school, let alone ride, and people w/o cars are screwed if they want
>> to get to work.
>>
>> The attitude that the car is king and that other road users are at
>> fault for risking their lives is both a symptom and �cause of messed
>> up land use policies.
>
>At least in my area, I do not see that.
So walking to, say, school, is as prevalent as it was 20 or 30 years
ago? Riding too?
>I generally see several
>cyclists on the road before getting a mile or two away from my house
>each morning. I see motorists going out of their way to be
>"courteous" (e.g. yielding by default, even when they have the ROW) to
>cyclists, who seem to play fast and loose with ROW rules. It's quite
>easy to be a cyclist in this area, assuming you work somewhere within
>easy cycling distance.
So cycling is on the up even?
N8N
<usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:45:29 -0700 (PDT), N8N <njna...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 12, 11:31 am, Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
> ><usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:23:05 -0700 (PDT), N8N <njna...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Looking at it from a high level view, however, the costs to society
> >> >are the same no matter who violated the ROW of another. Someone is
> >> >injured, thus incurring costs on the part of emergency responders,
> >> >lost time due to congested traffic, increased health care costs, etc.
>
> >> Let's take it to an even higher level, and look at it systemically and
> >> over long periods of time. One outcome of the current way of looking
> >> at these incidents in the US is that in many places (at least up until
> >> the recent economic collapse and increasing popularity of "going
> >> green") cycling and walking is kept as a fringe activity, and the
> >> livability of cities and suburbs has declined. Kids can't walk to
> >> school, let alone ride, and people w/o cars are screwed if they want
> >> to get to work.
>
> >> The attitude that the car is king and that other road users are at
> >> fault for risking their lives is both a symptom and cause of messed
> >> up land use policies.
>
> >At least in my area, I do not see that.
>
> So walking to, say, school, is as prevalent as it was 20 or 30 years
> ago? Riding too?
Don't know; don't have any school age children (well, any at all, for
that matter.) The cyclists that I see are all adults, but I leave the
house earlier than would a child going to school.
>
> >I generally see several
> >cyclists on the road before getting a mile or two away from my house
> >each morning. I see motorists going out of their way to be
> >"courteous" (e.g. yielding by default, even when they have the ROW) to
> >cyclists, who seem to play fast and loose with ROW rules. It's quite
> >easy to be a cyclist in this area, assuming you work somewhere within
> >easy cycling distance.
>
> So cycling is on the up even?
Couldn't say, not noticeably since I moved, anyway (~3 years ago.)
nate
N8N
<usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:23:05 -0700 (PDT), N8N <njna...@hotmail.com>
Doesn't matter. Someone died, due to someone's negligence. If the
negligence was on the part of the pedestrian, there's no need to
punish the motorist. To do so would be patently unfair.
nate
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
wrote:
Did you see kids riding to school 20 years ago? It wasn't that rare
at that time in many parts of the US, but it is now (as your only
seeing adults suggests).
>>
>> >I generally see several
>> >cyclists on the road before getting a mile or two away from my house
>> >each morning. �I see motorists going out of their way to be
>> >"courteous" (e.g. yielding by default, even when they have the ROW) to
>> >cyclists, who seem to play fast and loose with ROW rules. �It's quite
>> >easy to be a cyclist in this area, assuming you work somewhere within
>> >easy cycling distance. �
>>
>> So cycling is on the up even?
>
>Couldn't say, not noticeably since I moved, anyway (~3 years ago.)
If you can't say, then how can you object to my comment about the US
attitude toward car accidents affecting land use and transportation
practices over time? If my point wasn't clear, let me know and I'll
try to re-phrase it.
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
wrote:
>On Oct 12, 11:53�am, Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
><usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:23:05 -0700 (PDT), N8N <njna...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If you take this to an extreme you end up with communities like some
>> >places in Montgomery County (MD) which in an effort to become "safer
>> >for pedestrians" have become absolute hell for road users because of
>> >the aggressive "the road user is always at fault" stance that they
>> >have, which results in pedestrians simply stepping into crosswalks
>> >whenever they feel like it and motorists or cyclists having to panic
>> >stop for them.
>>
>> That's hell? �How many drivers are killed there by errant pedestrians
>> each year?
>
>Doesn't matter.
It does if you claim the situation is "hell" for motorists. Again,
how many motorists where you live have been killed by errant
pedestrians? And how many motorists have been prosectured and
punished for injurying pedestrians when they were not at fault?
Those two things would be "hellish" if they happened. Do they?
Peter Cole
> Looking at it from a high level view, however, the costs to society
> are the same no matter who violated the ROW of another. Someone is
> injured, thus incurring costs on the part of emergency responders,
> lost time due to congested traffic, increased health care costs, etc.
> Deliberately or carelessly engaging in actions likely to cause an
> incident is the problem, not the fact that cyclists are more
> "vulnerable" etc.
"Cost to society" isn't the issue, justice is.
> I'm not saying that one side or the other is more
> often at fault - what I am saying is that unless/until someone can
> show that the majority of cyclists in fact operate on the street with
> due care for their and other road users' safety (good luck with that
> one!) there's no way I could support such action as you propose. Just
> as one would have to show that the majority of drivers do so before
> arguing the converse. Neither is going to happen any time soon, at
> least not unless consequences for careless/illegal operation are
> imposed and enforced.
You are judging based on the current laws, which I'd argue should be
changed.
> If you take this to an extreme you end up with communities like some
> places in Montgomery County (MD) which in an effort to become "safer
> for pedestrians" have become absolute hell for road users because of
> the aggressive "the road user is always at fault" stance that they
> have, which results in pedestrians simply stepping into crosswalks
> whenever they feel like it and motorists or cyclists having to panic
> stop for them.
Flip the equation & you have "normalcy", i.e. pedestrian "hell".
Peter Cole
> On Oct 12, 11:53 am, Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
>> That's hell? How many drivers are killed there by errant pedestrians
>> each year?
>
> Doesn't matter. Someone died, due to someone's negligence. If the
> negligence was on the part of the pedestrian, there's no need to
> punish the motorist. To do so would be patently unfair.
This argument turns on the definition of "negligence". But the reality
remains that the risk isn't balanced. Chicken and pig.
N8N
<usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:00:40 -0700 (PDT), N8N <njna...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 12, 11:53 am, Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
> ><usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:23:05 -0700 (PDT), N8N <njna...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >If you take this to an extreme you end up with communities like some
> >> >places in Montgomery County (MD) which in an effort to become "safer
> >> >for pedestrians" have become absolute hell for road users because of
> >> >the aggressive "the road user is always at fault" stance that they
> >> >have, which results in pedestrians simply stepping into crosswalks
> >> >whenever they feel like it and motorists or cyclists having to panic
> >> >stop for them.
>
> >> That's hell? How many drivers are killed there by errant pedestrians
> >> each year?
>
> >Doesn't matter.
>
> It does if you claim the situation is "hell" for motorists. Again,
> how many motorists where you live have been killed by errant
> pedestrians? And how many motorists have been prosectured and
> punished for injurying pedestrians when they were not at fault?
>
> Those two things would be "hellish" if they happened. Do they?
At least the second one does.
nate
N8N
Therefore the pedestrian or cyclist should understand even more than
the motorist the need to be careful.
nate
N8N
> N8N wrote:
> > Looking at it from a high level view, however, the costs to society
> > are the same no matter who violated the ROW of another. Someone is
> > injured, thus incurring costs on the part of emergency responders,
> > lost time due to congested traffic, increased health care costs, etc.
> > Deliberately or carelessly engaging in actions likely to cause an
> > incident is the problem, not the fact that cyclists are more
> > "vulnerable" etc.
>
> "Cost to society" isn't the issue, justice is.
They are both issues, and your "solution" addresses neither.
It is not "just" to be presumed at fault.
>
> > I'm not saying that one side or the other is more
> > often at fault - what I am saying is that unless/until someone can
> > show that the majority of cyclists in fact operate on the street with
> > due care for their and other road users' safety (good luck with that
> > one!) there's no way I could support such action as you propose. Just
> > as one would have to show that the majority of drivers do so before
> > arguing the converse. Neither is going to happen any time soon, at
> > least not unless consequences for careless/illegal operation are
> > imposed and enforced.
>
> You are judging based on the current laws, which I'd argue should be
> changed.
And I argue that they are just fine, that they just need to be better
enforced.
>
> > If you take this to an extreme you end up with communities like some
> > places in Montgomery County (MD) which in an effort to become "safer
> > for pedestrians" have become absolute hell for road users because of
> > the aggressive "the road user is always at fault" stance that they
> > have, which results in pedestrians simply stepping into crosswalks
> > whenever they feel like it and motorists or cyclists having to panic
> > stop for them.
>
> Flip the equation & you have "normalcy", i.e. pedestrian "hell".
No, you have an emphasis on cooperation, not one-sided preference.
It's not like there aren't crosswalks and "walk/don't walk" signals
all over the place. If that were not the case, or it were in some
other way difficult to cross a street on foot, I would consider that
you had a point, but playing by the rules is not that hard.
In some european countries, one can actually get a ticket for
jaywalking - a point that seems to be glossed over by those who would
have us emulate their laws in other regards. Peds, cyclists, and
motorists are *all* expected to play by the rules - however you are
advocating giving a pass to the transgressions of certain preferred
classes.
nate
N8N
<usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:59:39 -0700 (PDT), N8N <njna...@hotmail.com>
Not so much, but 20 years ago I didn't live in an urban or suburban
area, so I didn't expect to.
> >> >I generally see several
> >> >cyclists on the road before getting a mile or two away from my house
> >> >each morning. I see motorists going out of their way to be
> >> >"courteous" (e.g. yielding by default, even when they have the ROW) to
> >> >cyclists, who seem to play fast and loose with ROW rules. It's quite
> >> >easy to be a cyclist in this area, assuming you work somewhere within
> >> >easy cycling distance.
>
> >> So cycling is on the up even?
>
> >Couldn't say, not noticeably since I moved, anyway (~3 years ago.)
>
> If you can't say, then how can you object to my comment about the US
> attitude toward car accidents affecting land use and transportation
> practices over time? If my point wasn't clear, let me know and I'll
> try to re-phrase it.
My point was, at least *in the area in which I live now* (I know that
it may not be the same everywhere) in many cases there is no real
impediment to people biking or walking to work/school other than
distance. My secondary point was that based on my observation,
cyclists seem to ride with no more care and attention than the average
motorist, which is not really all that surprising (that is to say,
they both are not that great.)
I do agree that things could still be made even easier, at least in
suburban areas, by changing street layouts, e.g. doing away with cul-
de-sacs and making all streets through streets like a more urban area
so that cyclists would not find themselves in a situation where they
need to travel on an arterial to get where they need to go, but
ironically enough that is one of the things that proponents of
"traffic calming" (who seem to contain a large subset of cycling
advocates) like to advocate against.
nate
Dan O
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/09/fear-of-cycling-02-constructing-fear-of.html
"The transformation of streets for people into roads for cars, perhaps
inevitably, produced death and injury. By 1936 concerns about the
alarming rise in cyclist casualties had led to the idea of a cycling
proficiency scheme, eventually adopted nationally in 1948 (CTC 2005).
To stem the carnage, cyclists must be trained to deal with the new,
dangerous conditions. But things could have been otherwise. A 1947
book by J. S. Dean, former Chairman of the Pedestrians’ Association,
is instructive here. In his ‘study of the road deaths problem’, Murder
Most Foul, Dean's basic tenet is that, ‘as roads are only “dangerous”
by virtue of being filled with heavy fast moving motor vehicles, by
far the greatest burden of responsibility for avoiding crashes, deaths
and injury on the roads should lie with the motorist’ (Peel n.d., 3)."
"Recognize that cars are deadly weapons. “Here they say bicycling is
dangerous," says Copenhagen planner Niels Jensen. "In the Netherlands
they say no, bicycling isn’t dangerous. The danger is cars. Car
drivers need to be aware that they are in a vehicle that could kill.”
Jensen says that in his country, any collision between a car and a
child on a bike is deemed the drivers’ fault."
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_24-6BKFbObY/SsG7ArBK86I/AAAAAAAABao/Ywfi2sZ9Uks/s640/IMGP3630.JPG
Dan O
Cite?
Dan O
> On Oct 12, 12:17 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > N8N wrote:
> > > Looking at it from a high level view, however, the costs to society
> > > are the same no matter who violated the ROW of another. Someone is
> > > injured, thus incurring costs on the part of emergency responders,
> > > lost time due to congested traffic, increased health care costs, etc.
> > > Deliberately or carelessly engaging in actions likely to cause an
> > > incident is the problem, not the fact that cyclists are more
> > > "vulnerable" etc.
http://www.tucsonbikelawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/kylie.jpg
>
> > "Cost to society" isn't the issue, justice is.
>
> They are both issues, and your "solution" addresses neither.
>
> It is not "just" to be presumed at fault.
>
It is not "just" to drive around like you're entitled to the world in
front of you.
It's not that hard to drive your car such that you can stop it before
hitting anything, but, with the "rules" rigged in their favor,
motorists feel entitled to the world ahead of them, and don't feel
like they should have to drive that way.
>
> In some european countries, one can actually get a ticket for
> jaywalking - a point that seems to be glossed over by those who would
> have us emulate their laws in other regards.
http://bojack.org/2009/03/a_ticket_for_jaywalking_in_dow.html
> Peds, cyclists, and
> motorists are *all* expected to play by the rules - however you are
> advocating giving a pass to the transgressions of certain preferred
> classes.
>
Your preferred "rules". You are advocating keeping in place the
existing pass for the deadly transgressions of your preferred class.
Peter Cole
Oh, they do. That's the problem. It's motorist's lack of care that's the
issue.
N8N
You honestly mean to say with a straight face that cyclists and
pedestrians are more careful than your average motorist? Sorry, I'm
laughing to hard to respond.
nate
Clive George
news:d9c9c12c-f306-407b...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>You honestly mean to say with a straight face that cyclists and
>pedestrians are more careful than your average motorist? Sorry, I'm
>laughing to hard to respond.
I would argue that motorists have a duty to be more careful, due to the
couple of tons of steel they're piloting at high speed.
N8N
> "N8N" <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Everyone has a duty to be equally careful. There's lots of failure to
do so - on all sides, not just on the part of motorists.
Can you honestly say that if all motorists began driving perfectly, to
the letter of the law and within their sightlines, tomorrow morning
that all motorist-cyclist and motorist-pedestrian incidents would
suddenly cease? Of course not, we all know better. Therefore to
concentrate on only one facet of the problem will not produce the
desired results.
nate
Tom Kunich
news:07c2d178-ed9f-46a4...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> It's not that hard to drive your car such that you can stop it before
> hitting anything, but, with the "rules" rigged in their favor,
> motorists feel entitled to the world ahead of them, and don't feel
> like they should have to drive that way.
As usual you've hit the real problem right on the head. Car drivers for
reasons of treatment believe that they own the roads.
Even though the vast majority of roads are construct from general taxes,
they believe that gasoline taxes pay for the road system and therefore they
own the roads.
Dan O
I think Kylie would disagree.
Tom Kunich
>
> Can you honestly say that if all motorists began driving perfectly, to
> the letter of the law and within their sightlines, tomorrow morning
> that all motorist-cyclist and motorist-pedestrian incidents would
> suddenly cease?
Around 40% of accidents are from children being run down and they are at
fault most of the time.
But of the other 60%, more than two thirds occur at night time and either or
both of those involved are under the influence of alcohol.
That suggests that perhaps .2 * 700 = about 140 cyclists a year over the USA
are involved in "real" accidents. What's more, about 80% of those have been
riding bicycles for less than two years according to some sources.
Compare that to the 35,000 or so traffic deaths in automobile accidents each
year and then try to explain why bicyclists are somehow equally at fault.
Clive George
On Oct 12, 5:04 pm, "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> "N8N" <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d9c9c12c-f306-407b...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >You honestly mean to say with a straight face that cyclists and
>> >pedestrians are more careful than your average motorist? Sorry, I'm
>> >laughing to hard to respond.
>>
>> I would argue that motorists have a duty to be more careful, due to the
>> couple of tons of steel they're piloting at high speed.
>
>Everyone has a duty to be equally careful. There's lots of failure to
>do so - on all sides, not just on the part of motorists.
If you include the potential to cause danger in "equally careful", I might
agree. There's absolutely no need for somebody walking down the street to
exercise the same level of care as somebody driving quickly down a road. One
wrong step, and you've maybe bumped into somebody - annoying, but not
actually lethal. Do the same in a car, and you've got a really nasty head on
collision.
>Can you honestly say that if all motorists began driving perfectly, to
>the letter of the law and within their sightlines, tomorrow morning
>that all motorist-cyclist and motorist-pedestrian incidents would
>suddenly cease? Of course not, we all know better.
What proportion of incidents do you think would go away? IIRC about 80%. The
proportion of such incidents which is the fault of the motorist is really
very high. Frank probably has the numbers.
>Therefore to
>concentrate on only one facet of the problem will not produce the
>desired results.
Actually, given the numbers, it will.
The problem is that of externalising risk. In a car, you can engage in risky
behaviour, but the people who get hurt when you get it wrong aren't you.
This means people do take more risks than they should do while driving, and
it's people like us on bikes who get hurt as a result.
The idea of the changing of the default assumption of who's at fault is an
effort to move some of that risk back onto the driver. Ok, it's not real
physical danger, but it's risk of wallet pain.
Peter Cole
> On Oct 12, 12:17 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> N8N wrote:
>>> Looking at it from a high level view, however, the costs to society
>>> are the same no matter who violated the ROW of another. Someone is
>>> injured, thus incurring costs on the part of emergency responders,
>>> lost time due to congested traffic, increased health care costs, etc.
>>> Deliberately or carelessly engaging in actions likely to cause an
>>> incident is the problem, not the fact that cyclists are more
>>> "vulnerable" etc.
>> "Cost to society" isn't the issue, justice is.
>
> They are both issues, and your "solution" addresses neither.
Cost isn't a legal issue.
>
> It is not "just" to be presumed at fault.
Straw man. There's no need for presumption if the laws are changed.
>
>>> I'm not saying that one side or the other is more
>>> often at fault - what I am saying is that unless/until someone can
>>> show that the majority of cyclists in fact operate on the street with
>>> due care for their and other road users' safety (good luck with that
>>> one!) there's no way I could support such action as you propose. Just
>>> as one would have to show that the majority of drivers do so before
>>> arguing the converse. Neither is going to happen any time soon, at
>>> least not unless consequences for careless/illegal operation are
>>> imposed and enforced.
>> You are judging based on the current laws, which I'd argue should be
>> changed.
>
> And I argue that they are just fine, that they just need to be better
> enforced.
Several thousand dead pedestrians say you're wrong.
>
>>> If you take this to an extreme you end up with communities like some
>>> places in Montgomery County (MD) which in an effort to become "safer
>>> for pedestrians" have become absolute hell for road users because of
>>> the aggressive "the road user is always at fault" stance that they
>>> have, which results in pedestrians simply stepping into crosswalks
>>> whenever they feel like it and motorists or cyclists having to panic
>>> stop for them.
>> Flip the equation & you have "normalcy", i.e. pedestrian "hell".
>
> No, you have an emphasis on cooperation, not one-sided preference.
No, you have the situation we have today where nobody walks if they can
avoid it, and the mainstream will never cycle because it's too dangerous.
>
> It's not like there aren't crosswalks and "walk/don't walk" signals
> all over the place. If that were not the case, or it were in some
> other way difficult to cross a street on foot, I would consider that
> you had a point, but playing by the rules is not that hard.
>
> In some european countries, one can actually get a ticket for
> jaywalking - a point that seems to be glossed over by those who would
> have us emulate their laws in other regards.
"Jaywalking" was made legal in the Netherlands in 1997. There was no
increase in pedestrian fatalities. The Netherlands have the lowest rates
of pedestrian fatalities in Europe.
http://www.vtpi.org/puchertq.pdf
> Peds, cyclists, and
> motorists are *all* expected to play by the rules - however you are
> advocating giving a pass to the transgressions of certain preferred
> classes.
Study the history of "jaywalking" sometime. Even the term was a PR creation.
N8N
> "N8N" <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4f7f2e6b-2c98-49da...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 12, 5:04 pm, "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> "N8N" <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:d9c9c12c-f306-407b...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >You honestly mean to say with a straight face that cyclists and
> >> >pedestrians are more careful than your average motorist? Sorry, I'm
> >> >laughing to hard to respond.
>
> >> I would argue that motorists have a duty to be more careful, due to the
> >> couple of tons of steel they're piloting at high speed.
>
> >Everyone has a duty to be equally careful. There's lots of failure to
> >do so - on all sides, not just on the part of motorists.
>
> If you include the potential to cause danger in "equally careful", I might
> agree. There's absolutely no need for somebody walking down the street to
> exercise the same level of care as somebody driving quickly down a road. One
> wrong step, and you've maybe bumped into somebody - annoying, but not
> actually lethal. Do the same in a car, and you've got a really nasty head on
> collision.
Unless that wrong step happens to be into the side of, or worse yet in
front of, a car or cyclist. Or is that somehow less nasty?
>
> >Can you honestly say that if all motorists began driving perfectly, to
> >the letter of the law and within their sightlines, tomorrow morning
> >that all motorist-cyclist and motorist-pedestrian incidents would
> >suddenly cease? Of course not, we all know better.
>
> What proportion of incidents do you think would go away? IIRC about 80%. The
> proportion of such incidents which is the fault of the motorist is really
> very high. Frank probably has the numbers.
My SWAG would be less than 50%.
> >Therefore to
> >concentrate on only one facet of the problem will not produce the
> >desired results.
>
> Actually, given the numbers, it will.
>
> The problem is that of externalising risk. In a car, you can engage in risky
> behaviour, but the people who get hurt when you get it wrong aren't you.
> This means people do take more risks than they should do while driving, and
> it's people like us on bikes who get hurt as a result.
>
> The idea of the changing of the default assumption of who's at fault is an
> effort to move some of that risk back onto the driver. Ok, it's not real
> physical danger, but it's risk of wallet pain.
Right. And it chaps my ass that you're proposing that I should have
to fork out to a lawyer just because some idiot stepped out in front
of my perfectly-legally-and-safely-operated car. And let's say that
said incident occurs with no witnesses and the unlucky pedestrian or
cyclist dies or is otherwise unable to communicate. There's nobody to
say "no, it wasn't his fault, I wasn't paying attention" and next
thing you know I'm in jail.
For me, personally, I have no doubt that I am correct in saying that
that has a FAR higher probability of happening than that I will cause
harm to someone through my own inattention or negligence.
nate
Peter Cole
> I do agree that things could still be made even easier, at least in
> suburban areas, by changing street layouts, e.g. doing away with cul-
> de-sacs and making all streets through streets like a more urban area
> so that cyclists would not find themselves in a situation where they
> need to travel on an arterial to get where they need to go, but
> ironically enough that is one of the things that proponents of
> "traffic calming" (who seem to contain a large subset of cycling
> advocates) like to advocate against.
I think you just made that up.
Tom Kunich
news:hb07ma$hf2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Peds, cyclists, and
>> motorists are *all* expected to play by the rules - however you are
>> advocating giving a pass to the transgressions of certain preferred
>> classes.
>
> Study the history of "jaywalking" sometime. Even the term was a PR
> creation.
Even more interesting - in Holland they've begun eliminating stop signs and
signals as well as cross walks and the like and instead putting in
round-abouts and making drivers responsible for the safe operation of their
own vehicles. Reports are that it has dramatically reduced accidents where
tried. Without stop signs and the like drivers have to pay closer attention
to their driving.
Of course that would never work in the USA since the drivers would be
talking on cell phones and tuning their radios which are much more important
than driving.
Peter Cole
http://www.vtpi.org/puchertq.pdf
"Finally, the punishment for traffic violations by motorists is far more
severe in The Netherlands and Germany than in the United States. The
extremely lenient treatment of American motorists is documented in
Killed by Automobile, an analysis of 1,020 pedestrian and bicyclist
fatalities in New York City from 1994 to 1997. Using police records, the
authors found that “drivers were largely or strictly culpable in 74% of
cases where sufficient information existed for culpability coding, and
were largely, strictly, or partly culpable in 90% of the known cases.
Hit and run, turning into pedestrians at crosswalks, and speeding were
the top three driver faults in killing pedestrians and cyclists.”
Incredibly, the police cited motorists for traffic violations in only
one-fourth of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities, although motorists
were involved in almost all these fatalities and were unquestionably at
fault in at least half. In only one percent of fatalities did the police
issue summonses to motorists specifically for violating pedestrian and
bicyclist rights of way (such as failing to yield in crosswalks or
driving in bike lanes). Studies published in the public health
literature also find a high percentage of motorist negligence in
pedestrian fatalities. Whereas motorists in Germany and The Netherlands
are presumed to be at fault in such accidents and get punished
accordingly, the police and courts in the United States reflect the
opposite view. Perhaps it is not too extreme to describe the American
situation as motorists getting away with murder or at least negligent
homicide. Clearly, such leniency with even the most deadly of driving
behavior only encourages more of it and puts pedestrians and bicyclists
at much higher risks in the United States than in Germany or The
Netherlands."
Keep laughing.
N8N
DAGS for "traffic calming cul de sac" - plenty of hits.
Quite often complaints about "cut through" traffic in residential
areas will prompt barriers, street closures, etc. or designers will
try to pre-empt such complaints by making "cut through" traffic in
neighborhoods impossible by making each neighborhood its own self
contained unit with only one way in or out, or having a couple but all
terminating on the same main road.
Not only do I not understand why someone would want to do that for
reasons of emergency response time (what happens if that connectivity
to the main road is blocked somehow?) but that also means that
pedestrians, cyclists, etc. have to either cut through some woods or
someone's back yard to get somewhere else, or else take to the main
road with (relatively) high speed vehicular traffic. It only gets
worse the closer you live to the cul of the sac of course.
Then, of course, when this is done, people wonder why more people
don't walk or bike places...
There's a good example not far from me. I'd dropped my car off at a
repair shop about 5 miles from my house. Rather than have someone
give me a ride to pick it up, I decided to bike there after work and
just throw my bike in the trunk. No sense using three times as much
fuel as necessary, right? There are exactly two ways to get there -
one, take a MUP most of the way and then travel the last mile or so on
a major six-lane road (which, apparently, is now part of a program to
add bike lanes... which might not be needed if there were parallel
roads to use.) The other was to head straight down US-29. Those were
literally the only two options. (I went ahead and rode, but would not
call anyone lacking in intestinal fortitude for not doing it.)
nate
Peter Cole
> On Oct 12, 5:04 pm, "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> "N8N" <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d9c9c12c-f306-407b...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> You honestly mean to say with a straight face that cyclists and
>>> pedestrians are more careful than your average motorist? Sorry, I'm
>>> laughing to hard to respond.
>> I would argue that motorists have a duty to be more careful, due to the
>> couple of tons of steel they're piloting at high speed.
>
> Everyone has a duty to be equally careful. There's lots of failure to
> do so - on all sides, not just on the part of motorists.
>
> Can you honestly say that if all motorists began driving perfectly, to
> the letter of the law and within their sightlines, tomorrow morning
> that all motorist-cyclist and motorist-pedestrian incidents would
> suddenly cease?
That's about what happened in the Netherlands.
N8N
Really?
First of all, I have no experience/knowledge of the actual conditions
"on the ground" in the Netherlands. However, based on what I've heard
from first hand accounts of people traveling to other European
countries, I don't know that you can draw conclusions on US behavior
from there. e.g. in Germany, apparently people don't jaywalk. They
just don't. That certainly makes it a lot easier to avoid hitting
them... That is not the case here. One would assume that their
cyclists are at least as mannerly...
nate
Peter Cole
> For me, personally, I have no doubt that I am correct in saying that
> that has a FAR higher probability of happening than that I will cause
> harm to someone through my own inattention or negligence.
That's what everybody thinks. Everybody is wrong.
N8N
If that were a true statement, then you yourself would be by
definition a reckless driver.
You might want to reconsider those sweeping generalizations, there.
nate
Peter Cole
> On Oct 12, 5:41 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> N8N wrote:
>>> I do agree that things could still be made even easier, at least in
>>> suburban areas, by changing street layouts, e.g. doing away with cul-
>>> de-sacs and making all streets through streets like a more urban area
>>> so that cyclists would not find themselves in a situation where they
>>> need to travel on an arterial to get where they need to go, but
>>> ironically enough that is one of the things that proponents of
>>> "traffic calming" (who seem to contain a large subset of cycling
>>> advocates) like to advocate against.
>> I think you just made that up.
>
> DAGS for "traffic calming cul de sac" - plenty of hits.
>
Yes, I understand why cul-de-sacs are popular. They're popular in the
suburbs, ironically.
Peter Cole
> On Oct 12, 5:54 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> N8N wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 5:04 pm, "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> "N8N" <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:d9c9c12c-f306-407b...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> You honestly mean to say with a straight face that cyclists and
>>>>> pedestrians are more careful than your average motorist? Sorry, I'm
>>>>> laughing to hard to respond.
>>>> I would argue that motorists have a duty to be more careful, due to the
>>>> couple of tons of steel they're piloting at high speed.
>>> Everyone has a duty to be equally careful. There's lots of failure to
>>> do so - on all sides, not just on the part of motorists.
>>> Can you honestly say that if all motorists began driving perfectly, to
>>> the letter of the law and within their sightlines, tomorrow morning
>>> that all motorist-cyclist and motorist-pedestrian incidents would
>>> suddenly cease?
>> That's about what happened in the Netherlands.
>
> Really?
>
> First of all, I have no experience/knowledge of the actual conditions
> "on the ground" in the Netherlands.
You can read, can't you?
Peter Cole
> On Oct 12, 5:58 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> N8N wrote:
>>> For me, personally, I have no doubt that I am correct in saying that
>>> that has a FAR higher probability of happening than that I will cause
>>> harm to someone through my own inattention or negligence.
>> That's what everybody thinks. Everybody is wrong.
>
> If that were a true statement, then you yourself would be by
> definition a reckless driver.
"Reckless", no. Dangerous, yes, like everyone else.
> You might want to reconsider those sweeping generalizations, there.
You might want to reconsider that beliefs based solely on personal
experience might be wrong. That's why we have this thing called science.
Peter Cole
Studies have shown that people are blissfully unaware of their level of
distraction and the effect that has on driving. Driving is not something
we evolved to do, so many of the aspects of the activity are non, or
even counter intuitive. The US is generally pretty backward in that regard.
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
wrote:
>
>My point was, at least *in the area in which I live now* (I know that
>it may not be the same everywhere) in many cases there is no real
>impediment to people biking or walking to work/school other than
>distance.
Where do you live? I don't believe that. When asked why people don't
ride to work, in most places in the US "danger" is identified as a
reason.
And to build upon that, our car culture is designed to spread things
out, so distances are further than they need be.
Nate Nagel
Sure, but i've yet to see anything that indicated that motorists in the
Netherlands went from being pretty-good-but-a-little-sloppy-sometimes to
perfect overnight, and that an 80% reduction in incidents with
pedestrians and/or cyclists resulted.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>N8N <njn...@hotmail.com> considered Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:23:05 -0700
>(PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>>If you take this to an extreme you end up with communities like some
>>places in Montgomery County (MD) which in an effort to become "safer
>>for pedestrians" have become absolute hell for road users because of
>>the aggressive "the road user is always at fault" stance that they
>>have, which results in pedestrians simply stepping into crosswalks
>>whenever they feel like it and motorists or cyclists having to panic
>>stop for them.
>>
>What a wonderful place.
>
>I'm amazed that there's anywhere in the US that actually has it's
>priorities right.
POTM
Nate Nagel
> N8N <njn...@hotmail.com> considered Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:23:05 -0700
> (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>> If you take this to an extreme you end up with communities like some
>> places in Montgomery County (MD) which in an effort to become "safer
>> for pedestrians" have become absolute hell for road users because of
>> the aggressive "the road user is always at fault" stance that they
>> have, which results in pedestrians simply stepping into crosswalks
>> whenever they feel like it and motorists or cyclists having to panic
>> stop for them.
>>
> What a wonderful place.
>
> I'm amazed that there's anywhere in the US that actually has it's
> priorities right.
It's miserable. Visit there sometime and try to get around.
I've actually seen peds step off the crosswalk against a "don't walk"
signal, and then when a motorist facing a green light dared to tap his
horn, the ped literally stood still in the crosswalk facing the
motorist, to "punish" him for his "arrogance."
Police will do the exact same thing, but instead of just being dicks
they'll ticket you if they don't think you stopped quickly enough. They
consider these "safety measures."
It's a miserable bass ackwards place and I hate having to go there (so I
rarely do.)
Nate Nagel
> N8N <njn...@hotmail.com> considered Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:45:29 -0700
> (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>> <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:23:05 -0700 (PDT), N8N <njna...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looking at it from a high level view, however, the costs to society
>>>> are the same no matter who violated the ROW of another. Someone is
>>>> injured, thus incurring costs on the part of emergency responders,
>>>> lost time due to congested traffic, increased health care costs, etc.
>>> over long periods of time. One outcome of the current way of looking
>>> at these incidents in the US is that in many places (at least up until
>>> the recent economic collapse and increasing popularity of "going
>>> green") cycling and walking is kept as a fringe activity, and the
>>> livability of cities and suburbs has declined. Kids can't walk to
>>> school, let alone ride, and people w/o cars are screwed if they want
>>> to get to work.
>>>
>>> The attitude that the car is king and that other road users are at
>>> fault for risking their lives is both a symptom and cause of messed
>>> up land use policies.
>> At least in my area, I do not see that. I generally see several
>> cyclists on the road before getting a mile or two away from my house
>> each morning.
>
> Then compare it with somewhere like my area, where I will typically
> see several dozen cyclists within the first mile, and within 10 miles
> I've lost count (it must be humdreds).
>
>> I see motorists going out of their way to be
>> "courteous" (e.g. yielding by default, even when they have the ROW) to
>> cyclists,
>
> Yes, we see that too. But the danger is brought by the minority who
> use their greater size, weight and speed to intimidate cyclists out of
> their way; not necessarily because they are vindictive, but because
> they sincerely believe that it's the cyclists responsiblility to stay
> out of their way. These are the road users who most need re-educating
> or banning. Use of lethal force in a dispute over roadspace is never
> acceptable, yet it happens all the time. It is only because the
> cyclists DO avoid the dangerous bullies that there are not more
> deaths.
>> who seem to play fast and loose with ROW rules. It's quite
>> easy to be a cyclist in this area, assuming you work somewhere within
>> easy cycling distance. In fact, I would say that on average,
>> motorists extend more courtesy to cyclists than happens the other way
>> 'round.
>>
> The other way 'round isn't courtesy, it's intimidation.
Yielding the ROW to a vehicle that legally has it is being intimidated?
Wow.
Nate Nagel
> N8N <njn...@hotmail.com> considered Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:26:29 -0700
> (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>> <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:00:40 -0700 (PDT), N8N <njna...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Oct 12, 11:53 am, Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
>>>> <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:23:05 -0700 (PDT), N8N <njna...@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> places in Montgomery County (MD) which in an effort to become "safer
>>>>>> for pedestrians" have become absolute hell for road users because of
>>>>>> the aggressive "the road user is always at fault" stance that they
>>>>>> have, which results in pedestrians simply stepping into crosswalks
>>>>>> whenever they feel like it and motorists or cyclists having to panic
>>>>>> stop for them.
>>>>> each year?
>>>> Doesn't matter.
>>> how many motorists where you live have been killed by errant
>>> pedestrians? And how many motorists have been prosectured and
>>> punished for injurying pedestrians when they were not at fault?
>>>
>>> Those two things would be "hellish" if they happened. Do they?
>> At least the second one does.
>>
> You mean the drivers are actually held to decent standards of
> behaviour, and (predictably) don't like it?
See my previous post.
I'm sure, were you a cyclist in that area, the same standards would be
applied to you as well.
Peter Cole
In 1995, the pedestrian fatality rate in the US was 364/Bkm, the
Netherlands & Germany 26. The ratios are similar for per-trip numbers.
The Netherlands had a 72% reduction in pedestrian fatalities from 1975
to 1998.
But, of course, nothing trumps your personal experience.
Tom Sherman °_°
> Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 10:22 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>>> Far from being a reason for cyclists to walk away to DoNothingLand, as
>>>> you imply, that is a reason for joggers, workmen and other motorists
>>>> to join cyclists in a campaign to get some realistic laws put on the
>>>> statute book to deal with negligent drivers in charge of several tons
>>>> of lethal instrument.
>>> The US is so auto-centric that most cyclists and pedestrians go along
>>> with the "act of god" categorization. As in the "cycling to school"
>>> thread, the typical response to hazards to cyclists and pedestrians is
>>> to restrict, or ban outright, walking and cycling. The common police
>>> attitude is that cyclists and pedestrians place themselves in harm's way
>>> and deserve the consequences.
>>>
>>> I philosophically oppose "vehicular cycling" on its basic thrust of
>>> having cyclists conform to motoring conventions. I don't believe in the
>>> "same rules, same roads" mantra -- quite the opposite. My opinion is
>>> very much a minority among US cyclists (but perhaps not Dutch or Danish
>>> ones). I believe it's ethical and sensible to give vulnerable road users
>>> special protection under the law and lower liabilities because of their
>>> comparatively benign nature. I hold those truths to be self-evident.
>>
>> Exactly. When I saw your response to Nate, I said aloud, Hear, hear!
>>
>> "The US should adopt the policy of several European countries that in
>> such instances the driver is presumed to be at fault, and the burden
>> to prove otherwise falls to them. Simple." It is indeed that simple.
>>
>> However, considering political realities as so starkly laid out in
>> Dan's original reference, you might have to start smaller than with a
>> sweeping principle. We have a rule or perhaps a law here, in any event
>> a principle so commonly agreed that it is part of the formal driving
>> test, that a motorist must give a cyclist three feet of space, which
>> seems to me a very good start, because the motorist who hits a cyclist
>> (or is even seen closer than three feet) clearly broke the law and
>> must then explain himself, under oath and questioning if he is
>> charged. That modest-seeming law moves the burden of proof onto the
>> motorist.
>>
>> Andre Jute
>> Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live -- Mark Twain
>
> I have raised the issue of the "3 foot law" on our local cycling
> advocacy forum. It was dismissed out of hand as being "impractical".
> This is by people who call themselves cycling advocates. Their idea of
> success is the recent passing of a law that raised the penalties on
> cyclists for infractions, their sponsorship displaying the prejudice
> (and misconception) that most collisions are the cyclist's fault. With
> "friends" like this, who needs enemies? Such crazy attitudes are a
> direct consequence of the "vehicular cycling" movement, an ideology
> whose premise is that the way forward for cycling is to become more
> car-like. Of course this has lead to a decline in cycling, only reversed
> in those countries and communities that took a very different tack.
> [...]
How the heck did you get from here to there?
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Nate Nagel
Of course, you have a rigorous explanation for WHY that was.
Peter Cole
One of the consequences is that when people have to give up the car
they're screwed. Nobody wants to take away senior's driving privileges
because it's almost a death sentence, so we have impaired drivers.
In (1995) US, age 65+ residents made 91% of their trips by car. In the
Netherlands (1998), age 75+ residents 48% walk/bike, Germany 55%.
Tom Kunich
>
> One of the consequences is that when people have to give up the car
> they're screwed. Nobody wants to take away senior's driving privileges
> because it's almost a death sentence, so we have impaired drivers.
>
> In (1995) US, age 65+ residents made 91% of their trips by car. In the
> Netherlands (1998), age 75+ residents 48% walk/bike, Germany 55%.
Not to be negative but you have to remember that distances to and from
(important places) in the USA are generally MUCH greater than anywhere in
Europe.
Peter Cole
> Phil W Lee wrote:
>> N8N <njn...@hotmail.com> considered Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:23:05 -0700
>> (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>>
>>> If you take this to an extreme you end up with communities like some
>>> places in Montgomery County (MD) which in an effort to become "safer
>>> for pedestrians" have become absolute hell for road users because of
>>> the aggressive "the road user is always at fault" stance that they
>>> have,
You do know that pedestrians are also "road users"?
>>> which results in pedestrians simply stepping into crosswalks
>>> whenever they feel like it and motorists or cyclists having to panic
>>> stop for them.
>>>
>> What a wonderful place.
>>
>> I'm amazed that there's anywhere in the US that actually has it's
>> priorities right.
>
> It's miserable. Visit there sometime and try to get around.
Must be a great place to walk.
> I've actually seen peds step off the crosswalk against a "don't walk"
> signal, and then when a motorist facing a green light dared to tap his
> horn, the ped literally stood still in the crosswalk facing the
> motorist, to "punish" him for his "arrogance."
Shocking! I mean for the pedestrian to show such restraint. I'd sit on
your hood.
> Police will do the exact same thing, but instead of just being dicks
> they'll ticket you if they don't think you stopped quickly enough. They
> consider these "safety measures."
What a wacky idea! Love those Keystone Cops. They probably really frown
on actually hitting pedestrians, too.
> It's a miserable bass ackwards place and I hate having to go there (so I
> rarely do.)
I'm sure it's their loss.
Peter Cole
Had to be the windmills, tulips or wooden shoes. I don't know how
Germany did it, lederhosen?
Nate Nagel
you did see the part where the ped had a "don't walk" light and the
motorist had a green light?
Seriously, don't be an asshole. It doesn't become anyone.
Nate Nagel
Well, tell us, don't keep us in suspense. Otherwise I'm going to have
to assume that you're just spraying random factoids onto my Usenet feed
without any sort of structure or upcoming point.
Peter Cole
Yeah, got that.
Peter Cole
The point is that the Netherlands (and Germany) have virtually
eliminated pedestrian fatalities (relative to the US), and they did it
not by "cracking down" on pedestrians. But, continue to believe your own
eyes if you wish. It's not un-American to pontificate from a state of
willful ignorance. It's the current fashion.
Nate Nagel
and yet if a motorist ran a red light in front of you, while you were
lawfully crossing the street on foot or on a bike, you'd be baying for
blood.
I can't figure whether you're just deliberately posting idiotic crap to
try to get a rise out of me (and whoever else might be reading - won't
work BTW, I've got a pretty thick skin. Worst that might happen is I
might just stop reading for a while.) or you actually are serious, in
which case I regretfully inform you that you're not likely to be taken
seriously by anyone likely to be taken seriously.
Clive George
news:hb0h6...@news6.newsguy.com...
Terrible, isn't it.
Actually, that's how things should be, because that's how the risks are
split. Motorist runs red light, pedestrian doesn't jump = motorist fine,
pedestrian hurt or dead. Pedestrian runs red light, motorist doesn't stop =
motorist fine, pedestrian hurt or dead.
If it were pedestrian runs red light, motorist doesn't stop = motorist hurt
or dead, then I'd be with you screaming about dangerous pedestrian
behaviour. But it isn't. In the case you're saying is appalling, the outcome
is a few seconds delay for the guy tooting his horn. Is that really that
bad? Is preventing that from happening really worth the death rates you guys
are suffering elsewhere?
Tom Sherman °_°
> On Oct 11, 5:42 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>> Agreed. The US should adopt the policy of several European countries
>>>> that in such instances the driver is presumed to be at fault, and the
>>>> burden to prove otherwise falls to them. Simple.
>>> assigning blame to the actual guilty party is just way too much work.
>>> nate
>> It would just change the current US convention where the driver is
>> presumed innocent (e.g. Texas case) to one where they're presumed
>> guilty. That's all. Presumption of guilt doesn't preclude investigation,
>> it's just a starting point and (different) default placement of burden
>> of proof.
>
> I responded to this yesterday, although I still do not see my
> response... my apologies if it eventually shows up
>
> anyway, I can't imagine anything more unAmerican. Our justice system
> is based on the presumption of innocence, therefore arbitrarily
> defining a certain class of people as "guilty until proven innocent"
> goes against everything we stand for. Besides, under our current
> system, *both* the cyclist and the driver are presumed innocent until
> found at fault; if there's any prejudice one way or another locally,
> it's just that, prejudice.
>
> Besides, in my highly unscientific surveys, the average cyclist sucks
> just as badly if not worse than the average motorist, so automatically
> assigning blame to either side makes no sense.
>
The change that needs to be made is eliminating "I didn't see him/her"
as a valid defense when a motorist mains or kills a cyclist. Killing a
cyclist through inattention should have a similar penalty to firing a
gun in the air at random and killing someone. The fines handed out to
many homicidal motorists are smaller than the license fees for shooting
big game.
Nate Nagel
If you're going to use Germany as an example, it's not a very good one.
As I've said before, from all accounts I've heard, jaywalking doesn't
exist in many places in Germany. So of course they're going to have
fewer pedestrian fatalities.
They also have much better driver's licensing, education, and
enforcement policies than we do here.
Both are Good Things(tm)
Nate Nagel
It's not an either/or proposition.
Prevent pedestrians from wandering out into moving traffic = fewer
pedestrians hurt or killed.
Prevent motorists from running red lights = fewer pedestrians hurt or
kiilled.
(in both cases, there are also benefits to the motorists, but you seem
to be concentrating on the pedestrian here.)
Concentrating on the behavior of one subset of the population while
"cracking down" on the behavior of another, or showing favoritism to one
subset at the expense of another, only addresses half the problem. When
you consider that those subsets are likely comprised of the same people,
as most people who are pedestrians or cyclists are also at other times
motorists, makes it seem that much more ludicrous.
The reason I'm opposed to writing into law measures that favor one class
of road user over another is that I'm afraid that exactly the same thing
would happen WRT cyclists that I've seen happening with pedestrians in
Bethesda, Silver Spring, etc. - they become used to being a "protected
class" and end up arrogantly engaging in behaviors that only require a
split second of inattention on the part of another road user to end in
injury or worse.
Of course, the fortunate thing is, outside the confines of
cycling-centric Usenet groups, that will never gain any serious
traction, unless somehow the majority of voting-age citizens become
car-hating cyclists overnight and/or cyclists mount a huge PR campaign
to convince most people that they are horribly endangered every day and
need special protection.
Personally, I don't particularly want nor need special protection no
matter what mode of transport I'm using, I'm totally OK with a level
playing field. And I can't imagine anyone feeling otherwise, unless he
were certain that he is only going to use that one protected method of
getting around for the rest of his life.
Now let's say you live in a less cyclist-friendly area. (I'm sure there
are some reading that do.) Which is going to result in more positive
change - demonstrating that one can "play nice" with traffic, and
attempting positive educational messages on proper car/cyclist
interaction, combined with polite requests to local law enforcement to
help out a little, or rabid anti-car screeds?
Gawd, the older I get the older I sound, but I have to say it anyway -
whatever happened to placing blame where it is due, and accepting
responsibility for one's own actions?
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> I can't figure whether you're just deliberately posting idiotic crap to
> try to get a rise out of me (and whoever else might be reading - won't
Here is a bicycle helmet for you then:
<http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/7963/761cm9.jpg>.
Nate Nagel
Why would that not be a valid defense, if it could be shown that, say, a
cyclist ran a stop sign in front of a motorist who was proceeding at a
legal and safe speed down a cross street, and that it would have
literally been impossible for the motorist to stop in time even had the
motorist seen the cyclist at the first moment where it would have been
geometrically possible to do so?
This is not a completely hypothetical question; I've seen some
near-misses that were only so because of timing, roughly equivalent to
the scenario I describe above.
Why would that not be a valid defense if it were pitch dark and the
cyclist was riding without lights, reflectors, or any other kind of
attempt to be visible to other road users? Again, not completely
hypothetical.
Now I agree with you in that if the cyclist is exercising due care,
severe penalties should apply. The key words in your post are *through
inattention.* There's plenty of other ways incidents can happen other
than through the inattention of a motorist.
Tom Sherman °_°
her friends runs off the road and hits a cyclist on the shoulder, and
tells the police "I didn't see him". The police hand out a citation for
a couple hundred dollars and the cyclist ends up in a cremation urn.
Tom Kunich
>
> If you're going to use Germany as an example, it's not a very good one. As
> I've said before, from all accounts I've heard, jaywalking doesn't exist
> in many places in Germany. So of course they're going to have fewer
> pedestrian fatalities.
>
> They also have much better driver's licensing, education, and enforcement
> policies than we do here.
>
> Both are Good Things(tm)
Because Germany is more or less a single racial area they have a lot of
respect for the laws since they identify it with "me and mine" whereas here
with mixed racial groups each group tends to identify laws as something the
evil "whites" are perpetrating on them.
So please don't give us this pucky about pedestrians not jaywalking.
Nate Nagel
no, that would be vehicular manslaughter.
Tom Sherman °_°
Nate Nagel
WTF?
for your next trick, are you going to actually try to equate being a
cyclist with being an oppressed minority?
...and then tell me that because I'm white, I couldn't possibly understand?
never mind that that whole statement is completely racist, as I know
plenty of non-white people who don't seem to have a problem with being
law-abiding citizens.
> So please don't give us this pucky about pedestrians not jaywalking.
Are you then asserting that that's not true, and/or that not jaywalking
isn't conducive to not getting hit by cars?
Nate Nagel
Then that's a problem with existing laws not being enforced, not a need
for new, discriminatory laws.