perhaps the child was not killed, but he was seriously injured.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theblotter/2010302315_criminal_charges_filed_against.html
and I knew someone quite well that rode his bike like an asshole, blew through a intersection because he apparently thought it was clear enough for him, and was t-boned by a car. the motorist was rightfully not at fault for killing my friend.
cyclists can easily kill themselves.
perhaps the child was not killed, but he was seriously injured.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theblotter/2010302315_criminal_charges_filed_against.html
and I knew someone quite well that rode his bike like an asshole, blew through a intersection because he apparently thought it was clear enough for him, and was t-boned by a car. the motorist was rightfully not at fault for killing my friend.
cyclists can easily kill themselves.[/quote]
These things are true. I should revise my assertion to suggest that cyclists kill much fewer people than automobiles and as such, the risk to others when violating road laws isn’t nearly so great.
[quote=halbritt]
These things are true. I should revise my assertion to suggest that cyclists kill much fewer people than automobiles and as such, the risk to others when violating road laws isn’t nearly so great.[/quote]
I wonder how it breaks down per capita per se? Like… since there are way more cars than cyclists, and car accidents are reported much more often than say a scraped knee on a bike or what have you.
So I’m wondering what the statistical breakdown might look like?
I’d say when you follow the rules of the road, you’re following a predictable flow or pattern of traffic and thus are less likely to be run over.
I’d also guess from simple observation of the deaths of cyclists in my city, half of fatalities were the fault of cyclists and the other half were the fault of drivers. as cyclists, all we can do is be more visible and follow traffic laws (i.e. not blowing through intersections or going the wrong way down streets). Maybe this would bring that 50% down.
this is only true if everyone else follows the rules, which is never the case. best to use your brain instead of just following the rules.
this is based on who was found to be legally at fault, no? in my experience, there is rarely a direct connection between who is found legally at fault and who made the stupid error that got someone hurt. car swerves into lane at high speed, no signal hits bicyclist, cyclist is missing a front light or something, they’re pronounced at fault and cop drops a ticket on them as they lay on the ground bleeding and unable to move (happened to someone i know, more or less).
point is, those statistics are probably pretty whack because rules and reality have little relation to one another and who was legally at fault and who was realistically at fault would drastically alter those statistics.
this is only true if everyone else follows the rules, which is never the case. best to use your brain instead of just following the rules.
this is based on who was found to be legally at fault, no? in my experience, there is rarely a direct connection between who is found legally at fault and who made the stupid error that got someone hurt. car swerves into lane at high speed, no signal hits bicyclist, cyclist is missing a front light or something, they’re pronounced at fault and cop drops a ticket on them as they lay on the ground bleeding and unable to move (happened to someone i know, more or less).
point is, those statistics are probably pretty whack because rules and reality have little relation to one another and who was legally at fault and who was realistically at fault would drastically alter those statistics.[/quote]
if a driver cannot see the cyclists because they do not have a front light (as required by law in most areas), then yes, the cyclist is at fault. If the driver did not signal their intention, then the driver is at fault. If both are true (no front light and no signal), then they are both at fault. And I mean that in an actual way, not a legal point of view.
I am speaking more of what’s reported in the news articles I’ve read regarding accidents, not actual faults as deemed by police or insurance – that I have no idea. From news articles alone, it seems about 50/50…reckless riding or drunk/texting/negligent motorist, but perhaps that is due to reporter slant / available information, so I may be off-base. .
I agree that it’s better to use your head than just mindless follow road rules, but all I’m saying is dont let “using your head” always trump traffic laws because sometimes you’ll be wrong…even though you think you’re right. And, besides, individual smarts vs. road rules is a bit of a false dichotomy; traffic laws and regulation are often well-planned and thought-out (traffic/urban planning, on the other hand is not).
most of the people i spoke with that had been hit by a car in Melbourne were novice cyclists who swore they had right of way when they were hit, they also weren’t looking for cars that probably hadn’t seen them. yeah, legally, it was the cars, but i and a lot of us, have never been hit by cars because we would assume they can’t, don’t or won’t see us before our paths would cross.
FWIW the deputy mayor or someone like that i saw interviewed once was saying how he had almost been hit by cyclists lots of times on Swanston St, the main tram, bicycle and taxi (no cars allowed) route through the CBD. i would wager that he hadn’t looked and assumed silence to mean a clear road. tons of people would step right out in front of me on this road and i bet they went home to tell their friends how some maniac cyclist nearly killed them on the way home.
“Riding through a RED light: $224 (law now opperative)”
this seems pretty reasonable
as i just got my running a stop light ticket in the mail last night… with traffic school the ticket is $510
fuck you san luis obispo pd
[quote=snails]“Riding through a RED light: $224 (law now opperative)”
this seems pretty reasonable
as i just got my running a stop light ticket in the mail last night… with traffic school the ticket is $510
fuck you san luis obispo pd[/quote]
Its funnier coz ur name is snails.
u plea innocent?
[quote=snails]“Riding through a RED light: $224 (law now opperative)”
this seems pretty reasonable
as i just got my running a stop light ticket in the mail last night… with traffic school the ticket is $510
fuck you san luis obispo pd[/quote]
That’s what you get for doing your crit on a hillside /shakefist
In all seriousness, I’m sorry to hear it was that expensive.
this is only true if everyone else follows the rules, which is never the case. best to use your brain instead of just following the rules.
this is based on who was found to be legally at fault, no? in my experience, there is rarely a direct connection between who is found legally at fault and who made the stupid error that got someone hurt. car swerves into lane at high speed, no signal hits bicyclist, cyclist is missing a front light or something, they’re pronounced at fault and cop drops a ticket on them as they lay on the ground bleeding and unable to move (happened to someone i know, more or less).
point is, those statistics are probably pretty whack because rules and reality have little relation to one another and who was legally at fault and who was realistically at fault would drastically alter those statistics.[/quote]
I am speaking more of what’s reported in the news articles I’ve read regarding accidents, not actual faults as deemed by police or insurance – that I have no idea. From news articles alone, it seems about 50/50…reckless riding or drunk/texting/negligent motorist, but perhaps that is due to reporter slant / available information, so I may be off-base. .[/quote]
I think that the data in the news articles is the data from the police/insurance reports that Grindmaster Flash is talking about. It is utterly meaningless and does more harm than good, I would say. If fault is distributed evenly, then the law seems to favor no one, but we all know that that’s not the case. Until someone comes out with a valid way to determine, record and quantify fault, it’s a counterproductive way of looking at the problem.
I think stop signs should be yield signs for bikes, but I see no reason why I should be able to legally run a red light, even if I stopped first. I would like to be able to, but I don’t see that being a justifiable option. Most cyclists (and people in general) are, in my estimation, not capable of determining when it is actually safe to run the light. You would think that people would have the common sense not to jump out in front of cars, but look at pedestrians in San Francisco…
Still not illegal to ride drunk in Washington state. Hollar.
Also: Theres almost no such thing as bike lanes where I live. Like, 8 blocks on one street, and then bike “routes” on others which means someone painted a bicycle with a directional arrow in the lanes on certain streets, I dont actually know what that means though…
Everywhere there are bike lanes they just become free parking anyways.