Holding drivers responsible

[Zoot Katz]

Thu, 04 Sep 2003 09:51:49 GMT, <[email protected]>, top-posting
pisspuddle, "John" <[email protected]> whined:

>Silly me. All drivers bad. All bikers good. Feel better? Have you been absolved of all
>responsibility now?
>
>You sound like one of the small group of arrogant self-righteous idiots who always blame others. I
>made specific points, try addressing them if you feel they are incorrect.

Your so called points were the typical apologist snivellings of arrogant auto addicted asswipes.

Nobody should have to go two blocks out of their way because you're unhappy with the route they've
chosen. If they get hit by a car, it's generally the driver's fault. Not the cyclist's fault for
being there.

Sure there's unskilled cyclists but when they "run amok" they aren't leaving behind dead and
crippled pedestrians. How commonly are hit-and-run pedestrian fatalities caused by bicyclists?
When's the last time a bicycle wiped out 6 people at a bus stop?

That's the point, you top-posting ninny. Cars are deadly objects and drivers are commonly careless,
largely unskilled, arrogant, selfish, and too often ignorant of the rights of other road users. When
they're impaired and inattentive their actions are criminal yet go unpunished in any meaningful ways
after they've caused irreparable damage.
--
zk

 

[John]

"Zoot Katz" top-posting
> pisspuddle, "John" <[email protected]> whined:> Your so called points were the typical apologist
> snivellings of arrogant auto addicted asswipes.

Once again, nonsensical rantings with no content. Do you actually have anything at all intelligent
to say or is this about it for you?

> Nobody should have to go two blocks out of their way because you're unhappy with the route they've
> chosen. If they get hit by a car, it's generally the driver's fault. Not the cyclist's fault for
> being there.

Riding on a major road, with with fast traffic and no shoulders, is just plain dumb. Is it also
McDonald's fault that patrons get fat, cigarette company's fault when people insist on smoking? Yes,
I can choose to ride that busy road and ignore the very convenient alternate. But with choice comes
responsibility. We are responsible for the consequences of the choices we make. You just want to
blame everyone except yourself. That's pitiful.

> That's the point, you top-posting ninny.

More nonsense with no content.

Cars are deadly objects and
> drivers are commonly careless, largely unskilled, arrogant, selfish, and too often ignorant of the
> rights of other road users. When they're impaired and inattentive their actions are criminal yet
> go unpunished in any meaningful ways after they've caused irreparable damage.

Yes, and that is why you don't deliberately put yourself in their way to prove some bizarre point.
LOTS of dumb things go unpunished, LOTS of people get hurt or die in ways totally unrelated to
automobiles.

Maybe when you grow up (yes, your age is very obvious) you'll have a better grasp of reality. Life
isn't fair, get over it. And pay more attention in school, you really need a much better vocabulary.

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 09:50:15 -0700, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> from Balsa Pacific Aero Ltd.
Engineering & Bicycle Mongery wrote:

>Your so called points were the typical apologist snivellings of arrogant auto addicted asswipes.

C'mon, Zoot. Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think!

--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace Has everybody got HALVAH spread all over
their ANKLES?? ... Now, it's time to "HAVE A NAGEELA"!!
8:07:00 PM 4 September 2003

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 10:05:42 GMT, "John" <[email protected]> from EarthLink Inc. --
http://www.EarthLink.net wrote:

>Anyway, I was waiting at a crosswalk near the front of my dorm when a bicycle rider came by on the
>main road. By freak accident, his tire caught a storm grate and he hit the ground head first almost
>directly in front of me. Seeing the cracked skull and the brains coming out is an image I can't get
>rid of even after 30+ years. It's a lot more gruesome than any movie I've seen. That was the day I
>ordered a helmet (those days, helmets were rare) and have never ridden without one since. Of
>course, back then, the helmet, and an adult riding a bicycle, drew lots of attention!

OK, you got a helmet. What are you going to do to protect yourself from injury like the one you
described? A helmet is only certified to protect a head-shaped metal object from a straight fall of
six feet. Anyway, don't you think avoiding the storm grate entirely would be the best thing to do? I
mean, you know what they say: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace There's a little picture of ED MCMAHON doing
BAD THINGS to JOAN RIVERS in a $200,000 MALIBU BEACH HOUSE!!
12:22:02 AM 5 September 2003

 

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 05 Sep 2003 00:24:27 GMT, <%[email protected]>, "John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Yes, and that is why you don't deliberately put yourself in their way to prove some bizarre point.

Look, somebody riding on the road is just that. They're not out to make points. They're not
necessarily making political statements or social commentary, they're going somewhere on their
public road. They're traffic. It's that simple. Get used to it.

That they're not on some other road shouldn't be your concern.

You ride the road where you're comfortable.

>LOTS of dumb things go unpunished, LOTS of people get hurt or die in ways totally unrelated to
>automobiles.
>
Industrial safety is a serious topic in workplaces where there are threats that overall, claim fewer
lives than driving. The danger is recognised and rigourous standards are set. There are frequent
inspections. There is specialised training and testing for equipment operators. Much of that
equipment poses no threat to others than its operator. Most fatalities are at work result from
self-inflicted stupidity and disregard for the established safety procedures.

It's a different situation than haphazardly operating dangerous equipment in the general public
where there are more vulnerable road-users present. Nobody's being paid to risk their lives going to
pick up their groceries.

>Maybe when you grow up (yes, your age is very obvious) you'll have a better grasp of reality. Life
>isn't fair, get over it. And pay more attention in school, you really need a much better
>vocabulary.

--
zk

 

[Zoot Katz]

Thu, 04 Sep 2003 20:07:12 -0500, <[email protected]>, Kevan Smith
<[email protected]/\/\> wrote:
>
>>Your so called points were the typical apologist snivellings of arrogant auto addicted asswipes.
>
>C'mon, Zoot. Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think!

thppppft!
--
zk

 

[John]

"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]/\/\> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OK, you got a helmet. What are you going to do to protect yourself from
injury
> like the one you described? A helmet is only certified to protect a
head-shaped
> metal object from a straight fall of six feet. Anyway, don't you think
avoiding
> the storm grate entirely would be the best thing to do? I mean, you know
what
> they say: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Yeah, life would be fantastic if we could always avoid the storm grates that come our way. Too bad
that just isn't realistic. That road was a no shoulder, heavy traffic road just like Colfax here in
Denver, the road I'm discussing with another poster. That biker made a choice to take that road.
Realistically, there was no other place for him to go when (and if) he first saw the grate.

Yeah, as a motorcyclist as well as a bicyclist, I've heard all the rationalizations about why
helmets (or seatbelts or airbags) don't work. The fact of the matter is that head injuries when
helmets are used are substantially less than when they are not. That is VERY easy to look up. The
fact is that the way you test something is not an indication of the only way it works. That you can
leran in an entry level QA engineering course.

But hey, I am pretty much a Libertarian! I use helmets, others don't. That's fine with me as long as
no one else has to be burdened with the consequences either way. And in no way does that change the
image of that young man's severe head injuries that is still burned into my neurons decades later.

Cheers.

 

[John]

Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Fri, 05 Sep 2003 00:24:27 GMT, <%[email protected]>, "John"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Look, somebody riding on the road is just that. They're not out to make points. They're not
> necessarily making political statements or social commentary, they're going somewhere on their
> public road. They're traffic. It's that simple. Get used to it.
>
> That they're not on some other road shouldn't be your concern.

As a pedestrian, I have the right of way in a crosswalk. Hey, I'll just step in front of that
speeding truck because I have a right to be there. Yep, the truck driver may be at fault for not
yielding. However, I am the one who should be blamed for the "accident." It is not my concern what
choice someone makes until that person decides that the consequences of their bad choices are
someone else's (society's) fault.

>
> You ride the road where you're comfortable.
>
Yes. And you should accept the responsibility for the consequences of that choice. Everyone knows
what to expect on a high-speed main drag with no shoulders. Turning off one's brain doesn't and
shouldn't protect someone from harm.

> >LOTS of dumb things go unpunished, LOTS of people get hurt or die in ways totally unrelated to
> >automobiles.

People make bad choices and mistakes all the time. Contrary to what you want to believe, most
drivers are not out to get you. They make mistakes just like you do. The difference is that a small
mistake with a couple of tons of moving metal leads to more drastic consequences.

Having ridden bicycles for over 30 years and motorcycles for about 20, I am aware of the dangers. I
am also intelligent enough to understand that ultimately I must look out for myself. That includes
making good choices and using common sense.

Motorcyclists have a term for people, with rare exceptions young and naive, who ignore common sense.
That term is "squid." Almost all squids are young, they never get to grow older.

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 20:08:03 GMT, "John" <[email protected]> from EarthLink Inc. --
http://www.EarthLink.net wrote:

>Yeah, life would be fantastic if we could always avoid the storm grates that come our way. Too bad
>that just isn't realistic. That road was a no shoulder, heavy traffic road just like Colfax here in
>Denver, the road I'm discussing with another poster. That biker made a choice to take that road.
>Realistically, there was no other place for him to go when (and if) he first saw the grate.

Bull. First off, my guess is he wasn't watching the road surface. Second, if he had no bail out
room, he could have stopped. I won't go into a discussion of fault of the guys death, because some
municipalities have been found negligent in storm grate placing when cyclist injury or death is
involved. Others haven't. It's a grey area. However, it seems to me that a cyclist should watch the
road surface.
--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace a lovely radar is a smelly Tibet
8:12:14 PM 5 September 2003

 

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 05 Sep 2003 20:08:03 GMT,
<[email protected]>, "John" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Colfax here in Denver, the road I'm discussing with another poster.

But he ain't "discussing" it with you.

Ride Colfax or not, I care spit.

Any bicycle there is traffic. Deal with it accordingly.
--
zk

 

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 05 Sep 2003 19:55:02 GMT, <[email protected]>, "John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The difference is that a small mistake with a couple of tons of moving metal leads to more drastic
>consequences.

Now, getting back to the stated subject, I hold that cagers cerebral flatulence should cost them
more than what's currently meted out by the courts. The courts are reflecting a sick societies
manipulated priorities that places automobiles above human life.

Yes, all road users have responsibilities. When a cyclist or pedestrian is negligent or inattentive,
they can pay with their lives. Automobile drivers frequently don't even get a traffic ticket after
killing somebody. Unless there's overwhelming evidence of the driver's negligence, the dead ped or
dead biker gets blamed and the economy rolls on.

The disproportionate risk doesn't encourage responsible behaviour on the part of drivers. When their
"small mistakes" costs somebody their life, or leaves them disabled, then the driver should face
similar consequences. We've artificially elevated the status of driving. Let the permanent loss of
that privilege be their price paid for that mistake.
--
zk

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 20:12:28 -0500, wrote:
> Bull. First off, my guess is he wasn't watching the road surface. Second, It's a grey area.
> However, it seems to me that a cyclist should watch the road surface.

Cyclists, and any other road user, should indeed watch the road surface.

However, it's even easier to be distracted on a bicycle than in a car.

In a car, you might be distracted by another driver doing something dangerous; you're more likely to
be distracted by seeing Fabrizio go by.

On a bike, it is a matter of life and death to pay more attention to cars than to the road surface;
and if there is a car of which you are wary, you might miss looking at a few feet of road surface.

> --
> http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace a lovely radar is a smelly Tibet
> 8:12:14 PM 5 September 2003
--
Rick Onanian

 

[John]

Good point. We have a finite capacity to see, analyze, and react. We just can't process everything
that is happening. It is always a matter of triage and sometimes something critical is missed.
That's human and also another reason to think about where and how one rides.

It always amazes me at the holier-than-thou attitude that some other posters have taken. It must be
fantastic to be super human, watch and react to absolutely everything at once, and never ever make
a mistake.

"Rick Onanian" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 20:12:28 -0500, wrote:
> > Bull. First off, my guess is he wasn't watching the road surface.
Second,
> > It's a grey area. However, it seems to me that a cyclist should watch
the
> > road surface.
>
> Cyclists, and any other road user, should indeed watch the road surface.
>
> However, it's even easier to be distracted on a bicycle than in a car.
>
> In a car, you might be distracted by another driver doing something dangerous; you're more likely
> to be distracted by seeing Fabrizio go by.
>
> On a bike, it is a matter of life and death to pay more attention to cars than to the road
> surface; and if there is a car of which you are wary, you might miss looking at a few feet of road
> surface.
>
> > --
> > http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace a lovely radar is a smelly Tibet
> > 8:12:14 PM 5 September 2003
> --
> Rick Onanian

 

[Marian Rosenber]

John wrote:

> Think more bicycles would make things heaven? Ha! Go to any city where bikes outnumber cars and
> watch the bicycle maniacs run amok!
>
> Reality stinks. If you want heavy penalties for drivers, also add heavy penalties for errant
> bicyclists.

From my perspective, the bicycle maniacs definitely do run amok here. But, from my perspective, the
car maniacs are far worse drivers than in the US. The good drivers are worse drivers than some of
the bad drivers in the US.

On the plus side, no one ever goes fast in the cities. Ever.

The traffic congestion in Beijing makes DC traffic look tame.

-M

(I've been so badly caught in gridlock here in Shijiazhuang that I got myself trapped on foot.)