intersting testimony



J

J G

Guest
Had the displeasure of a court case Thursday...... Motor
Vehicle vs. Cyclist
= rider died.

Please tell the court what the driver of the vehicle told
you on the scene. She said "she didn't see him" At the
scene, did you notice anything in the area that would have
obstructed her vision? No. Was the cyclist traveling on the
right side of the road and as far to the right as
practicable. Based upon my observation of the skid marks,
debris field, damage to the vehicle, and position of rest of
the cyclist and cycle, I would conclude that indeed he was.
And was the bicycle properly equipped with the state
required safety equipment, reflectors bell, etc.? _Before_
the wreck, yes. Was the rider using any additional safety
gear? Yes, he was wearing a helmet, he had a blinking light
affixed to his back-pack, he also had a rear-viewing mirror
attached to his left handlebar end, also he was wearing a
very brightly colored riding shirt and short What were the
traffic conditions at the time of the crash. light traffic
flow, clear skies, good visibility, dry roads. Thank you, no
further questions.

<FFwd>

Judge: "I find you guilty of the charge of failure to
maintain safe lookout, Fifty dollar fine, plus court costs"

On the way out I hear the lawyer tell the widow: Okay, that
is done now we can go after them in the civil courts.

Lesson to learn here: Reflectors may be gay but if you get
squashed by a car and don't have them, it could be a way out
for the driver
 
S

Stephen Baker

Guest
JG says:

>Judge: "I find you guilty of the charge of failure to
>maintain safe lookout, Fifty dollar fine, plus court costs"

Asshole should be forced to ride to work for a month - give
him a taste of the other side of the coin....

Steve
 
J

J G

Guest
> >Judge: "I find you guilty of the charge of failure to maintain safe
lookout,
> >Fifty dollar fine, plus court costs"
>
> Asshole should be forced to ride to work for a month -
> give him a taste of
the
> other side of the coin....

This case just set everything up for the Civil case. It
determined fault, and responsibility.

I think the driver may find the Civil case to be much
more punitive. Sadly it will probably be several years
before that case is heard. Unless the Insurance Co.
settles out of court.
 
G

G.T.

Guest
Stephen Baker wrote:
> JG says:
>
>
>>Judge: "I find you guilty of the charge of failure
>>to maintain safe lookout, Fifty dollar fine, plus
>>court costs"
>
>
> Asshole should be forced to ride to work for a month -
> give him a taste of the other side of the coin....
>

No, the asshole should be convicted of negligent homicide.

Greg

--
Destroy your safe and happy lives Before it is too late The
battles we fought were long and hard Just not to be consumed
by rock'n'roll
 
M

Mfgp

Guest
"J G" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Had the displeasure of a court case Thursday...... Motor
> Vehicle vs.
Cyclist
> = rider died.
>
> Please tell the court what the driver of the vehicle told
> you on the
scene.
> She said "she didn't see him" At the scene, did you notice
> anything in the area that would have
obstructed
> her vision? No. Was the cyclist traveling on the right
> side of the road and as far to the right as practicable.
> Based upon my observation of the skid marks, debris field,
> damage to the vehicle, and position of rest of the cyclist
> and cycle, I would conclude that indeed he was. And was
> the bicycle properly equipped with the state required
> safety equipment, reflectors bell, etc.? _Before_ the
> wreck, yes. Was the rider using any additional safety
> gear? Yes, he was wearing a helmet, he had a blinking
> light affixed to his back-pack, he also had a rear-viewing
> mirror attached to his left
handlebar
> end, also he was wearing a very brightly colored riding
> shirt and short What were the traffic conditions at the
> time of the crash. light traffic flow, clear skies, good
> visibility, dry roads. Thank you, no further questions.
>
> <FFwd>
>
> Judge: "I find you guilty of the charge of failure to
> maintain safe
lookout,
> Fifty dollar fine, plus court costs"
>
> On the way out I hear the lawyer tell the widow: Okay,
> that is done now we can go after them in the civil courts.
>
>
> Lesson to learn here: Reflectors may be gay but if you get
> squashed by a car and don't have
them,
> it could be a way out for the driver
>
>

This is exactly why I choose to be politically incorrect and
ride on the sidewalk whenever possible. We may have the
"right" to be on the street, but the difference in mass
between a bike and a motor vehicle trump rights and
political correctness.

But of course, the best solution is to ride in the
woods....then everybody's happy. Oh, except MV...lol.
 
J

J G

Guest
"mfgp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> This is exactly why I choose to be politically incorrect
> and ride on the sidewalk whenever possible.

IME, you are definately MORE at risk of getting struck
riding on the sidewalk. I don't know what the national
statistics on the subject are, but I have personally handled
several M.V. vs Cycle wrecks and so far 4 out of 5 have been
(experinced) sidewalk riders who THOUGHT they were safer on
the sidewalk than the road. Except for the 6th, wherein the
cyclist hit the car. Dumb-ass kid came screaming down a
hill, out into the road, and smacked right into the side of
the car. Driver was completely freaked out despite she was
in _no_way_ at fault. <sigh>

> But of course, the best solution is to ride in the
> woods....then
everybody's
> happy.

This person (RIP) was a roadie.
 
C

Ctg

Guest
"J G" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Lesson to learn here: Reflectors may be gay but if you get
> squashed by a car and don't have
them,
> it could be a way out for the driver
>
>

Yeah, glad he had those reflectors, that $50 fine will
really stick it to the driver...

What a joke...

Chris
 
M

Mfgp

Guest
"J G" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "mfgp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > This is exactly why I choose to be politically incorrect
> > and ride on the sidewalk whenever possible.
>
> IME, you are definately MORE at risk of getting struck
> riding on the sidewalk. I don't know what the national
> statistics on the subject are,
but
> I have personally handled several M.V. vs Cycle wrecks and
> so far 4 out of
5
> have been (experinced) sidewalk riders who THOUGHT they
> were safer on the sidewalk than the road. Except for the
> 6th, wherein the cyclist hit the
car.
> Dumb-ass kid came screaming down a hill, out into the
> road, and smacked right into the side of the car. Driver
> was completely freaked out despite she was in _no_way_ at
> fault. <sigh>
>
>
> > But of course, the best solution is to ride in the
> > woods....then
> everybody's
> > happy.
>
> This person (RIP) was a roadie.
>
>

I find that interesting. In my experience, that is not the
case. I was struck riding on the road about 10 years ago,
which is why I ride the sidewalk now when possible. I've had
a number of close calls with vehicles in the past 10 years,
and all are on the road. But of course, you didn't say they
were struck on the sidewalk--you said they were experienced
sidewalk riders, but didn't state where the accident
occurred. Please be more specific, as this is a very
iteresting subject.

You are definitely at risk of being hit crossing
intersections and driveways while riding sidewalks. Anytime
you leave the sidewalk and enter any place cars drive, you
are probably much more likely to be struck because drivers
don't generally look on the sidewalk and the rider appears
to come out of nowhere. But of course, those type of risks
are still on the street. Cars don't generally come up on the
sidewalk, but they do cross it.

The accident I had was really stupid. Got popped with a pick
up truck mirror while riding a good 2 feet off the road on
the shoulder. The driver, of couse, did not bother to stop.
Fortunately, I was young enough to shake it off. Another
couple inches would have been a different story. I feel much
safer as far as possible away from the traffic lane, and am
very cautious whenever I come anywhere near the road. I only
venture to the road when absolutely necessary. That incident
left a huge impression (not literally...).
 
J

J G

Guest
"ctg" <n/[email protected]/a.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yeah, glad he had those reflectors, that $50 fine will
> really stick it to the driver...

> What a joke...

You obviously missed the part about this being specifically
the traffic violation disposition of the case. The Civil
Suit will follow, that is where they loose the ranch.
 
J

J G

Guest
"mfgp" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>But of course, you didn't say they were struck on the sidewalk--

No, I didn't.

> Please be more specific, as this is a very iteresting
> subject.

As these are pending cases, That is as specific as I can
get.

> you are probably much more likely to be struck because
> drivers don't generally look on the sidewalk and the
> rider appears to come out of nowhere.

Bingo!
 
S

S O R N I

Guest
mfgp wrote:
> "J G" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:_XlDc.293-
> [email protected]
>>
>> "mfgp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> This is exactly why I choose to be politically incorrect
>>> and ride on the sidewalk whenever possible.
>>
>> IME, you are definately MORE at risk of getting struck
>> riding on the sidewalk. I don't know what the national
>> statistics on the subject are, but I have personally
>> handled several M.V. vs Cycle wrecks and so far 4 out of
>> 5 have been (experinced) sidewalk riders who THOUGHT they
>> were safer on the sidewalk than the road. Except for the
>> 6th, wherein the cyclist hit the car. Dumb-ass kid came
>> screaming down a hill, out into the road, and smacked
>> right into the side of the car. Driver was completely
>> freaked out despite she was in _no_way_ at fault. <sigh>
>>
>>
>>> But of course, the best solution is to ride in the
>>> woods....then everybody's happy.
>>
>> This person (RIP) was a roadie.
>>
>>
>
> I find that interesting. In my experience, that is not the
> case. I was struck riding on the road about 10 years ago,
> which is why I ride the sidewalk now when possible. I've
> had a number of close calls with vehicles in the past 10
> years, and all are on the road. But of course, you didn't
> say they were struck on the sidewalk--you said they were
> experienced sidewalk riders, but didn't state where the
> accident occurred. Please be more specific, as this is a
> very iteresting subject.

This is alt.mountain-bike. Ask your question in
rec.bicycles.misc and see what they ("the roadies") say.

Bill "just don your flamesuit first" S.
 
A

Ashley Saunby

Guest
Its simple, before you get your driving licence, you spend a
month in all weathers riding on a bike, if you cant hack it,
no licence, tough ****. I'm an "EX" motorcyclist and put up
with **** drivers for years. The only advantage I had was
nobody could keep up to drive into the back of me.

I blame the driving schools, what difference do reflectors
have in daylight, f*%k all, the driver was negligent, never
looked. Cyclists are classed as pedestrians, car drivers are
driving weapons of mass destruction END OF STORY.

Ash "ctg" <n/[email protected]/a.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "J G" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:l0fDc.146-
> [email protected]
>
> > Lesson to learn here: Reflectors may be gay but if you
> > get squashed by a car and don't have
> them,
> > it could be a way out for the driver
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, glad he had those reflectors, that $50 fine will
> really stick it to the driver...
>
> What a joke...
>
> Chris
 
C

Ctg

Guest
"J G" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "ctg" <n/[email protected]/a.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Yeah, glad he had those reflectors, that $50 fine will
> > really stick it
to
> > the driver...
>
> > What a joke...
>
> You obviously missed the part about this being
> specifically the traffic violation disposition of the
> case. The Civil Suit will follow, that is where they loose
> the ranch.

No, I didn't. The fact that one can kill another person by
not paying attention and the only criminal punishment is a
$50 fine is a joke.

Yes, they may be hurt in a civil case but there should be
more protection for cyclists in the criminal code.

Chris
 
J

J G

Guest
"Ashley Saunby" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Cyclists are classed as pedestrians,

NOT

Sec. 21-197. Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles.
Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be
granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the
duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this
chapter, except as to special regulations in this chapter
and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by
their nature can have no application. (Ord. No. 2155, § 15-20-
75; Code 1967, § 10-3) State law references: Similar
provisions, T.C.A. § 55-8-172.

http://livepublish.municode.com/1/lpext.dll/Infobase17/1/1f-
ef/2374/237e
 
J

J G

Guest
"ctg" <n/[email protected]/a.com> wrote in message
> > You obviously missed the part about this being
> > specifically the traffic violation disposition of the
> > case. The Civil Suit will follow, that is where they
> > loose the ranch.
>
> No, I didn't. The fact that one can kill another person by
> not paying attention and the only criminal punishment is a
> $50 fine is a joke.

This was TRAFFIC Court, it is up to the D.A. to file
the criminal charges, based upon the outcome of the
traffic case.

> Yes, they may be hurt in a civil case but there should be
> more protection for cyclists in the criminal code.

Precisely, we are not talking about the Criminal Code here,
just the Traffic Code.
 
C

Corvus Corvax

Guest
"J G" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> I have personally handled several M.V. vs Cycle wrecks

Uh, Clyde? You might make clear that in this context M.V.
means "motor vehicle".

;-)

CC
 
J

J G

Guest
"Corvus Corvax" wrote in message > "J G"
<[email protected]> wrote
> > I have personally handled several M.V. vs Cycle wrecks

> Uh, Clyde?

Yes.......

>You might make clear that in this context M.V. means "motor
>vehicle".

Is there much of a difference?-(
 
M

Mark Hickey

Guest
"mfgp" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"J G" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>> IME, you are definately MORE at risk of getting struck
>> riding on the sidewalk. <snip>
>
>I find that interesting. In my experience, that is not the
>case. I was struck riding on the road about 10 years ago,
>which is why I ride the sidewalk now when possible. I've
>had a number of close calls with vehicles in the past 10
>years, and all are on the road. But of course, you didn't
>say they were struck on the sidewalk--you said they were
>experienced sidewalk riders, but didn't state where the
>accident occurred. Please be more specific, as this is a
>very iteresting subject.
>
>You are definitely at risk of being hit crossing
>intersections and driveways while riding sidewalks. Anytime
>you leave the sidewalk and enter any place cars drive, you
>are probably much more likely to be struck because drivers
>don't generally look on the sidewalk and the rider appears
>to come out of nowhere. But of course, those type of risks
>are still on the street. Cars don't generally come up on
>the sidewalk, but they do cross it.

When you're riding on a sidewalk, every driveway is an
"intersection"
- one that most motorists won't check before crossing. Or at
least, they won't look beyond the distance that they'd
expect someone moving at a pedestrian pace to be. If you
ride very, very slowly on the sidewalk it's not horribly
dangerous - but if you are moving at any reasonable
cycling speed, it's a different story.

Then there are all the other sidewalk users, none of which
are likely to expect a rapidly moving bicycle to pass them.
People, dogs, cats, whatever - will cross a sidewalk from
any direction without a second thought.

On the road, chances are drivers and pedestrians are going
to look for vehicular traffic before pulling out. That's
not ALWAYS the case (something I can unfortunately attest
to from personal experience), but the odds are much better
on the road.

>The accident I had was really stupid. Got popped with a
>pick up truck mirror while riding a good 2 feet off the
>road on the shoulder. The driver, of couse, did not bother
>to stop. Fortunately, I was young enough to shake it off.
>Another couple inches would have been a different story. I
>feel much safer as far as possible away from the traffic
>lane, and am very cautious whenever I come anywhere near
>the road. I only venture to the road when absolutely
>necessary. That incident left a huge impression (not
>literally...).

FWIW, this type of accident makes up a very small percentage
of the overall bike/car accident statistic (just a few %),
though it's the one that most new cyclists tend to worry
most about.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of
the $695 ti frame
 
A

Ashley

Guest
I'm in the UK, but yes I think your traffic laws are
probably similar to ours.

Ash

"J G" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:XoDc.15415-
[email protected]
>
> "Ashley Saunby" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Cyclists are classed as pedestrians,
>
> NOT
>
> Sec. 21-197. Traffic laws apply to persons riding
> bicycles. Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway
> shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to
> all of the duties applicable to the driver
of
> a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special
> regulations in this
chapter
> and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by
> their nature
can
> have no application. (Ord. No. 2155, § 15-20-75; Code
> 1967, § 10-3) State law references: Similar provisions,
> T.C.A. § 55-8-172.
>
> http://livepublish.municode.com/1/lpext.dll/Infobase17/1/-
> 1fef/2374/237e