intersting testimony

[J G]

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

 

[Stephen Baker]

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 G]

> >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.T.]

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

 

[mfgp]

"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 G]

"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.

 

[mfgp]

"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...).

 

[ctg]

"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

 

[J G]

"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!

 

[J G]

"ctg" <n/a@n/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.

 

[S o r n i]

mfgp wrote:
> "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.

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.

 

[Ashley Saunby]

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/a@n/a.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "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
>
>

 

[ctg]

"J G" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "ctg" <n/a@n/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 G]

"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

 

[J G]

"ctg" <n/a@n/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.

 

[Corvus Corvax]

"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 G]

"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?-(

 

[Mark Hickey]

"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

 

[Ashley]

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[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
>
>