On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 08:03:23 -0600, "Pat" <
[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>>
>> The best possible outcome is that he modifies his behaviour and that
>> your understandable apprehension transforms to increased awareness.
>
>No. According to Frank and Chalo, he has NO responsibility to modify his
>behaviour.
>
If I kept smackin' into **** while yakking on the cel-phone I'd best
be Darwined out of the race. Dufus was dozing and walked in front of
an approaching lit bicycle. He's lucky it wasn't a bus. Claire can
hope that fizzes on him.
He wasn't looking where he was going and could have as easily plowed
over another pedestrian.
>>
>>>Do you think bicyclists should similarly use the roads without any sort of
>>>lights or reflective anything? Or do they have a responsibility to take
>>>actions be seen as well? What about cars?
>>
>> That's a different subject since we're then talking about vehicles.
>
>Someone in a motorized wheelchair is a vehicle.
>
In this town someone in a motorised wheelchair is the mayor so he has
a chauffeur. (I personally feel we should make him take the bogus
biike bane over the Burrard Bridge) The MVA of British Columbia
doesn't mention wheelchairs though it covers bicycles and
pedestrians.
Here's something a little closer to home:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/23/chapters/2/sections/section_217.html
"(3) Pedestrian. - The term "pedestrian" means any person
traveling by foot and any mobility-impaired person using a
wheelchair.
(4) Wheelchair. - The term "wheelchair" means a mobility aid,
usable indoors, and designed for and used by individuals with
mobility impairments, whether operated manually or motorized."
>>
>> My mother always taught me to look out for the other guy. I never
>> equated that with wearing reflectors. To me it means to look where
>> I'm going and to watch out for the hazards posed by others behaviour.
>> Scanning the route for unlit vehicles, pedestrians and pets, I double
>> check intersections, I'm able to see stealth cyclists who I trust can
>> see my lighted bike. I don't as readily extend that same degree of
>> trust to motorists.
>> --
>> zk
>
>Well, your mother was morally and ethically wrong, according to Frank and
>Chalo. You have NO responbility to look out for the other guy.
How can you read that into their posts? They've both clearly said the
onus is on those posing risk to others. That's what my mama said too.
"Watch out for the other guy" means don't step on kids and grannies,
check your back swing, clear the range, think about how you put down
that rake as well as being mindful of the dangerous behaviour of
others. Not in order to change their behaviour but to PTA.
Wandering blithely along a heavily travelled FMUP and knocking down a
cyclist might have gotten me grounded or my cel-phone confiscated for
a week but not forced to wear reflectors ever after.
Some introspection, observation, rationalisation or inspiration could
cause me to wear reflective gear but I won't be "guilted" into it.
--
zk
