Only in America

13»

Comments

  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    I'm thinking that in the end dead is dead and no amount of blame, revenge, money paid out, responsibility, prison time, regret, etc., etc. is going to bring this person back. The people involved(and everyone else) can say and do what they need or feel but in an imperfect world....
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    Al Kidder wrote:
    PS I'm trying to decide between a Honda CRZ or a Lotus for my new car, now that my bank account is swollen by a death in the family

    At least you don't have to worry which of those would be better for a cyclist if you hit them whilst driving it as you'll never hit one.
  • al_kidder
    al_kidder Posts: 73
    I certainly don't intend to. And when I'm driving behind a rider on a nice descent, I'll hang back and enjoy it with him/her
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,832
    I cannot believe people do not seem to accept that you have to drive at a speed that you can stop within the distance that you can see. If you round a corner and there has been an accident* blocking the whole road you have to be able to stop. If you are going so fast that you cannot stop you are to BLAME for the second accident that will happen. No ifs no buts.

    * Or a dead donkey if you want something dark and unlit for the purpose of this particular illustration.
    Kinesis Pro6
    Marin Nail Trail
    Cotic Solaris
  • cougie
    cougie Posts: 22,512
    Surely her driving was impaired if she not only didnt see, but managed to hit three cyclists.

    I've driven pitch black lanes and passed unlit cyclists with no problems. They were reckless and foolish - but who's to say that their back light hadn't just fallen off.

    I've driven unlit dual carriageways and passed ninja cyclists - still being able to see them and not hit them.

    She failed massively in her standards of driving here. And her husband the policeman took her home without giving her a breathalyser ? Surely he should be sacked for that ?
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    edited May 2014
    wishitwasallflat wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    I nearly pulled out on a cyclist on a roundabout once (when I was on my bike) - it was dawn and raining and there was artificial lighting and lots of cars about. The cyclist wore black and had no lights - they were genuinely invisible intil the last moment.

    I completely agree - I have had similar experiences both on my bike and when driving. I can only conclude that there are some people riding bikes who appear to have a death wish* - but - crucial for me in that sentence is the word nearly . I suspect it was nearly because you showed due care and attention and pulled out in a way that allowed you to adjust line and speed and so correct things to avoid hitting the cyclist. I do the same when I am driving or riding and pray to god I never make a mistake.

    * Were they also riding one handed on an MTB with a shopping bag on the handlebars by any chance?

    You have a point there. Actually, thinking about it again, I recall I did actually pull out - I think I had to dive for the inner lane of the roundabout to avoid him and I could only do that because it was clear. Effectively, I was concentrating on the traffic pretty well or I wouldn't have actually been able to do that but invisible is invisible and nothing was illuminating the other cyclist*. The difference in this case of course is that the headlights of the car should have lit the cyclists up enough to allow some opportunity to avoid the collision - particularly in the early hours when presumably there was no other traffic around (aside from the following Police car.....). And of course one cyclist riding in the gutter is less easy to see than three riding abreast lights or no lights.

    * I previously described this incident on this forum in pretty much the same way as here but didn't explicitly state I myself was riding a bike. Some folk construed I was driving and therefore I got some abuse for it. As soon as I made it clear I was riding, that stopped. Make of that what you will!

    And no, he wasn't actually BSO'ing. He had some fair pace which was half the trouble!
    Faster than a tent.......
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    cougie wrote:
    Surely her driving was impaired if she not only didnt see, but managed to hit three cyclists.

    I've driven pitch black lanes and passed unlit cyclists with no problems. They were reckless and foolish - but who's to say that their back light hadn't just fallen off.

    I've driven unlit dual carriageways and passed ninja cyclists - still being able to see them and not hit them.

    She failed massively in her standards of driving here. And her husband the policeman took her home without giving her a breathalyser ? Surely he should be sacked for that ?

    And don't call me Shirley. Sorry couldn't resist.
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    What this thread might need now is some really long posts littered with preconceptions, a big dash of idealism and flavoured with a big twist of some juicy predispositions. Oh, and chuck in a bit of inferred moral high ground, don't forget a bit of that.

    Oh, and I've never thought the sarcasm emotion looks quite right? --> :roll:

    :)
  • ai_1
    ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    mfin wrote:
    What this thread might need now is some really long posts littered with preconceptions, a big dash of idealism and flavoured with a big twist of some juicy predispositions. Oh, and chuck in a bit of inferred moral high ground, don't forget a bit of that.

    Oh, and I've never thought the sarcasm emotion looks quite right? --> :roll:

    :)
    I already tried that. Not enough?
  • chris_bass
    chris_bass Posts: 4,913
    mfin wrote:
    What this thread might need now is some really long posts littered with preconceptions, a big dash of idealism and flavoured with a big twist of some juicy predispositions. Oh, and chuck in a bit of inferred moral high ground, don't forget a bit of that.

    Oh, and I've never thought the sarcasm emotion looks quite right? --> :roll:

    :)

    hell, I even mentioned the nazis a few pages back and that didn't stop it, it still carried on going round in circles
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    All this has got me thinking. If a train hits a car, truck, or pedestrian, the train is never at fault. Even if the engineer saw said car or pedestrian stopping in time would be dicey at best.
    In the same way cars can only stop so fast and drivers / engineers can only see so far ahead.
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,832
    dennisn wrote:
    All this has got me thinking. If a train hits a car, truck, or pedestrian, the train is never at fault. Even if the engineer saw said car or pedestrian stopping in time would be dicey at best.
    In the same way cars can only stop so fast and drivers / engineers can only see so far ahead.
    Are you serious?
    Kinesis Pro6
    Marin Nail Trail
    Cotic Solaris
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Veronese68 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    All this has got me thinking. If a train hits a car, truck, or pedestrian, the train is never at fault. Even if the engineer saw said car or pedestrian stopping in time would be dicey at best.
    In the same way cars can only stop so fast and drivers / engineers can only see so far ahead.
    Are you serious?

    As a heart attack.
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    dennisn wrote:
    Veronese68 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    All this has got me thinking. If a train hits a car, truck, or pedestrian, the train is never at fault. Even if the engineer saw said car or pedestrian stopping in time would be dicey at best.
    In the same way cars can only stop so fast and drivers / engineers can only see so far ahead.
    Are you serious?

    As a heart attack.

    Awwww, stop pulling our legs! :lol:
    Faster than a tent.......
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,832
    Rolf F wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Veronese68 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    All this has got me thinking. If a train hits a car, truck, or pedestrian, the train is never at fault. Even if the engineer saw said car or pedestrian stopping in time would be dicey at best.
    In the same way cars can only stop so fast and drivers / engineers can only see so far ahead.
    Are you serious?

    As a heart attack.

    Awwww, stop pulling our legs! :lol:
    Unbelievable.
    Kinesis Pro6
    Marin Nail Trail
    Cotic Solaris
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Rolf F wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Veronese68 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    All this has got me thinking. If a train hits a car, truck, or pedestrian, the train is never at fault. Even if the engineer saw said car or pedestrian stopping in time would be dicey at best.
    In the same way cars can only stop so fast and drivers / engineers can only see so far ahead.
    Are you serious?

    As a heart attack.

    Awwww, stop pulling our legs! :lol:

    I'll stand by my comment about trains never being at fault. How could they be? Serious question. Trains are supposed to stop for you? I know the engineers will try but bringing a fully loaded freight train to a stop is not something that's accomplished anywhere near, what you might call, quickly. No, if you're so stupid as to not know to keep off railroad tracks then you're most likely going to die. And the gene pool will be better off for it.

    I will re-phrase my statement about cars. They are able to stop faster than trains and bad drivers do exist. Still stopping one on a dime is tough, as is seeing cyclist's with no lights and dark clothes.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Veronese68 wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Veronese68 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    All this has got me thinking. If a train hits a car, truck, or pedestrian, the train is never at fault. Even if the engineer saw said car or pedestrian stopping in time would be dicey at best.
    In the same way cars can only stop so fast and drivers / engineers can only see so far ahead.
    Are you serious?

    As a heart attack.

    Awwww, stop pulling our legs! :lol:
    Unbelievable.

    So, go out and ride at night in dark clothing and no lights. Do the experiment for us. Prove that when you get killed that it is always the drivers fault. You shouldn't have any problems. After all, wearing dark clothes, no lights, doesn't have a thing to do with it so you shouldn't have anything to fear. You're covered. It's the drivers fault.
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    I'm just confused about the railway analogy - I just don't get the relevance. In that case it is clear that the responsibility of the road user is clearly to not be on the tracks when a train is coming. Trains often cannot stop in within the area that they can see - which is why you pay attention on unprotected crossings. It is unambiguous - the train has priority, it makes a lot of noise approaching a crossing and there's usually only two directions it will be coming from.

    In the case of the road user, it can be ambiguous. The cyclists should have been seen if they were on the road and the car was following them - the car headlights should pick them up in good time. However, if for example a car is coming the other way then that might be enough to blind the driver to unlit cyclists ahead of them. Ultimately, I'd like to think I would always spot the unlit cyclist but they've certainly managed to materialize from nowhere when they were closer than I'd have liked in the past.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    I'm done with this post(cheers and applause). Everyone wants to blame someone. Blame whomever or whatever you like, make all the laws you want, sue the pants off whomever or whatever, rant till the cows come home about whomever and whatever, put up monuments to it all, hate whomever or whatever you like, carry a grudge till the end of the earth.
    None of it matters as it won't bring said person back and it won't prevent that type of thing from happening again.
    Much like the two teens, near us, who tried to beat that train. "it'll be OK, what could happen, a quick sprint across and we're home free". It happened again at that same crossing. A car tried to beat the train by going around the closed gates. Those people thought they "had it made".
    Has anyone learned anything from this about that crossing? No! Nothing will happen to me. People that get killed or kill someone are "other people-not me".
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,832
    You really can't see the difference between a railway track and a road? Railway tracks have systems to keep people off them because trains are big and heavy and can't stop quickly. They don't let two trains loose on the same piece of track at different speeds. As you said people that got killed went round closed gates that were there to protect them. They chose to go round the gates.
    Roads are completely different, you have lots of different vehicles moving at different speeds, these vehicles are not on tracks, they can steer and brake independently of each other. On a road you must be able to stop in the distance you can see as you don't know what is there, you cannot know. If something is travelling in the opposite direction you may not be able to stop. The other person may then have to take some of the BLAME.
    By the way, best not to ride your bicycle on railway tracks. Tracks are the ones with iron rails that it's hard to balance on and bumpy bits in between them. Roads are the wide flat tarmac things that generally are not fenced off like railway tracks are. Hope that helps.
    Kinesis Pro6
    Marin Nail Trail
    Cotic Solaris

Categories