This falls under the class, Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.
-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
Vehicular Manslaughter...
- Thread starter scott43
- Start date
Not much information yet.
http://mynews4.com/news/local/bicyclist-killed-in-crash-on-highway-89-near-truckee
I think the actual rule is a bike has to yield at a stop sign, can't just blindly blow through it. There's thought of making it state wide. But I agree, insisting on the right of way is a losing proposition for a bike.
Yes. Stop signs become yields. Red lights become stops. It's known as the Idaho Stop law. And there is no evidence that it has negatively impacted safety. And some evidence that it may have increased it.
This year Colorado passed a bill that is boiler-plate language for localities should they want to adopt the Idaho Stop law; making the process of getting it implemented easier.
Debris in bike lanes is a real danger, hence my ongoing series of photos called #dangerinthebikelane that I have started this year. Often times cars can't even see the obstacles that can cause a bike major issues. If I'm going to move out of my lane to avoid something and have time I try to use cyclist hand signals indicating road debris in hopes that maybe the drivers behind me know what those signals mean or at least will wonder what I'm doing and be more aware. I've also added a handlebar mounted sideview mirror so I can more easily look back and see whether I have a vehicle coming up on me.
You and I are smart enough to know the difference between the written rules, the implied rules and the intent of the rules. This applies to far more than cycling.
If you think it's OK to ride 4 to 6 abreast blocking traffic instead of single file when you have a bike lane, we will just have to agree to disagree.
Luckily you live in Colorado. We have a smartly written bike law which does not say that cyclists have to be as far right as "practicable." It says cyclists shall be as far right as safe as determined by the cyclist.
I'll assume you've seen this: http://thingsinbikelanesdenver.com/
What we think is OK or not is a different conversation form what is legal. And what is legal with regards to lane position, riding single file vs across, etc varies significantly from place to place.
I'm confused here. I can see the argument that cyclists may cite this law in a way that does not follow its written rule or intent.
But I don't see any implication that you can haphazardly blow intersections without penalty (either legal or physical). And I don't see a reasonable argument that the intent of these rules is so bicyclists can do so.
Just like a person speeding can't reasonably claim that the intent of a 55mph limit was 75mph, or that they are allowed to go 65mph because its a 55mph zone and thats "within the wiggle room" -- no cyclists can honestly claim they can proceed through an intersection without regard for others.
There will be people in both user groups that makes such arguments. Our bias shows when we believe its the mode of transport and not the individual that is the problem.
We do. Unfortunately, drivers often don't understand why I'm moving out into the lane because they can't necessarily see it from their perspective. Yes, I've seen that site but the only time I've tried to upload it wouldn't let me, I assume because my location was outside of Denver.
Is that what I said, or are you still going on about the non-contextual picture you posted?
Here is the question about safe for the cyclist.
Car is doing 50mph (legal limit for argument) leaves space to pass cyclist safely.
Cyclist on road doing 20mph sees a hazard and serves out in front of the car, again as far right as practical, unfortunately the result is a flattened cyclist.
While a cyclist may have been in his right to do so (in Colorado), he in his own actions has become the obstacle in the path of bigger and faster object carrying significantly more momentum and inertia, following same said rules.
So back to the question was that safe to do so? Or was that a Darwinian action based on a misguided set of rules that puts cyclist at risk?
Indeed.
There are legal laws, there are physical laws, and there is what you should do. You can sometimes get away with breaking the legal laws, but the physical laws do have a way of enforcing themselves. It is best to do a shoulder check before switching lanes (applies to cars and bikes of all sorts). Also best, if you can do so without a whole lot of trouble, wait until you have a place to swerve to when passing a slow moving cyclist when you are driving a faster vehicle, just in case that bike ahead of you swerves into your lane.
So, if a car has properly left at least 3 feet (that's the law in Colorado, I know some states have it at 4 feet) then even if the cyclist has to leave their lane by a small amount to avoid an obstacle then it shouldn't be an issue. Hence the reason for the law. If the obstacle is big enough that they need to swerve more than that then there shouldn't be anything sudden about their movement and they should have plenty of time to stop if that's what is necessary for the situation. Frankly, if I were in a situation where I had too much traffic coming up behind me and I couldn't stop I'd take the risk that the object would cause damage to the bike or a crash in hopes that I'd still avoid the collision with the car.
But what I don't understand is why you and @François Pugh are so adamantly arguing about how legal laws don't protect us physically. I'm pretty sure all of us who road bike are well aware that regardless of who is legally correct in a situation the cyclist is going to be the one physically hurt or dead. What's the point in posting repeatedly to point this fact out?
The question of this thread is not about safe driving and cycling practices on the road. This threads is about why vehicles are not charged when they kill people by doing something illegal on the road. You seem to be conflating the two.
There are many illegal things that are safe, and many safe things that are illegal. They have little to do with each other.
In the case you present, the vehicle would have absolutely acted illegally. They hit a road user acting within their legal rights and responsibilities.
Perhaps a car on car example of the same thing would be illustrative for people who can't see past the cyclist vs car, and instead see them for what they are: road users. I am driving a car down a highway. Something suddenly appears in front of me and I have to brake quickly to avoid hitting it. A person driving a large truck hits me from behind. The person who hit me is at fault because they failed to leave adequate distance. They failed at their responsibility to others on the road acting in a legal manner.
The point is to blame the victim who was injured or killed while using the road in a way within the law. But in a way that may provide a minor inconvenience to other people.
Wait a minute, so me pulling out in front of you skiing is no different.
The point was both are acting legally.
@coskigirl caught on indirectly, shoulder check to ensure it is safe to do so or brake.
On the other hand, the cyclist broken the same law, as cars are "road users".
It is not the same as braking to avoid an object in front of you as you show, but serving into others direction of travel.
My point is not to lay blame on either, just to point out that as a cyclist your greatest defence is not to put yourself at undue risk thinking that law will protect you. A little caution in conjunction with the laws ideally should prevent harm, but assuming you are right and they are wrong is what leads to injury and death.
Sorry wasn't picking on you.
It is the cyclist has rights above all else that is a concern. Read @jmed's reply. The long and short of it cyclists are users of the road and drivers aren't, is the implication.
You nailed it in your statement as to the action of the cyclist (it protects both cyclist and driver BTW the driver should respond the same way), unfortunately some fail to see it that way (from both sides).
My hats of to you on that observation (BTW which is what I was gunning for).
Finally this piece of human excrement got sentenced.
Victim Confronts the Man Who Mowed Down Her and 8 Other Cyclists — Killing 5 — While Driving Drunk
Michigan man who drove into bicyclists, killing 5, sentenced
"A woman who was with Pickett earlier that day said at his trial that he had attended a cousin's funeral and swallowed a handful of drugs. There was no dispute that he had swallowed painkillers and other drugs before driving, although his lawyers argued that murder charges were excessive."
Murder charges excessive? No they were not. He KILLED 5 people.
Victim Confronts the Man Who Mowed Down Her and 8 Other Cyclists — Killing 5 — While Driving Drunk
Michigan man who drove into bicyclists, killing 5, sentenced
"A woman who was with Pickett earlier that day said at his trial that he had attended a cousin's funeral and swallowed a handful of drugs. There was no dispute that he had swallowed painkillers and other drugs before driving, although his lawyers argued that murder charges were excessive."
Murder charges excessive? No they were not. He KILLED 5 people.