Vehicular Manslaughter...

[jmeb]

Wait a minute, so me pulling out in front of you skiing is no different.

The point was both are acting legally.

I see what you're saying, but disagree with your conclusion based on the overtaking scenario you set out.

A downhill skier interrupts their steady cadence of turns to swerve around an obstacle. It is still the uphill skiers responsibility to not hit them while overtaking.

A cyclist moves into the middle of a lane to avoid an obstacle. They break no law in doing so unless they cross a double yellow line -- they are moving as far right as is safe based on their determination. It is still the car behinds responsibility to not hit them while overtaking.

Ought both the skier and cyclist look uphill/back for their own self preservation. Obviously. Is there a legal requirement to do so? Not that I have seen.

 

[jmeb]

Murder charges excessive? No they were not. He KILLED 5 people.

Murder is about intent and premeditation to kill. Not the number who were killed.

That said, the intentional swerve into cyclists may serve to demonstrate intent. And either way he deserved 5 counts of voluntary manslaughter to go along with a bunch of others.

 

[scott43]

In Ontario, crossing the double yellow is actually legal. More relevant when you have a motorcycle....

 

[jmeb]

In Ontario, crossing the double yellow is actually legal. More relevant when you have a motorcycle....

To pass slower traffic or to avoid an obstacle in the road? In Colorado you must be as far right as safe in the direction of travel. Crossing the double yellow is only allowable when it is done to safely avoid slower traffic.

 

[oldschoolskier]

I see what you're saying, but disagree with your conclusion based on the overtaking scenario you set out.

A downhill skier interrupts their steady cadence of turns to swerve around an obstacle. It is still the uphill skiers responsibility to not hit them while overtaking.

A cyclist moves into the middle of a lane to avoid an obstacle. They break no law in doing so unless they cross a double yellow line -- they are moving as far right as is safe based on their determination. It is still the car behinds responsibility to not hit them while overtaking.

Ought both the skier and cyclist look uphill/back for their own self preservation. Obviously. Is there a legal requirement to do so? Not that I have seen.

Maybe I’m older than you and remember the rules that we were taught.

Yes shoulder check is required or look uphill or back when pulling into traffic. Some are rules, some guidelines, some laws depending on the application.

Think of it as self preservation (hence the Darwin comment earlier). If you don’t have it, it’s your funeral (right or wrong).

 

[oldschoolskier]

I see what you're saying, but disagree with your conclusion based on the overtaking scenario you set out.

A downhill skier interrupts their steady cadence of turns to swerve around an obstacle. It is still the uphill skiers responsibility to not hit them while overtaking.

A cyclist moves into the middle of a lane to avoid an obstacle. They break no law in doing so unless they cross a double yellow line -- they are moving as far right as is safe based on their determination. It is still the car behinds responsibility to not hit them while overtaking.

Ought both the skier and cyclist look uphill/back for their own self preservation. Obviously. Is there a legal requirement to do so? Not that I have seen.

Maybe I’m older than you and remember the rules/guidelines/laws that we were taught.

Yes shoulder check is required or look uphill or back when pulling into traffic. Some are rules, some guidelines, some laws depending on the application.

Think of it as self preservation (hence the Darwin comment earlier). If you don’t have it, it’s your funeral (right or wrong).

 

[jmeb]

Maybe I’m older than you and remember the rules/guidelines/laws that we were taught.

Yes shoulder check is required or look uphill or back when pulling into traffic. Some are rules, some guidelines, some laws depending on the application.

Think of it as self preservation (hence the Darwin comment earlier). If you don’t have it, it’s your funeral (right or wrong).

If you'd produce the legal requirement--rather than resorting to an ad hominem dismissal--to do check before adjusting position within a lane for cyclist's in Colorado I would happily agree with you. http://colobikelaw.com/coloradolaw.html

We all get the safety and self preservation thing. That's not the concern of the thread.

 

[oldschoolskier]

If you'd produce the legal requirement--rather than resorting to an ad hominem dismissal--to do check before adjusting position within a lane for cyclist's in Colorado I would happily agree with you. http://colobikelaw.com/coloradolaw.html

We all get the safety and self preservation thing. That's not the concern of the thread.

It’s not only about Colorado, think a little more globally not not so narrow minded.

It’s is about safety or the lack of it and the results it causes.

The big question because how do you ensure that you do not become a statistic.

 

[jmeb]

It’s not only about Colorado, think a little more globally not not so narrow minded.

It’s is about safety or the lack of it and the results it causes.

The big question because how do you ensure that you do not become a statistic.

The big question is how we hold drivers accountable for their actions when they break the law and in doing so, injure or kill cyclists. That is the question of the thread. Not how individual cyclists can avoid incidence.

If you want, make a thread about that. But this thread is not about it.

 

[oldschoolskier]

If I come across a little safety conscious I am.

About 6-7 years ago a friend of ours got nailed by a car (hit and run) training and lost 3 months in a comma and several years of recovery (is she 100%, not sure).

Did she make an error who knows, did the driver Hell yeah (just by not stopping to render assistance, left her in the ditch like a hit animal).

Again comes down to self preservation and taking all the right precautions (regardless of what the laws say).

Don’t make yourself a statistic. No matter the deal, you hold the losing cards in a mix up.

 

[oldschoolskier]

The big question is how we hold drivers accountable for their actions when they break the law and in doing so, injure or kill cyclists. That is the question of the thread. Not how individual cyclists can avoid incidence.

If you want, make a thread about that. But this thread is not about it.

AND HOW WE HOLD THE CYCLIST ACCOUNTABLE WHEN THEY CAUSE THE PROBLEM.

Swings both ways.

 

[coskigirl]

AND HOW WE HOLD THE CYCLIST ACCOUNTABLE WHEN THEY CAUSE THE PROBLEM.

Swings both ways.

WHY ARE YOU YELLING? If you truly intend for this to be a conversation with respect stop yelling.

Cyclists and drivers alike should be issued citations. The implications of those citations should be the same as drivers who cause an accident in which they or someone else is injured. Nobody here has said otherwise.

 

[jmeb]

AND HOW WE HOLD THE CYCLIST ACCOUNTABLE WHEN THEY CAUSE THE PROBLEM.

Swings both ways.

Feel free to start your own thread on that. Yep, we should hold cyclists accountable.

But the scale of deaths caused by drivers is an order of magnitude different. In 2015, there were 783 deaths from cyclists being hit by cars according to the NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis. They don't even tally the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists.

 

[Eric267]

Not much information yet.
http://mynews4.com/news/local/bicyclist-killed-in-crash-on-highway-89-near-truckee

https://www.sierrasun.com/news/local/bicyclist-dead-after-being-struck-by-vehicle-on-state-route-89/

 

[tball]

The one concession I've made is to always use front and rear flashers anytime I'm on the road. I think this is more important than wearing a helmet. And before the offendedbysomethinhpostedontheinternetits kicks in, to be clear, I always wear a helmet.

Emphasis mine. Did I get everyone's attention with the high-viz?

I also use flashers on the road (while lately avoiding the road as much as possible).

I had a little experience yesterday that got me thinking it's increasingly dangerous to not use them as more and more road bikers are using flashers and wearing high-viz colors.

I was driving and taking a right-on-red onto a road that has bike lanes going in both directions. I looked left and saw no oncoming traffic. Looked right and saw no peds, but admired the blinky lights and high-viz jersey on the bicyclist in the opposite lane. I looked left again and holy crap, there was a road biker oncoming that I missed the first time I looked left. She was waving to get my attention before I turned in front of her (she probably should have been on the brakes). I didn't see her the first time I looked left. She was an experienced cyclist in an all-black kit and moving fast slightly downhill, easily 25 mph.

That got me thinking how the lit up cyclist grabbed my attention at the same time I needed to be seeing the one that was almost invisible to me. They both showed up at my intersection within seconds.

It's almost an arms race to get the attention of motorists these days, at least that's how I'm viewing it now

I would have felt really, really dumb if I hit a bicyclist with my Colorado "Share the Road" license plates. I like to think those plates make me an even more cautious driver, in addition to hopefully making other motorists a little more, um, attentive.

 

[cantunamunch]

Today's Lunchskate observation: the Idaho Geese Stop.

That and the three deer next to a 45 mph divided road not 20 minutes later is by way of response to @tball - in a "Who in the blazes is going to suit those things up in high-viz and flashers?" way.

Attention threshold creep is not something we, as drivers, can afford.

 

[Tricia]

Biker hit and killed on highway 89 by squaw valley today. Word spread quickly around the north lake. Sunday late morning during summer tourist season so I guess it was witnessed by quite a number of people. Sad

I'm surprised this hasn't been in the news.
The only info on it is from injury law website.

Not much information yet.
http://mynews4.com/news/local/bicyclist-killed-in-crash-on-highway-89-near-truckee

https://www.sierrasun.com/news/local/bicyclist-dead-after-being-struck-by-vehicle-on-state-route-89/

No more official details but some speculation about the driver's distraction.
This comes back to a quote about drivers from a year ago ( It was @Lorenzzo who said it) California drivers prioritize 25 things when they're behind the wheel. Unfortunate none of them is driving.

 

[oldschoolskier]

WHY ARE YOU YELLING? If you truly intend for this to be a conversation with respect stop yelling.

Cyclists and drivers alike should be issued citations. The implications of those citations should be the same as drivers who cause an accident in which they or someone else is injured. Nobody here has said otherwise.

Correction, @jmed did, which is what caused the Yell so that it gets attention.

Again, no arguement with your statement or view as it is on the mark.

 

[luliski]

Feel free to start your own thread on that. Yep, we should hold cyclists accountable.

But the scale of deaths caused by drivers is an order of magnitude different. In 2015, there were 783 deaths from cyclists being hit by cars according to the NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis. They don't even tally the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists.

Just off the top of my head, I can think of four people I know personally, who have had loved ones or close friends killed or irreversibly injured by a car when on their bike.

 

[tball]

Today's Lunchskate observation: the Idaho Geese Stop. View attachment 47515

That and the three deer next to a 45 mph divided road not 20 minutes later is by way of response to @tball - in a "Who in the blazes is going to suit those things up in high-viz and flashers?" way.

Attention threshold creep is not something we, as drivers, can afford.

Totally agree.

I'll just note that your picture makes my point nicely. The guy in red grabs your attention. You barely notice the guy in black. The geese are toast (on toast?).