[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Driving Pet Peeves
In article <3rsg5j$lk3@engr.orst.edu> kennino@"cs.orst.edu" (Ken Ferschweiler) writes:
>KP (batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM) wrote:
>
>: Wrong in many ways. If a fool comes blasting down the road and rams into you
>: he stands every bit as much chance of being injured as he would if he hit
>: a deer. Its not uncommon for them critters to come flying through the
>: windshield.. BUT, there are other ways of suffering damage. EVEN if you are
>
>Are you seriously complaining that bicyclists are endangering "a fool
>[who] comes blasting down the road and rams into" them because they may
>then come through the windshield and cause injury? Can you cite a
>single incident of a motorist being injured in this way, or are you
>just making this up?
Just making this up? Are you talking about people injured by a deer
coming through a windshield? Happens all the time. Can I cite an instance
where this has happend with a bike? I can cite where a pedestrian was struck
two years ago and went part way through the windshield. The driver alas
was drunk and drove all the way home with this body hanging half way out
his windshield.. are you going to say that a bicycle and its rider would
cause less damage? And where the hell do you get off insinuating that I
am more worried about the stupid driver who drives recklessly into an
innocent biker. If you have been following this thread you will see that
I am pissed at both, the reckless auto driver AND reckless behavior from
the bicyclist. The above quote of mine that you yanked out was in reply
to someone who claimed that there is no way possible for a biker to cause
physical harm to the vehicle driver.
>
>: in the wrong (I know thats impossible because ONLY car drivers can be in the
>: wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
>: all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
>: guess who gets to pay the medical bills. Guess who stands the chance of getting
>
>Okay, I'll guess - not the motorist. If you can cite a single instance
>in which all interested parties and witnesses agree that the cyclist is
>at fault, but the motorist is forced to pay the cyclist's medical
>views, I will admit that my guess was wrong. Otherwise, I will claim
Please see another follow up article by me as a reply to someone who
showed a vehicle code that shows what people are supposed to do. No, I dont
have proof that the bicyclist is treated the same as a pedestrian.. it
is true that I've only been told that, but as I say in my other article,
I don't wish to find out if its true, and I don't want some idiot on a bike
causing an accident and forcing me to find out.
In any case, in the event of a pedestrian vs. auto accident, read my personal
experience in my other posting.
>you are just setting up another straw-man argument.
This straw-man argument has cost me plenty in the form of raised insurance
premiums.
>
>Your opinion, then, is that being forced to take a driving test merely
>for killing a cyclist constitutes harassment?
You need to get a life.. I would have hoped that all that riding in the
fresh air would have helped clear your head. Please for the love of God
read my original posting that you are clipping this from. I said that even
in the event of it being the fault of the person who was killed in an
accident, the driver is harassed by repeated follow up driving tests. If
that person WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE for the accident, yet they are singled out
for repeated check ups.. then yes, they are being harrassed. There is NO
merely killing anyone. That is a terrible event, your making slight of it
is more than just rude.
>
>: I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
>: while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
>: are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian. From personal experience
>
>I don't know what a "pedistian" is. Do you mean "pedestrian"?
>
Typical reponse. You don't have anything relevent to say one way or the
other... but you really want to make some noise, so 'lets attack the
spelling'. In many cases, proper spelling and punctuation is really required
to get a thought across.. if you don't have the deductive abilities to
understand what I was saying.. well then maybe I can understand your
problem in relating to the topic where this all came from. Pet Peeves,
mine was when a bicyclist does something stupid... most of the other peeves
were about things that other car drivers do that tick us off. Things did not
get personal and hateful until rec.bicycles.soc somehow got included.
Who's big idea was it to include these children into our party any how?
>: I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when
>: as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
>: the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault. From the experience of
>: my ex neighbors mother I know what the results are if the pedistrian in a
>: situation like above is unfortunately killed.
>
>Well, don't leave us in suspense. What does your state say? I assume
>you mean, "as expressed in its laws", rather than "as expressed in the
>general opinion of your friends". And what are the results of such an
>accident?
No, I'm talking about personal experience, complete with lawyers and
a nice hike in my insurance.
>
>: .. even if all car drivers became 100% good
>: drivers who were totally respectful of the bikers, many of the bikers would
>: still find something to complain about...
>
>Try us.
I already find you very trying.. I think I'll just leave you alone now and
wait until you fully blossom into this beautiful creature you seem to think
all bicyclists metamorph into. Perhaps then you can discuss, instead of just
posting condescending drival.
Follow-Ups:
References: