[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Driving Pet Peeves



KP (batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM) wrote:
: 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?

I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of the story about the drunk driver
and the pedestrian.  Shall I interpret your answer to mean that, no, you
cannot cite any incident in which this has happened with a cyclist?

:		      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.

I have just gone back and re-read the entire thread and have found no
statement by you either expressing concern for the cyclist involved in
the above hypothetical incident, nor criticizing the behavior of the
motorist, other than in the quote above where you refer to him as a
fool (and which I included).  I don't see that it is necessary for me
to insinuate anything.

: >: 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.

You seem to be the one who first started playing lawyer in this
thread.  When you make statements about what will happen in particular
juridical situations, it is reasonable to ask you to back those
statements up with references to law.

:  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. 

As I stated in my post (and which you deleted without addressing)
insurance rates are typically raised after any accident, regardless of
whether cyclists are involved.

: >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 have one, thanks, and I'd like to hang onto it despite riding in
traffic.  That's what this discussion is about.  I'm sorry that you
find it necessary to descend to the level of overused catcalls.

:			     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.

You are disingenuous in pretending not to recognize the literary device
of irony.  You know very well that I am not making slight of the
cyclist's death; indeed, it is a principle point of my argument that
the death of the cyclist is more significant than the inconvenience to
the motorist.

: >:   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.

I suppose I could have refrained from that comment.  I do think, though,
that careful use of language is useful in this sort of discussion.

:							         Things did not
: get personal and hateful until rec.bicycles.soc somehow got included.

Discussions about actions which cause death and injury tend to be more
impassioned when the victims are included than they are when the
perpetrators are talking only among themselves.  I wouldn't classify
pointing out a spelling error as "hateful".

:   Who's big idea was it to include these children into our party any how?

Name-calling again?  I wasn't aware that it was a private party.
Perhaps I was misled by the fact that it was held on a public forum.

: >: 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.

Again, the insurance hike is not specific to involvement with a cyclist
or a pedestrian.  I am still curious, since you brought it up, to learn
what your state's laws have to say on the subject of collisions
involving pedestrians.

: >:				.. 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..

My meaning was that you've made a very simple assumption which cannot be
disproven.  I could as easily say that if we could all get along together
then pigs could fly.  You can't judge what cyclists would do unless
you're willing to be respectful of cyclists.

:				     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.

I actually think that many cyclists are quite irresponsible in their
behavior.  However, the consequences of their irresponsible actions are
far less serious for other road users than are the consequences of the
actions of irresponsible motorists.  I have nowhere argued that
cyclists don't cause accidents, nor that they should not be held
accountable for those which they cause.  I have merely challenged your
claim that cyclists can cause serious injury to motorists by coming
through the windshield in a collision, and criticized your apparent
sympathy for the inconvenience to the motorist in accidents which
result in the death of a cyclist.  My post was intended as discussion;
I'm sorry that you can find no response to it other than name-calling.
If you don't wish to discuss it, that is, of course, your right.  I
won't bother to point out the correct spelling of drivel.

========================
Ken Ferschweiler                         Internet: kennino@cs.orst.edu
Department of Computer Science
Oregon State University


References: