Bad bicycle reporting on Channel 5 in Kansas City - Page 9

02-20-2005, 02:18 PM

>Two cyclists were present. If the only cyclist that was struck was the
>cyclist furthest away from the right I think it's a fair assumption to
>make that his position on the roadway contributed to the crash. Of
>course if the cyclist nearest the right was the one struck it's an
>entirely different story.

No, I have to disagree.

Assuming the driver believed he was passing the leftmost rider with
sufficient room, why should we assume he would have been any more competent
at passing "singled-up" riders?

Chris Neary
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

02-20-2005, 10:25 PM

Chris Neary wrote:
> >Two cyclists were present. If the only cyclist that was struck was
the
> >cyclist furthest away from the right I think it's a fair assumption
to
> >make that his position on the roadway contributed to the crash. Of
> >course if the cyclist nearest the right was the one struck it's an
> >entirely different story.
>
> No, I have to disagree.
>
> Assuming the driver believed he was passing the leftmost rider with
> sufficient room, why should we assume he would have been any more
competent
> at passing "singled-up" riders?
>
>
>
> Chris Neary
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Allow me to put your question in a cycling context. If you can't keep
your tires on a two inch wide strip of roadway, why should we assume
you'd be more competent to keep your tires on a two foot wide strip?
That the cyclist positioned himself badly doesn't relieve the driver of
his duty to not pass unless he can do so safely but to assume that the
cyclist's position on the roadway didn't contribute in any way to the
crash seems counterintuitive at best to me.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

02-20-2005, 10:25 PM

Chris Neary wrote:
> >Two cyclists were present. If the only cyclist that was struck was
the
> >cyclist furthest away from the right I think it's a fair assumption
to
> >make that his position on the roadway contributed to the crash. Of
> >course if the cyclist nearest the right was the one struck it's an
> >entirely different story.
>
> No, I have to disagree.
>
> Assuming the driver believed he was passing the leftmost rider with
> sufficient room, why should we assume he would have been any more
competent
> at passing "singled-up" riders?
>
>
>
> Chris Neary
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Allow me to put your question in a cycling context. If you can't keep
your tires on a two inch wide strip of roadway, why should we assume
you'd be more competent to keep your tires on a two foot wide strip?
That the cyclist positioned himself badly doesn't relieve the driver of
his duty to not pass unless he can do so safely but to assume that the
cyclist's position on the roadway didn't contribute in any way to the
crash seems counterintuitive at best to me.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

02-20-2005, 10:34 PM

Jym Dyer wrote:
> >> Second, riding two abreast on that road was arguably
> >> unlawful.
> > Agreed.
>
> =v= But also arguably lawful. The whole thing depends on
> whether it was safe to pass around the curve.
> <_Jym_>

The problem with situations that are "arguably (un)lawful" is in order
to arrive at any meaningful conclusion somebody has to be the test case
since the courts, not Usenet NGs, decide what's lawful and what is not.
;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

02-20-2005, 10:34 PM

Jym Dyer wrote:
> >> Second, riding two abreast on that road was arguably
> >> unlawful.
> > Agreed.
>
> =v= But also arguably lawful. The whole thing depends on
> whether it was safe to pass around the curve.
> <_Jym_>

The problem with situations that are "arguably (un)lawful" is in order
to arrive at any meaningful conclusion somebody has to be the test case
since the courts, not Usenet NGs, decide what's lawful and what is not.
;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

02-21-2005, 09:31 AM

>> Assuming the driver believed he was passing the leftmost rider with
>> sufficient room, why should we assume he would have been any more
>>competent at passing "singled-up" riders?

>Allow me to put your question in a cycling context. If you can't keep
>your tires on a two inch wide strip of roadway, why should we assume
>you'd be more competent to keep your tires on a two foot wide strip?
>That the cyclist positioned himself badly doesn't relieve the driver of
>his duty to not pass unless he can do so safely but to assume that the
>cyclist's position on the roadway didn't contribute in any way to the
>crash seems counterintuitive at best to me.

I realize that we're rapidly reaching (or have reached!) the "beating a dead
horse" phase of this discussion, but indulge me in allowing me to respond.

The problem is that the driver wasn't given the figurative "two-inch wide
strip of roadway" to use to pass the riders, he had access to a full lane,
which in my mind is analogous to "a two foot wide strip" in bicycle-speak.

Your analogy is similar to the old "the riders forced him to make a bad
decision" line of thought, which I don't buy either.

Chris Neary
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

"We will teach our twisted speech to the young believers"
-- The Clash

02-21-2005, 09:31 AM

>> Assuming the driver believed he was passing the leftmost rider with
>> sufficient room, why should we assume he would have been any more
>>competent at passing "singled-up" riders?

>Allow me to put your question in a cycling context. If you can't keep
>your tires on a two inch wide strip of roadway, why should we assume
>you'd be more competent to keep your tires on a two foot wide strip?
>That the cyclist positioned himself badly doesn't relieve the driver of
>his duty to not pass unless he can do so safely but to assume that the
>cyclist's position on the roadway didn't contribute in any way to the
>crash seems counterintuitive at best to me.

I realize that we're rapidly reaching (or have reached!) the "beating a dead
horse" phase of this discussion, but indulge me in allowing me to respond.

The problem is that the driver wasn't given the figurative "two-inch wide
strip of roadway" to use to pass the riders, he had access to a full lane,
which in my mind is analogous to "a two foot wide strip" in bicycle-speak.

Your analogy is similar to the old "the riders forced him to make a bad
decision" line of thought, which I don't buy either.

Chris Neary
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

"We will teach our twisted speech to the young believers"
-- The Clash

03-06-2005, 08:32 PM

> What specifically do the NYC rules say about riding two
> abreast?

=v= The state requirement is overruled and no such requirement
is reinstated in the sections overruling it.
<_Jym_>

03-06-2005, 08:32 PM

> What specifically do the NYC rules say about riding two
> abreast?

=v= The state requirement is overruled and no such requirement
is reinstated in the sections overruling it.
<_Jym_>