Holy shatz! Cop stops bicycle! - Page 51

06-14-2004, 06:21 PM

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:33:49 +0800, Bernd Felsche
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].au> wrote:

[...]

>If it becomes widely known, then more motorists might start to
>respect cyclists on the road instead of thinking of them as
>self-righteous, blithering idiots.

This is a myth. It's not as amusing hearing it from a person who
doesn't ride, though.

06-14-2004, 07:04 PM

Chris B. <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

>On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:33:49 +0800, Bernd Felsche
><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].au> wrote:

>[...]

>>If it becomes widely known, then more motorists might start to
>>respect cyclists on the road instead of thinking of them as
>>self-righteous, blithering idiots.

>This is a myth. It's not as amusing hearing it from a person who
>doesn't ride, though.

I don't ride?

Your comments only add weight to the perceptio nof cyclists being
self-righteous, blithering idiots.

*PLONK*
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

06-14-2004, 07:04 PM

Chris B. <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

>On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:33:49 +0800, Bernd Felsche
><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].au> wrote:

>[...]

>>If it becomes widely known, then more motorists might start to
>>respect cyclists on the road instead of thinking of them as
>>self-righteous, blithering idiots.

>This is a myth. It's not as amusing hearing it from a person who
>doesn't ride, though.

I don't ride?

Your comments only add weight to the perceptio nof cyclists being
self-righteous, blithering idiots.

*PLONK*
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

06-14-2004, 07:04 PM

Chris B. <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

>On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:33:49 +0800, Bernd Felsche
><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].au> wrote:

>[...]

>>If it becomes widely known, then more motorists might start to
>>respect cyclists on the road instead of thinking of them as
>>self-righteous, blithering idiots.

>This is a myth. It's not as amusing hearing it from a person who
>doesn't ride, though.

I don't ride?

Your comments only add weight to the perceptio nof cyclists being
self-righteous, blithering idiots.

*PLONK*
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

06-14-2004, 07:04 PM

Chris B. <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

>On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:33:49 +0800, Bernd Felsche
><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].au> wrote:

>[...]

>>If it becomes widely known, then more motorists might start to
>>respect cyclists on the road instead of thinking of them as
>>self-righteous, blithering idiots.

>This is a myth. It's not as amusing hearing it from a person who
>doesn't ride, though.

I don't ride?

Your comments only add weight to the perceptio nof cyclists being
self-righteous, blithering idiots.

*PLONK*
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

06-14-2004, 07:04 PM

Chris B. <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

>On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:33:49 +0800, Bernd Felsche
><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].au> wrote:

>[...]

>>If it becomes widely known, then more motorists might start to
>>respect cyclists on the road instead of thinking of them as
>>self-righteous, blithering idiots.

>This is a myth. It's not as amusing hearing it from a person who
>doesn't ride, though.

I don't ride?

Your comments only add weight to the perceptio nof cyclists being
self-righteous, blithering idiots.

*PLONK*
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

06-14-2004, 07:30 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote:

> You're 100% right about the first Zoot but 100% wrong on the second. A dog,
> coon, or skunk that tries to dart through traffic sometimes becomes road pizza.
> Do you honestly think that all the road killed animals you see were struck by
> drivers that could have avoided them if only they could "control their scuds"?

Okay, what if it's neither a beastie nor an adult cyclist, but rather
a young child? How about an adult autistic? Or a runaway lawnmower?

Drivers who don't operate their vehicles in such a way as to be able
to deal with these situations-- and no, making "road pizza" is not
dealing with them-- are every bit as criminally antisocial as somebody
shooting blindly into a crowd.

> *IF* (notice the emphasis) as the poster postulates a cyclist darts out in a
> nonforseeable manner and a driver trying to avoid him crashes, it's the
> cyclist's fault not the driver's.

The collision may be the fault of the cyclist, but any serious injury
or property damage resulting from it is the fault of the motorist. It
just has to be; the cyclist did not bring that risk to the
interaction.

The law does not uphold the ethical lines of responsibility when it
comes to motor vehicles-- to do so would have a chilling effect on
their gratuitous operation-- but just because the law is wrong in
this, does not make it right to divert motorists' responsibilities to
their victims.

Chalo Colina

06-14-2004, 07:30 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote:

> You're 100% right about the first Zoot but 100% wrong on the second. A dog,
> coon, or skunk that tries to dart through traffic sometimes becomes road pizza.
> Do you honestly think that all the road killed animals you see were struck by
> drivers that could have avoided them if only they could "control their scuds"?

Okay, what if it's neither a beastie nor an adult cyclist, but rather
a young child? How about an adult autistic? Or a runaway lawnmower?

Drivers who don't operate their vehicles in such a way as to be able
to deal with these situations-- and no, making "road pizza" is not
dealing with them-- are every bit as criminally antisocial as somebody
shooting blindly into a crowd.

> *IF* (notice the emphasis) as the poster postulates a cyclist darts out in a
> nonforseeable manner and a driver trying to avoid him crashes, it's the
> cyclist's fault not the driver's.

The collision may be the fault of the cyclist, but any serious injury
or property damage resulting from it is the fault of the motorist. It
just has to be; the cyclist did not bring that risk to the
interaction.

The law does not uphold the ethical lines of responsibility when it
comes to motor vehicles-- to do so would have a chilling effect on
their gratuitous operation-- but just because the law is wrong in
this, does not make it right to divert motorists' responsibilities to
their victims.

Chalo Colina

06-14-2004, 07:30 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote:

> You're 100% right about the first Zoot but 100% wrong on the second. A dog,
> coon, or skunk that tries to dart through traffic sometimes becomes road pizza.
> Do you honestly think that all the road killed animals you see were struck by
> drivers that could have avoided them if only they could "control their scuds"?

Okay, what if it's neither a beastie nor an adult cyclist, but rather
a young child? How about an adult autistic? Or a runaway lawnmower?

Drivers who don't operate their vehicles in such a way as to be able
to deal with these situations-- and no, making "road pizza" is not
dealing with them-- are every bit as criminally antisocial as somebody
shooting blindly into a crowd.

> *IF* (notice the emphasis) as the poster postulates a cyclist darts out in a
> nonforseeable manner and a driver trying to avoid him crashes, it's the
> cyclist's fault not the driver's.

The collision may be the fault of the cyclist, but any serious injury
or property damage resulting from it is the fault of the motorist. It
just has to be; the cyclist did not bring that risk to the
interaction.

The law does not uphold the ethical lines of responsibility when it
comes to motor vehicles-- to do so would have a chilling effect on
their gratuitous operation-- but just because the law is wrong in
this, does not make it right to divert motorists' responsibilities to
their victims.

Chalo Colina

06-14-2004, 07:30 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote:

> You're 100% right about the first Zoot but 100% wrong on the second. A dog,
> coon, or skunk that tries to dart through traffic sometimes becomes road pizza.
> Do you honestly think that all the road killed animals you see were struck by
> drivers that could have avoided them if only they could "control their scuds"?

Okay, what if it's neither a beastie nor an adult cyclist, but rather
a young child? How about an adult autistic? Or a runaway lawnmower?

Drivers who don't operate their vehicles in such a way as to be able
to deal with these situations-- and no, making "road pizza" is not
dealing with them-- are every bit as criminally antisocial as somebody
shooting blindly into a crowd.

> *IF* (notice the emphasis) as the poster postulates a cyclist darts out in a
> nonforseeable manner and a driver trying to avoid him crashes, it's the
> cyclist's fault not the driver's.

The collision may be the fault of the cyclist, but any serious injury
or property damage resulting from it is the fault of the motorist. It
just has to be; the cyclist did not bring that risk to the
interaction.

The law does not uphold the ethical lines of responsibility when it
comes to motor vehicles-- to do so would have a chilling effect on
their gratuitous operation-- but just because the law is wrong in
this, does not make it right to divert motorists' responsibilities to
their victims.

Chalo Colina