I Was Hit By A Car!!!!!!!!!!!
07-13-06, 02:15 PM
#76
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You're assuming stuff in example 2 that we know not to be true. In particular, the OP wrote that the driver had no reason to slow down. Therefore, there was no stop sign.
07-13-06, 02:35 PM
#77
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
And regardless of how fast the car was actually moving or the OP's ability to accurately estimate that speed, on a road where the posted speed limit is 55 (which we have established) it is only reasonable to assume motor traffic is moving 60+ or even 70 unless we have specific reason to assume otherwise.
Plus, note the (sadly typical for many cyclists) ignorance conveyed in the current revision of the OP:
The implication is that cyclists are supposed to stay to the right, unless they have a reason to move left (like to make a left turn), in which case they have the right to move left, regardless of how it affects others, and without having to negotiate for the right-of-way to do so. The implied reasoning apparently is: "why should I have to negotiate for a right that is already mine? After all... THE LAST TIME I CHECKED IT WAS THE ONLY WAY TO MOVE LEFT FROM RIGHT."
Actually, is that ignorance, arrogance, or both? Either way, this attitude seems to be far too typical among cyclists...
Plus, note the (sadly typical for many cyclists) ignorance conveyed in the current revision of the OP:
Originally Posted by arreyonskyy
WHY DID I MOVE TO THE MIDDLE ON THE ROAD. THE LAST TIME I CHECKED IT WAS THE ONLY WAY TO MOVE LEFT FROM RIGHT.
Actually, is that ignorance, arrogance, or both? Either way, this attitude seems to be far too typical among cyclists...
07-13-06, 03:03 PM
#78
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13659 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by nova
Fact is genec yours and other replies served no purpose at all other than to devert atention from the original intent of the post. You dont like the way he posted dont reply simple as that. All you did was turn a crash post in to a grammer bash post.. This was what you wanted to do and you did it so congrats you showed your better than every one else or did you hmm lets see "spelling checker" nope guess you did not prove it now did you"
Sorry if you feel I was trying to divert attention... that was not my intention at all. And in light of your and other's feelings about the post, and since it can't be read anyway... I'm out of here... but I will gladly respond to the OP if they chose to post in a more readable manner.
07-13-06, 03:19 PM
#79
hill hater
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: norton ohio 5.5 miles from center road tow path trail head
Posts: 2,127
Bikes: cannondale t400 1987 model and a raleigh gran prix from 1973
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
You're assuming stuff in example 2 that we know not to be true. In particular, the OP wrote that the driver had no reason to slow down. Therefore, there was no stop sign.
I dont remember seeing that in his original post. He got tired of the bashing and insults and changed it and im asuming left these forums.
07-13-06, 03:50 PM
#80
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nova
I dont remember seeing that in his original post.
07-13-06, 03:54 PM
#81
hill hater
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: norton ohio 5.5 miles from center road tow path trail head
Posts: 2,127
Bikes: cannondale t400 1987 model and a raleigh gran prix from 1973
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
What I recall was something about him turning left and the driver continuing to go straight, and therefore not having the same need to slow down, which implied the lack of a stop sign.
Ahh ok Well with out him replying its kind of hard to kow for sure. But you still havent answered my question about example 2
Come on now whos at fault in example b
07-13-06, 03:55 PM
#82
hill hater
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: norton ohio 5.5 miles from center road tow path trail head
Posts: 2,127
Bikes: cannondale t400 1987 model and a raleigh gran prix from 1973
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nova
Ahh ok Well with out him replying its kind of hard to kow for sure. But you still havent answered my question about example 2
Come on now whos at fault in example b
Come on now whos at fault in example b
07-13-06, 05:05 PM
#84
hill hater
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: norton ohio 5.5 miles from center road tow path trail head
Posts: 2,127
Bikes: cannondale t400 1987 model and a raleigh gran prix from 1973
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Why reinvent the wheel? See bicyclesafe.com
For a example look at wrong way smack but put the cyclist on the correct side motorist startign on the right side have the car make a left turn on to the road and hit you. In my case i sort of had a right hook wrong way smack combo but i was in the right lane center of lane.
And when i say got him good i mean seen him swurved to avoid while unclipping left foot and getting ready to brace for impact wich i did.
My left pedal got his rear quater down low my ceats got it up high above the wheel well towards the back. He looked at me I think i said bummer isnt it?
07-13-06, 05:17 PM
#86
hill hater
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: norton ohio 5.5 miles from center road tow path trail head
Posts: 2,127
Bikes: cannondale t400 1987 model and a raleigh gran prix from 1973
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Well, if you want it all... I refer you to the book, Effective Cycling....
Ahh well any more replies on this sub subject should go to pms i think.
07-13-06, 05:56 PM
#87
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nova
Ahh ok Well with out him replying its kind of hard to kow for sure. But you still havent answered my question about example 2
Come on now whos at fault in example b
Come on now whos at fault in example b
A basic tenet of defensive driving is that in almost all collisions (with very few extreme exceptions), the collision would have been avoided if either of the drivers involved had been operating defensively. Therefore, in any collision, both of those involved are at fault at least for not operating defensively. So, in virtually any bike-car collision, both the cyclist and the driver are at fault to some significant degree.
For me, in a cyclist forum, in terms of collisions, it only makes sense to focus on changing the behavior of the cyclist. After all, while changing either will avoid the collisions, we have no direct control over the behavior of the motorist, so we must take his behavior as a given. Therefore, it only makes sense to focus on the area where we do have direct control: the behavior of the cyclist.
Motorists are going to speed. They're going to be distracted. They're going to turn right without checking their blind spots. They're going to not see us from time and time and turn left in front of us. We should treat motorist bad driving like potholes: learn to expect it, and learn to avoid it.
From our point of view, blaming a motorist for a collision is like blaming a pothole for a crash: it's pointless.
07-13-06, 06:53 PM
#88
Speed Demon *roll eyes*
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Posts: 982
Bikes: 1998 specialized s-works mtn bike / 2005 Kona Jake the Snake
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
It's a moot question.
A basic tenet of defensive driving is that in almost all collisions (with very few extreme exceptions), the collision would have been avoided if either of the drivers involved had been operating defensively. Therefore, in any collision, both of those involved are at fault at least for not operating defensively. So, in virtually any bike-car collision, both the cyclist and the driver are at fault to some significant degree.
For me, in a cyclist forum, in terms of collisions, it only makes sense to focus on changing the behavior of the cyclist. After all, while changing either will avoid the collisions, we have no direct control over the behavior of the motorist, so we must take his behavior as a given. Therefore, it only makes sense to focus on the area where we do have direct control: the behavior of the cyclist.
Motorists are going to speed. They're going to be distracted. They're going to turn right without checking their blind spots. They're going to not see us from time and time and turn left in front of us. We should treat motorist bad driving like potholes: learn to expect it, and learn to avoid it.
From our point of view, blaming a motorist for a collision is like blaming a pothole for a crash: it's pointless.
A basic tenet of defensive driving is that in almost all collisions (with very few extreme exceptions), the collision would have been avoided if either of the drivers involved had been operating defensively. Therefore, in any collision, both of those involved are at fault at least for not operating defensively. So, in virtually any bike-car collision, both the cyclist and the driver are at fault to some significant degree.
For me, in a cyclist forum, in terms of collisions, it only makes sense to focus on changing the behavior of the cyclist. After all, while changing either will avoid the collisions, we have no direct control over the behavior of the motorist, so we must take his behavior as a given. Therefore, it only makes sense to focus on the area where we do have direct control: the behavior of the cyclist.
Motorists are going to speed. They're going to be distracted. They're going to turn right without checking their blind spots. They're going to not see us from time and time and turn left in front of us. We should treat motorist bad driving like potholes: learn to expect it, and learn to avoid it.
From our point of view, blaming a motorist for a collision is like blaming a pothole for a crash: it's pointless.
07-13-06, 11:52 PM
#89
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sgtsmile
Exactly. This is the same philosophy that the company I taught driving for used. It works very very well.
07-14-06, 09:11 AM
#90
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Western Maryland
Posts: 23
Bikes: Sun EZ-3 Recumbent Trike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Pity this thread got hijacked by grammarians and the OP deleted his post out of frustration. I read it when he first posted it, but wanted to go back and recheck his statements. There may have been presentation issues, but after getting so fed up with the poor grammar I keep finding on the major media websites (New York Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, FoxNews, Washington Post, etc.), his original story still made sense.
Getting back on topic: If I was driving along at 55 mph, and a cyclist was riding the shoulder 500 feet ahead, he would automatically go in my constantly changing 'things to watch for' list, along with stray dogs, squirrels, and little kids running towards the street. At the same time, a variation of the phrase "mind the pedestrian" will go through my head.
You can also be darn sure that if that same cyclist signals a left and pulls out in front of me while I'm rapidly gaining on him, there's going to be at least one set of skid marks, with the first set left on the road.
James
Getting back on topic: If I was driving along at 55 mph, and a cyclist was riding the shoulder 500 feet ahead, he would automatically go in my constantly changing 'things to watch for' list, along with stray dogs, squirrels, and little kids running towards the street. At the same time, a variation of the phrase "mind the pedestrian" will go through my head.
You can also be darn sure that if that same cyclist signals a left and pulls out in front of me while I'm rapidly gaining on him, there's going to be at least one set of skid marks, with the first set left on the road.
James
07-14-06, 10:22 AM
#91
ROM 6:23
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Coastal Maine
Posts: 1,713
Bikes: Specialized Tricross Comp, Lemond Tourmalet, Bridgestone MB-5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
From our point of view, blaming a motorist for a collision is like blaming a pothole for a crash: it's pointless.
07-14-06, 10:39 AM
#92
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Originally Posted by sgtsmile
Dont bother to respond, I am through with this waste of time.
To the OP - glad you're OK, take more care going forward.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
07-14-06, 10:49 AM
#93
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
When a slow moving cyclist suddenly pulls out from a shoulder into the main travel lane without yielding to a vehicle 500 feet back traveling at 88 feet per second (60 mph), he is likely to get hit from the rear. Duh. 
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
07-14-06, 10:52 AM
#94
Senior Member
Originally Posted by chipcom
Really? I don't suppose it ever crossed your mind that some of these things that you jump to condemn after the fact are caused by some of the wacky crap you post in these forums while passing yourself off as some kind of expert. DHLP, or whatever your latest term for it, is a good example. Many interpet it to mean exactly the behavior you are now condemning. And you wonder why some of us feel the need to ensure that much of your dogma does not go unchallenged...because otherwise your words might get even more people hurt.
07-14-06, 12:19 PM
#95
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Falls Church, VA
Posts: 260
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WiseOwl
Pity this thread got hijacked by grammarians and the OP deleted his post out of frustration.
07-14-06, 01:53 PM
#96
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WiseOwl
Getting back on topic: If I was driving along at 55 mph, and a cyclist was riding the shoulder 500 feet ahead, he would automatically go in my constantly changing 'things to watch for' list, along with stray dogs, squirrels, and little kids running towards the street. At the same time, a variation of the phrase "mind the pedestrian" will go through my head.
How many incidents of cyclists riding in bike lanes and shoulders who are killed by drivers who did not notice the cyclist 500 feet up ahead in the shoulder and inadvertently drifted before you are convinced this is a real issue? How many?
Last edited by Helmet Head; 07-14-06 at 01:59 PM.
07-14-06, 01:58 PM
#97
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by flipped4bikes
Yeah, OK, so are you saying that they should never be held responsible for their actions?
07-14-06, 02:03 PM
#98
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
Really? I don't suppose it ever crossed your mind that some of these things that you jump to condemn after the fact are caused by some of the wacky crap you post in these forums while passing yourself off as some kind of expert. DHLP, or whatever your latest term for it, is a good example. Many interpet it to mean exactly the behavior you are now condemning. And you wonder why some of us feel the need to ensure that much of your dogma does not go unchallenged...because otherwise your words might get even more people hurt.
Last edited by Helmet Head; 02-07-07 at 01:08 PM.
02-07-07, 01:00 AM
#99
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by arreyonskyy
I deleted my post because of the stupidity of several people. ThIs WaS NoT a PoSt On GrAMmEr, NOR ON WHEN OR WHEN NOT TO USE CAPS PER ThE BeDfOrD HaNdBoOk FoR WrItErS. When i ride, i do not carry what ever that device is that messures speed (but i am sure some KNOW IT ALL WILL SAY).
Neither do I have Super Measure Man abilities to judge distance with an aprx. number.
All i can say concerning her speed is what the Trooper *noted on the accident report* and what the driver *REPORTED TO HER INSURANCE COMPANY*
WHY WAS I NOT THROWN 100 FT BEHIND THE CAR
******* BY THE GRACE OF GOD*********
that was directed to the "crash consulant" or what ever he is
What did the witness say SHE WAS ON THE CELL PHONE GOING FROM SIDE TO SIDE ON THE ROAD. BY ALL MEANS SHE WAS RECKLESS. Her child was in the front seat (an infant child) with the car seat in the back seat. MAY I REPEAT RECKLESS
WHY DID I MOVE TO THE MIDDLE ON THE ROAD. THE LAST TIME I CHECKED IT WAS THE ONLY WAY TO MOVE LEFT FROM RIGHT.
so carry on
YOU MAY DEBATE ON WHETHER OR NOT MY GRAMMER or cApS hurt your eyes.
Neither do I have Super Measure Man abilities to judge distance with an aprx. number.
All i can say concerning her speed is what the Trooper *noted on the accident report* and what the driver *REPORTED TO HER INSURANCE COMPANY*
WHY WAS I NOT THROWN 100 FT BEHIND THE CAR
******* BY THE GRACE OF GOD*********
that was directed to the "crash consulant" or what ever he is
What did the witness say SHE WAS ON THE CELL PHONE GOING FROM SIDE TO SIDE ON THE ROAD. BY ALL MEANS SHE WAS RECKLESS. Her child was in the front seat (an infant child) with the car seat in the back seat. MAY I REPEAT RECKLESS
WHY DID I MOVE TO THE MIDDLE ON THE ROAD. THE LAST TIME I CHECKED IT WAS THE ONLY WAY TO MOVE LEFT FROM RIGHT.
so carry on
YOU MAY DEBATE ON WHETHER OR NOT MY GRAMMER or cApS hurt your eyes.
I was not even hurt other than a few scrapes & bruises. totally smashed everything on my Schwinn Homegrown as it was tossed up in the air ,up & over the car.
No, i wasn't wearing a helmet. Gloves did save my hands though from furtherly being ground chuck.