njkayaker

Show where I said I "witnessed" this. Did you read the rest of what I wrote?

rydabent more-or-less claimed it wasn't possible. That doesn't seem true at all.

jack pot 

Darwin's law of the road >>> 2 wheels always must be Xtra wary of 4 wheels ........................... this applies to tandems with trailers and for what it's worth a lot of hi way bicyclers will (should) have a warning flag on their rig

njkayaker

"Right of way" is just a way of prioritizing vehicles. It really isn't a "right".

Everyone (driver or cyclist) is supposed to yield it if doing so reduces the risk of collision.

mr_bill

I am 1000% certain that black ice had nothing to do with this crash in Idaho in July.

https://www.facebook.com/HueyHealing

-mr. bill

livedarklions

That quoted passage from Motorbiscuit contains a glaring non sequitur. People are blamed for negligence a lot. Negligence is not the intent to cause the harm, and the bad events that occur due to negligence are commonly referred to as accidents in all sorts of contexts.

Also, the most prominent agency engaging in the investigation of airplane mishaps--the NTSB--calls this procedure "accident investigation". and issues "accident reports". https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...s/Reports.aspx
This notion that we don't refer to "air incidences as accidents" is a complete canard. Actually, by international agreement,the word "accident" is the correct word to use for events during operation of the aircraft that result in death and/or injury of people, or loss of or damage to the aircraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviati..._and_incidents

njkayaker

????

I was indirectly saying it might not have been anything they could have avoided (that is, that they might not have any fault).

You (along with rydeabent), apparently, are arguing otherwise.

mr_bill

OK, I've had enough of this sophistry showing up every single time.

The NTSB is required by statute to issue "accident" reports.

Accident reports are a subset of "Investigation Reports" - investigations can also be opened into incidents. Definition of incident is left as an exercise to the reader.

If one actually bothered to read NTSB "Accident Reports" one would find that the titles contain terms such as "Collision," "Grounding and Sinking," "Roadway Departure," "Fire Aboard," "Loss of Engine Power," "Contact... with... Bridge," "Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Strike," etc. etc. etc. etc. You know what term NTSB accident reports titles doesn't contain? Crickets.


Back to our regular scheduled inhumanity thread.

-mr. bill

mr_bill

p.s. You know what Idaho State Police called this "accident"?

Vehicle vs Bicycle Fatality Crash on US93, North of Jackpot, NV

-mr. bill

njkayaker

You need to follow your own advice.

mr_bill

18 thoughtless replies to this thread. Good day sir.

-mr. bill

livedarklions

What the hell sophistry are you are you talking about? The word "accident" is used throughout those reports as well. Those other words are types of accidents or synonyms for accident. I'm damn sick of people making false claims about the meaning of the word "accident" and just plain lying about its clearly very common usage to include all manner of incidents that either do or do not involve blameful conduct.
The reason that CFR exists, btw is because it's tracking the language of an international convention. That definition is straight out of the convention. This is evidence enough that the claim that the word implies anything positive or negative about fault or blame is complete BS.

Sorry, but this whole "accident" vs. "crash" junk smacks of people shuffling deck chairs to make themselves look like they're having an effect. I don't think as advocacy it lends people any credibility when they make absurd claims about word usage when two seconds of google will provide you with a nearly infinite supply of counter-examples.

Here's the agency's own summary of their findings in a mid-air collision--notice what they call it in the first sentence:

The probable cause of this accident was the inherent limitations of the see-and-avoid concept, which prevented the two pilots from seeing the other airplane before the collision, and the absence of visual and aural alerts from both airplanes’ traffic display systems, while operating in a geographic area with a high concentration of air tour activity. Contributing to the accident were (1) the Federal Aviation Administration’s provision of new transceivers that lacked alerting capability to Capstone Program operators without adequately mitigating the increased risk associated with the consequent loss of the previously available alerting capability and (2) the absence of a requirement for airborne traffic advisory systems with aural alerting among operators who carry passengers for hire.​

Friggin' crickets? Don't think so.

tomato coupe

Are you a pilot?

livedarklions

No, are you a cowboy?

tomato coupe

Some would say I am a cowboy, since we own a small ranch with horses and cattle, and I've done some roping for fun.

But, I was just asking if you were a pilot out of curiosity, because CFR Title 14 is something all pilots are acquainted with.

livedarklions

Sorry, I didn't understand why you were asking the question. No, I'm a lawyer who is familiar with the CFR generally.

JoeyBike

One common scenario is this:

1. Cars are approaching in the opposite lane,

2. Truck or large vehicle approaching cyclist from behind. Truck slows down a good distance behind cyclist to allow traffic in the opposite lane to clear the area so the truck driver can move into the opposite lane to pass the cyclist without slowing to a crawl.

3. A second vehicle is behind the truck and can't see the cyclists at all because as the truck slows causing the car(s) behind the truck start to bunch up. Motorist in the first car behind the truck starts scoping out the opposing lane to pass the slowing truck focusing their attention on the OPPOSITE side of the road of where the cyclist is.

4. At the last moment the truck scoots over the center line to pass the cyclist safely.

5. The car trailing the truck has no time to SEE the cyclist and react. (Assuming the cyclist is left of the fog line in the USA)

6. !BLAMO!

This happens a million times a day. It is remarkable that so few cyclists get clobbered.

njkayaker

In this particular case, all this wild speculation seems very unlikely.

njkayaker

And what you "contributed" was inane whinging. Again, you don't follow the rules you impose on others.