Oregon man faces manslaughter in bicyclist's death

[Don Vito Corleone]

<< And please tell me what makes bicyclists so special that they should be allowed on the road? Are skateboarders allowed on the road? Are gocarts allowed on the road? Hobbies have no business on public roads. Period. You take it there and something bad happens to you, well 'boo friggin hoo.' >>



The law says bicycles are permitted on most roads in this country, as it should be. This is not true of go-karts or skateboards, and the law does not require anything "special" of cyclists in exchange for this right. And if "something bad happens" to me and it is a motorist's fault, he will be up on charges and I will take him to court if I am still alive to do so - in all probability we will both pay a price. The driver in Chicago whose deliberate, criminal behavior led to the last cars-vs.-bicycles thread certainly did, though nothing near the price his late victim paid.

I am continually amazed that people get so passionate about motorists' "right" not to be slightly inconvenienced by a few bicyclists here and there.

 

[Fausto]

<< And please tell me what makes bicyclists so special that they should be allowed on the road? Are skateboarders allowed on the road? Are gocarts allowed on the road? Hobbies have no business on public roads. Period. You take it there and something bad happens to you, well 'boo friggin hoo.' >>


Because they're a vehicle in the eyes of the law, stupid....some of us actually use them to go to work every day. How is that a hobby? You try riding 10 miles each way having to hop on and off curbs and dodge turning cars and then tell mewhy it's much better and safer to be on the road.

20mph on the sidewalk.....you're a f*cking genius. Did you design our perpetually-gridlocked roadways here in Atlanta too?

Fausto

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

A bicycle is no more a vehicle than a scooter is. If I get one of those and ride it to work on busy highways will I be cool like you bicycle guys?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

<< A bicycle is no more a vehicle than a scooter is. If I get one of those and ride it to work on busy highways will I be cool like you bicycle guys? >>



No, you will be breaking the law, which we are not.

Are you always this opaque or is this just a touchy subject for you for some reason?

 

[Fausto]

<< Are you always this opaque or is this just a touchy subject for you for some reason? >>


I think he's just having a hard time coming to terms with the unfamiliar feelings and desires sparked in him by the sight of a man in tight spandex shorts.

Fausto

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Hmm, breaking the law. If bicycles are seen as vehicles in the eyes of the law, don't they have to observe the same laws as any other vehicle on the road? I assume it's illegal for vehicles to go around jumping curbs. And I know it's illegal to pass other vehicles on the shoulder. You sure you bicycle riders aren't breaking the law?

 

[Fausto]

<< Hmm, breaking the law. If bicycles are seen as vehicles in the eyes of the law, don't they have to observe the same laws as any other vehicle on the road? I assume it's illegal for vehicles to go around jumping curbs. And I know it's illegal to pass other vehicles on the shoulder. You sure you bicycle riders aren't breaking the law? >>


Most of us do obey the law, just as most motorists are considerate of our right to be on the roads. There are bad examples in each camp, which of course are the ones immediately pointed out by both sides as being the norm. I personally obey the laws of the road when I'm on my bike for two reasons:

1. I don't want to piss motorists off any more than I have to.
2. If I do get nailed by a car, I don't want there to be any doubt about who was at fault.

If a cyclist breaks the law and gets tagged by a car as a result, they do not have my sympathy. Just as a motorist who kills a law-abiding cyclist deserves a court date. The law works both ways.

Fausto

 

[StageLeft]

<< Hmm, breaking the law. If bicycles are seen as vehicles in the eyes of the law, don't they have to observe the same laws as any other vehicle on the road? I assume it's illegal for vehicles to go around jumping curbs. And I know it's illegal to pass other vehicles on the shoulder. You sure you bicycle riders aren't breaking the law? >>

What does that have to do with this? It is legal for me to ride my bike down the road and I have right of way against people behind me. This is the law, this guy broke it. It's that simple.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Man I love ATOT, we're all experts and like crack judgements based on about 0.1% of all available information.

What was the speed limit on the road? Was there a shoulder? Was the road straight or was there a turn? Could anything be hindering the drivers vision of the cyclist? Was he trying to brake or slow down when he hit the cyclist?

Obviously, the easiest thing would be to slow down, but people seem to miss the corollary to that, perhaps he tried to slow down and still hit the cyclist. Or maybe he's blind as a bat and senile too, but since that's not mentioned in the article either I can't comment. >>



Thanks for the sig update Capn

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

dude, for you guys defending the motorist...think about this:

There was a whole line of cyclists... Did the old man think he was going to pass all of them?

Furthermore, he surely had plenty of time to react in that he would of seen them a long time before he actually got near them.

This man should never drive again.

 

[Viper GTS]

<< dude, for you guys defending the motorist...think about this:

There was a whole line of cyclists... Did the old man think he was going to pass all of them?

Furthermore, he surely had plenty of time to react in that he would of seen them a long time before he actually got near them.

This man should never drive again. >>



Unlike the vast majority of the people here, I HAVE DRIVEN THAT STRETCH OF ROAD. It's very likely he had little to no warning. I'm not saying that IS the case, but we're not talking about a wide city street here. It is a narrow, windy, steep, mountain road. There are many places where you could come around a corner & find yourself trapped in a situation like that.

It is not a good stretch of road.

Here's a map

It could have been either of the two shown there, Old Germantown is worse.

Viper GTS

 

[StageLeft]

<<

<< dude, for you guys defending the motorist...think about this:

There was a whole line of cyclists... Did the old man think he was going to pass all of them?

Furthermore, he surely had plenty of time to react in that he would of seen them a long time before he actually got near them.

This man should never drive again. >>



Unlike the vast majority of the people here, I HAVE DRIVEN THAT STRETCH OF ROAD. It's very likely he had little to no warning. I'm not saying that IS the case, but we're not talking about a wide city street here. It is a narrow, windy, steep, mountain road. There are many places where you could come around a corner & find yourself trapped in a situation like that.

It is not a good stretch of road.

Viper GTS >>

Well then he was clearly going too fast right? If you can't see what's coming up and stop in time you're going too fast unless the thing you hit runs out in front of you like a deer (something you just can't help against unless you drive along at 15 mph).

 

[amdskip]

have you ever driven something this large like a motor home? They can be hard to slow down and the driver probably thought he would clear the bike or he could not see clearly even though he had a mirror. Objects in mirror are closer than they appear.

 

[Lucky]

<< have you ever driven something this large like a motor home? They can be hard to slow down and the driver probably thought he would clear the bike or he could not see clearly even though he had a mirror. Objects in mirror are closer than they appear. >>




huh? he clipped the cyclist in the back of the head with his mirror.

 

[Viper GTS]

<<

<<

<< dude, for you guys defending the motorist...think about this:

There was a whole line of cyclists... Did the old man think he was going to pass all of them?

Furthermore, he surely had plenty of time to react in that he would of seen them a long time before he actually got near them.

This man should never drive again. >>



Unlike the vast majority of the people here, I HAVE DRIVEN THAT STRETCH OF ROAD. It's very likely he had little to no warning. I'm not saying that IS the case, but we're not talking about a wide city street here. It is a narrow, windy, steep, mountain road. There are many places where you could come around a corner & find yourself trapped in a situation like that.

It is not a good stretch of road.

Viper GTS >>

Well then he was clearly going too fast right? If you can't see what's coming up and stop in time you're going too fast unless the thing you hit runs out in front of you like a deer (something you just can't help against unless you drive along at 15 mph). >>



Excessive speed, infamiliarity with the road, who knows. I'm just trying to point out we're not talking about straight level highway here.

Viper GTS

 

[Gaard]

<< Hmm, breaking the law. If bicycles are seen as vehicles in the eyes of the law, don't they have to observe the same laws as any other vehicle on the road? I assume it's illegal for vehicles to go around jumping curbs. And I know it's illegal to pass other vehicles on the shoulder. You sure you bicycle riders aren't breaking the law? >>



Positive. You sure you weren't dropped on the head as a baby?

 

[UnixFreak]

<< What does that have to do with this? It is legal for me to ride my bike down the road and I have right of way against people behind me. This is the law, this guy broke it. It's that simple. >>



People like you p*ss me off. There will be three feet of shoulder on the road, and you are out on the other side of the white line, even on blind corners (F*ck em, they have brakes, right?) just to "exercise your right of way" and its a crock of sh*t. Any police officer will tell you that you do not have the right of way, when you are posing a danger to traffic, and for two, you should be riding in the f*cking bike lanes taxpayers provided you with.

And speaking of that, what gives you more rights than somebody in a car? Do you pay outrageous registration fees and taxes? No.

Do taxpayers pay money, and set aside land, so that YOU can have a place to ride your bicycles? Yes. If you choose not to use these paths, and ride out in the traffic, then we should yeild to you?. Perhaps you could explain this. And perhaps you should explain why we should continue to waste revenue and land on bike lanes, and paths, that are seldom used.

I still maintain that most bicycle riders who ride in the road, are a traffic hazard, and are insensitive. Its the typical "liberal" syndrome. Everyone wants to cheer for the underdog, whether they are in the right, or not. Some bicycle riders expect us to drive 5 mph everywhere we go, in anticipation that there may be a bike rider popping out somewhere.

Sorry, but maybe one of you helmet heads should hop into an 80,000lb log truck and try going down a country road, and tell me how maneuverable it is, and, tell us why they should be the ones to accomodate a guy on a f*cking bike.



<< Positive. You sure you weren't dropped on the head as a baby? >>



Jeez... He asked a simple, logical question, and you lash out an insult. who won that one?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

<<

<< What does that have to do with this? It is legal for me to ride my bike down the road and I have right of way against people behind me. This is the law, this guy broke it. It's that simple. >>



People like you p*ss me off. There will be three feet of shoulder on the road, and you are out on the other side of the white line, even on blind corners (F*ck em, they have brakes, right?) just to "exercise your right of way" and its a crock of sh*t. Any police officer will tell you that you do not have the right of way, when you are posing a danger to traffic, and for two, you should be riding in the f*cking bike lanes taxpayers provided you with.

And speaking of that, what gives you more rights than somebody in a car? Do you pay outrageous registration fees and taxes? No.

Do taxpayers pay money, and set aside land, so that YOU can have a place to ride your bicycles? Yes. If you choose not to use these paths, and ride out in the traffic, then we should yeild to you?. Perhaps you could explain this. And perhaps you should explain why we should continue to waste revenue and land on bike lanes, and paths, that are seldom used.

I still maintain that most bicycle riders who ride in the road, are a traffic hazard, and are insensitive. Its the typical "liberal" syndrome. Everyone wants to cheer for the underdog, whether they are in the right, or not. Some bicycle riders expect us to drive 5 mph everywhere we go, in anticipation that there may be a bike rider popping out somewhere.

Sorry, but maybe one of you helmet heads should hop into an 80,000lb log truck and try going down a country road, and tell me how maneuverable it is, and, tell us why they should be the ones to accomodate a guy on a f*cking bike. >>



When there are bike trails and bike lanes adjoining every road in America (as opposed to one road in 100 on a good day, as is the reality), your arguments will have some credence. Until then, they are pretty much completely meaningless.

 

[Ameesh]

<< He had brakes, didn't he?

Viper GTS >>

 

[UnixFreak]

<< When there are bike trails and bike lanes adjoining every road in America (as opposed to one road in 100 on a good day, as is the reality), your arguments will have some credence. Until then, they are pretty much completely meaningless. >>



Meaningless? Maybe if you remove reason and logic from your thinking. You are trying to say that it is ok, to ride out in the road, with
traffic, even if there is a bike lane present, and create a traffic hazard, because of the lack of bike trails adjoining every road in america?

Somehow this does not make sense, however, I could be misunderstanding what you are trying to say.


The bottom line is, I feel that bike riders for the most part, are dangerous. They are dangers to traffic, and take lives every day. Especially these
types that want to "flex" their rights, and go blazing out in front of someone. "F*ck em, they have brakes".


Not one of you can convince me that you, riding your 20lb bicycle, for recreation, riding in the road, (when there is a bike lane, or places you can ride),
should not have to move for a man or woman , who has to drive on the road, to feed their families, driving 80,000lb vehicles, and forcing them to risk thier lives and the lives of others, because you don't want to move your spandexed @sses out of the way. You cannot justify to me, or any other reasonable person, people risking thier lives for you in this manner is fair.


You guys expect the drivers to swerve or slow down, thinking that a log truck manuevers like a sports car, and that if they swerve and take out a minivan in the other lane, and kill an entire family, to save your life, well

F*ck em they have brakes.

Why? Because you don't want to ride in the gravel, and get your leg warmers dirty. You have "rights". So what if a bunch of people die?

None of you can convince me that this is reasonable, and logical.

And those of you who disagree, will probably feel differently when a helmethead causes an accident, and kills you, or someone
close to you. It happens every day. If you are ever staring down a log truck on a country road, and see some pansy on a bike refusing to move, you'll agree with me then.