Biker convicted of Vehicular Manslaughter for running over pedestrian in crosswalk

[Don87]

What are you basing that off of?

I'm a truck driver. Maine to Illinois to Kentucky to South Carolina with my current job. Last one covered more territory.

I drive 2800 to 3200 miles per week at my current job. More with my last 2 jobs. I've been driving for 12 years now.

 

[murphy1244]

He was joking, hence the laughing icon at the end of the sentence.

Yes I was joking, sorry for any offence taken.

 

[Jim Shooz]

What gets on my t*ts is the cyclist who, riding on the road, suddenly rides up onto the footpath and then proceeds to ride across the pedestrian crossing and expecting you to treat them as a pedestrian and stop. Doesn't work with me. And before you jump on me for that attitude, back in another lifetime I was a cycle telegram delivery boy. (remember them)

 

[Rustyiron]

... and before you think that allowing bikes to cruise through stop signs is just a claim to privilege: stopping and then coming back up to speed is a significant energy expenditure for a cyclist. It may slow the cyclists's average speed by 30-40%, depending on the length of the ride and the number of stops. It's not like a car where you can just hit the gas.

This logic tells me that an 80,000 pound semi should not have to stop either, for that matter any vehicle. A much more "significant energy expenditure" than some 120 pound dweeb on his 40# bicycle!

 

[xring100]

This logic tells me that an 80,000 pound semi should not have to stop either, for that matter any vehicle. A much more "significant energy expenditure" than some 120 pound dweeb on his 40# bicycle!

Lol good point

 

[Don87]

This logic tells me that an 80,000 pound semi should not have to stop either, for that matter any vehicle. A much more "significant energy expenditure" than some 120 pound dweeb on his 40# bicycle!

I actually couldn't believe it when Joshua posted what you responded to. I had to read it 3 times before I believed it was actually typed. And then I was so dumfounded by the erroneous logic that I couldn't respond.

Here I am, a truck driver, regulated to death by the federal government...........only permitted to drive 11 hours per day.......and subject to fines up to 10,000 dollars for going over, and I gotta follow those 'dweebs' at a pace of 15mph on 2 lane roads...........just so they can prove that they can hold up a working man for no other reason than to have a joy ride.

It makes me wonder how they would feel if I went to their office, and sat in their chair for 4 hours per day..............keeping them from doing their job.

 

[joshuabardwell]

This logic tells me that an 80,000 pound semi should not have to stop either, for that matter any vehicle. A much more "significant energy expenditure" than some 120 pound dweeb on his 40# bicycle!

I don't know if you missed my point or not. Obviously, there is a difference between a cyclist having to pedal harder in order to get back up to speed, and a car or truck having to burn slightly more fuel. It's not about the absolute energy expenditure. It's about the comfort of the vehicle's operator, and the viability of the transportation method as a result. No matter what you think of bicyclists, I don't think anybody can argue that the world wouldn't be a better place if more people rode to work, or the grocery store, instead of driving. We would all be in better shape, healthier, there would be fewer automobile emissions to pollute the air and make people with asthma not able to go outside (used to live in Atlanta, where every darn day was a "smog alert"), and so forth. So my point is that we, as a society, ought to value those rare few who cycle instead of driving, and encourage more people to do the same. And if we are going to do that, we have to acknowledge that one of the reasons people don't ride is that they don't want to get to wherever they're going looking like they just rode in the Tour De France, and an hour late. Allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yields makes riding much more feasible.

Of course, you ignored the laundry list of OTHER reasons that I posted, why cyclists ought to be able to treat stops as yields: better visibility, better stopping distance, lower overall speed causing more time at the intersection, and, of course, the fact that if the cyclist screws up and has an accident, the cyclist will probably be seriously injured, and the car or truck will not even notice. Obviously, that doesn't hold with an 80,000 lb truck.

 

[joshuabardwell]

Here I am, a truck driver, regulated to death by the federal government...........only permitted to drive 11 hours per day.......and subject to fines up to 10,000 dollars for going over, and I gotta follow those 'dweebs' at a pace of 15mph on 2 lane roads...........just so they can prove that they can hold up a working man for no other reason than to have a joy ride.

I hope you are a staunch supporter of bike lanes, then. Believe me, cyclists, for the most part, do not enjoy having huge trucks blow past them. If we paid more attention to creating roads that were wide enough for bikes and cars to coexist better, this would be much less of an issue. It's asinine that local governments build roads that can't support all of the types of vehicles that are legally allowed to use them. But government has always been asinine, and I doubt it's going to stop. So in the mean time, we'll just have to get along as best we can.

 

[murphy1244]

I don't know if you missed my point or not. Obviously, there is a difference between a cyclist having to pedal harder in order to get back up to speed, and a car or truck having to burn slightly more fuel. It's not about the absolute energy expenditure. It's about the comfort of the vehicle's operator, and the viability of the transportation method as a result. No matter what you think of bicyclists, I don't think anybody can argue that the world wouldn't be a better place if more people rode to work, or the grocery store, instead of driving. We would all be in better shape, healthier, there would be fewer automobile emissions to pollute the air and make people with asthma not able to go outside (used to live in Atlanta, where every darn day was a "smog alert"), and so forth. So my point is that we, as a society, ought to value those rare few who cycle instead of driving, and encourage more people to do the same. And if we are going to do that, we have to acknowledge that one of the reasons people don't ride is that they don't want to get to wherever they're going looking like they just rode in the Tour De France. Allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yields makes riding much more feasible.

Of course, you ignored the laundry list of OTHER reasons that I posted, why cyclists ought to be able to treat stops as yields: better visibility, better stopping distance, lower overall speed causing more time at the intersection, and, of course, the fact that if the cyclist screws up and has an accident, the cyclist will probably be seriously injured, and the car or truck will not even notice. Obviously, that doesn't hold with an 80,000 lb truck.

Who would be held for liability for a accident for your yield getting hit?

 

[joshuabardwell]

Who would be held for liability for a accident for your yield getting hit?

If you have a yield sign in a car, and you roll into the lane and have an accident, who is held liable? This isn't a novel situation just because a bike is involved. Or is it--am I missing something?