Cager F.U of the day kills two
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Ben Kaufman on 1 Jul 2010 22:31 On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:28:33 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >On 6/30/2010 9:40 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote: >> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:34:56 -0400, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >>> On 6/29/2010 10:26 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote: >>>> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/06/28/14548891.html >>>> >>>> CANDIAC, Que. A 16-year-old girl and her 59-year-old father were killed when >>>> their motorcycle collided with the car of a woman who had stopped to allow ducks >>>> to cross a highway. ..... >>> >>> I hate to say it, but hitting a _stopped_ car is not a "cager F.U.", >>> it's a rider F.U. >>> >> >> If you voluntarily do something that is expressly prohibited then it is your >> F.U. > >Doesn't matter what the stationary object is or how it got there or how >illegal it is for it to be there, there is NO excuse for hitting >something that big and that visible. > How do you know how big and visible? Were her flashers on? Was her brake lights on or was she in park? Was the Sun in his eyes?. >> In this case the article states: Quebec law prohibits stopping a vehicle >> on a highway. I can understand that she didn't want to hit the birds, she >> should have pulled over rather than stopping in the middle of the road. > >Doesn't matter. It was still a highly visible stationary object. > There's nothing in the article to suggest that her vehicle was highly visible. >> This is not to say that the rider was presented with an impossible to avoid >> situation but it was the cager's action that created the dangerous situation. > >Doesn't matter. If you hit a stationary object then YOU are the one who >screwed up regardless of the nature of the stationary object. Regardless of the nature of the stationary object? Are you saying it doesn't matter if it was not very visible?
From: Ben Kaufman on 1 Jul 2010 23:01 On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:20:33 -0700 (PDT), Twibil <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 30, 7:53�am, "Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chi...(a)gmail.com> >wrote: >> >> >> Well, with one exception. �If Wonder Woman parks her invisible plane on the >> highway, that would be a no-no. > >I always, er, wondered: how the heck does she figure out where she >parked it? > >And I vote 99% biker's fault. There's no real excuse for hitting a >stopped car. > >You're supposed to be scanning far enough ahead to stop well before >you hit a static object, and this goes for *any* object large enough >to see. Do you imagine that it would be faster to identify a jackknifed trailer or a boat laying on its side as static objects rather than a car pointed in the proper direction?
From: J. Clarke on 1 Jul 2010 23:20 On 7/1/2010 10:31 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:28:33 -0400, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> On 6/30/2010 9:40 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote: >>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:34:56 -0400, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/29/2010 10:26 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote: >>>>> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/06/28/14548891.html >>>>> >>>>> CANDIAC, Que. A 16-year-old girl and her 59-year-old father were killed when >>>>> their motorcycle collided with the car of a woman who had stopped to allow ducks >>>>> to cross a highway. ..... >>>> >>>> I hate to say it, but hitting a _stopped_ car is not a "cager F.U.", >>>> it's a rider F.U. >>>> >>> >>> If you voluntarily do something that is expressly prohibited then it is your >>> F.U. >> >> Doesn't matter what the stationary object is or how it got there or how >> illegal it is for it to be there, there is NO excuse for hitting >> something that big and that visible. >> > > How do you know how big and visible? It was a car. Cars are big and visible. > Were her flashers on? If it was a block of concrete, would it have needed to have flashers on for someone to avoid it? > Was her brake > lights on or was she in park? If it was a block of concreted, would it have needt brake lights in order for him to avoid it? > Was the Sun in his eyes?. If the sun was in his eyes preventing him from seeing the road he should have done something about it. >>> In this case the article states: Quebec law prohibits stopping a vehicle >>> on a highway. I can understand that she didn't want to hit the birds, she >>> should have pulled over rather than stopping in the middle of the road. >> >> Doesn't matter. It was still a highly visible stationary object. >> > > There's nothing in the article to suggest that her vehicle was highly visible. So you're saying that it wasn't just a car, it was an _invisible_ car? You've never actually _seen_ a car, have you? >>> This is not to say that the rider was presented with an impossible to avoid >>> situation but it was the cager's action that created the dangerous situation. >> >> Doesn't matter. If you hit a stationary object then YOU are the one who >> screwed up regardless of the nature of the stationary object. > > Regardless of the nature of the stationary object? Are you saying it doesn't > matter if it was not very visible? Yes. It does not matter, you hit it you screwed up. Or do you expect deer to have flashers all over them?
From: J. Clarke on 1 Jul 2010 23:32 On 7/1/2010 11:01 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:20:33 -0700 (PDT), Twibil<nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 30, 7:53 am, "Datesfat Chicks"<datesfat.chi...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Well, with one exception. If Wonder Woman parks her invisible plane on the >>> highway, that would be a no-no. >> >> I always, er, wondered: how the heck does she figure out where she >> parked it? >> >> And I vote 99% biker's fault. There's no real excuse for hitting a >> stopped car. >> >> You're supposed to be scanning far enough ahead to stop well before >> you hit a static object, and this goes for *any* object large enough >> to see. > > Do you imagine that it would be faster to identify a jackknifed trailer or a > boat laying on its side as static objects rather than a car pointed in the > proper direction? Ben, do us all a favor and never stop for anything unless it has lights flashing at you.
From: Beav on 2 Jul 2010 08:23
"Ben Kaufman" <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars(a)pobox.com> wrote in message news:ekhm265aih7745qbibchvdr6e2u687gbvn(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:34:56 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> > wrote: > >>On 6/29/2010 10:26 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote: >>> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/06/28/14548891.html >>> >>> CANDIAC, Que. A 16-year-old girl and her 59-year-old father were killed >>> when >>> their motorcycle collided with the car of a woman who had stopped to >>> allow ducks >>> to cross a highway. ..... >> >>I hate to say it, but hitting a _stopped_ car is not a "cager F.U.", >>it's a rider F.U. >> > > If you voluntarily do something that is expressly prohibited then it is > your > F.U. In this case the article states: Quebec law prohibits stopping a > vehicle > on a highway. Which is understandable, BUT, there are many and varied reasons for bringing a vehicle to a halt and it's the responsibility of the vehicles behind not to run into the vehicle in front. I mean who's to say that if she'd stopped because she saw a dead body in the middle of the road, or the vehicle in front of her had stopped (for whatever reason) the same thing wouldn't have happened? This is a pure rider fault because he wasn't looking at what was happening and was obviously following too closely to the vehicle in front. It's Darwin at his best. > I can understand that she didn't want to hit the birds, she > should have pulled over rather than stopping in the middle of the road. See above. her reasons for stopping have no real bearing on the issue. > > This is not to say that the rider was presented with an impossible to > avoid > situation but it was the cager's action that created the dangerous > situation. Luckily, she wasn't hurt. -- Beav |