Cager F.U of the day kills two
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Beav on 2 Jul 2010 08:36 "S'mee" <stevenkeith2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3bc32d3b-fce0-4dc6-937c-1e62ee071407(a)s24g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 30, 6:58 am, brad herschel <bradhersc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 29, 10:26 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000- >> >> doll...(a)pobox.com> 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. ..... >> >> Obviously, the 59 year old father was defective. > > No the stupid cage monkey was...I'd be a plugged penny that there was > a curve involved. Not sure how you work that one out Keith. -- Beav
From: Beav on 2 Jul 2010 08:39 "Henry" <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote in message news:i0fie8$k8a$4(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu... > 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. ..... > > "The driver involved in a fatal accident on a highway south of Montreal > Sunday could face two charges of criminal negligence causing death. Quebec > law prohibits stopping a vehicle on a highway." And any decent lawyer will see that case thrown before it gets anywhere near a courtroom. > > Interesting. I wonder if it's illegal to stop for moose on the highway. *Ding*. Once there's an accepted reason, )Can't run over a Moose for example) the only argument is size and I doubt any court will come down and say "Stopping for wildlife is only acceptable if the animal is smaller than a Moose, but bigger than a one year old deer and all drivers must forever carry a tape measure. Ducks are a free for all." Not going to happen. > Seems like a better option than hitting them... Indeed it does. -- Beav
From: J. Clarke on 2 Jul 2010 09:06 On 7/2/2010 8:23 AM, Beav wrote: > > > "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 an injured motorcyclist. In that case stopping in the fast land would be the "right" thing to do because it would protect him or her from traffic. > 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. I don't think that "following too close" is a likely scenario here. When he hit her her car was stopped and she had gotten out. That means that he was just riding down the road not paying attention to his closing speed with the car ahead, not that he was too close behind her when she hit the brakes. > It's Darwin at > his best. The sad part is that he took a passenger with him. >> 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.
From: Ben Kaufman on 2 Jul 2010 09:35 On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 23:20:23 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >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? The brain "sees" a car pointed in the correct direction in the middle of the highway and it doesn't immediately register a problem. It takes more processing to preceive that it is not moving or going very slowly . On the other hand, if it's a block of concrete or other object that clearly does not belong out on the highway you immediately recognize that there is a problem ahead of you. No need to guage its speed, we know it's not moving and can "decide" upon an avoidance method a whole lot sooner. . > >> 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? > See my above comment. >> 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. > It's not an all or nothing proposition. The glare from sunlight can reduce visual acuity without being a blinding obstacle. >>>> 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? > No, I am saying that you are conjecturing that it was *highly* visible. >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? > No, you seem to be equivocating "legally responsible" with "screwing up."
From: Ben Kaufman on 2 Jul 2010 09:37
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 23:32:38 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >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. Sure Jim, right after you setup your easy chair in the middle of a highway. :-) |