Cager F.U of the day kills two
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: J. Clarke on 2 Jul 2010 11:17 On 7/2/2010 8:39 AM, Beav wrote: > > > "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. FWIW, the statute allows stopping in case of "necessity" (per the English translation--what the actual word is in the French version I have no idea). Whether the court will decide that avoiding a duck is "necessity" I have no idea.
From: J. Clarke on 2 Jul 2010 11:08 On 7/2/2010 9:37 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote: > 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. Who is this "Jim"? Has Captain Kirk entered this discussion or something?
From: J. Clarke on 2 Jul 2010 11:07 On 7/2/2010 9:35 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote: > 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. In more than 40 years of driving and riding, and more than that of being a passenger in highway vehicles, I do not recall a car in the road in front of me ever being other than highly visible. If you can't see a car in front of you in broad daylight you should not be operating motor vehicles. >> 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." No, I am using a euphemism for the "F" in the title of this thread.
From: Twibil on 2 Jul 2010 14:21 On Jul 2, 6:35 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000- doll...(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > > 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 sure does if you have depth perception and are paying attention to what you're doing. If, on the other hand, you're riding at highways speeds and are *not* 100% invested in situational awareness, then you're pretty much asking for the ceiling to fall on you. Shrug.
From: Beav on 2 Jul 2010 15:23
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:i0kqpt01ndi(a)news6.newsguy.com... > 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. Well exactly. One of the many and varied reasons that we see vehicles stopped where we wouldn't normally expect them to be stopped. > >> 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's even worse. The bloke must've REALLY been daydreaming. >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. There is that, of course. -- Beav |