Cager F.U of the day kills two
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Beav on 2 Jul 2010 15:26 "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:i0l0iq01dk9(a)news4.newsguy.com... > 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. I imagine that necessity would depend on different people's view. The driver of the cage could argue that running into a gaggle of ducks would've caused her to lose control, so she took the necessary action to avoid such a possibility. -- Beav >
From: Ben Kaufman on 5 Jul 2010 23:19 On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:08:59 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >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? Sorry, for some reason I thought your name was Jim.
From: Ben Kaufman on 6 Jul 2010 00:04 On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:07:54 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >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. How would you recall something that you didn't notice? >If you can't see a >car in front of you in broad daylight you should not be operating motor >vehicles. > It's not a question of seeing, it's a matter of the unexpected registering in the brain. This is why they sometimes have warning signs with flashing lights that there is a traffic light or stop sign coming up on some roads. >>> 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: Ben Kaufman on 6 Jul 2010 00:10 On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:21:04 -0700 (PDT), Twibil <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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. > Depth perception does not give you the speed of an object. You need to take multiple samples to determine you are going faster than a car ahead of you and even longer to realize it is not moving. You see flares or the driver waving people off then you immediately know something is wrong. >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: J. Clarke on 6 Jul 2010 00:49
On 7/6/2010 12:04 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote: > On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:07:54 -0400, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> 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. > > How would you recall something that you didn't notice? If one does not notice cars in the road in front of one one does not survive 40 years on the roads. >> If you can't see a >> car in front of you in broad daylight you should not be operating motor >> vehicles. >> > > It's not a question of seeing, it's a matter of the unexpected registering in > the brain. If a car in front of you does not register in your brain then you should not be driving. > This is why they sometimes have warning signs with flashing > lights that there is a traffic light or stop sign coming up on some roads. Generally those are used when the sign or lights are around a blind curve. Seriously, you're arguing like Ralph Nader or some other New Yorker who has never actually operated a motor vehicle once in his life. >>>> 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. > |