Guilty of manslaughter, she was texting at 85mph in Prius

Are you going to claim that a motorcycle that gets hit because they ran a red light isn't at fault?
If not, why wouldn't a cyclist be at fault in the same situation? A jaywalking pedestrian would be at fault.

We are to share the roads. Sharing goes both ways. I accept the burden is mostly on me not to hit any person or bike with my car. The cyclist has to accept while operating on a roadway, they have to follow the rules and laws of the road.

 

Are you claiming that car operator who blew stop sign and T-boned motorcyclist isn't at fault? Happened to friend of mine, he spent 2mo in hospital and no longer rides bikes. You know what lady said in court room? She said it isn't her fault b/c she didn't see him.

 

Did I say that, or did I say that car operators have a larger burden on them to be aware and avoid the softer vehicles on the road?
I also said that cyclists of either stripe also have some responsibility. Saying that does not negate what I said about cars having a greater amount responsibility, so drop the persecution complex.
There are car drivers, like that lady who are ignorant asshats, that give all drivers a bad name, but there are also cyclists asshats that do the same.

 

how else would you read this:

Where exactly did I say that??

Statistically speaking in 2 out of 3 cases car driver at fault, and accident does happen b/c driver did not see motorcycle or bicyclist.

And since you brought red lights, you might wanna read this, b/c you are obviously not aware and as we all know ignorance is a good excuse:
States where motorcycles can run red lights legally | CarInsurance.com

 

I was providing examples of when motorcycles, bicycles, and even pedestrians would be at fault for getting hit. That they are never 100% fault free.

And while it may not be expressed in that post of mine, but in others by the drivers posting here, we do not think, "We do not ride bicycles, but we do drive cars, so it is bicyclist's fault". Pointing out that some cyclists can, and do, operate in manner that violates road regulations, and that it puts them at greater risk while shifting the responsibility to not get hit by a car to them, does not condone such sentiment from other car drivers.

And I have said multiple times here that the majority of the burden to avoid a collision is on the car operator.

An old supervisor once said they had the steel bike riders get above the sensors when a group of them went out bicycling.

This a reasonable law. The motorcycle still has to stop, and the rider is responsible to ensure it is safe for them to go on red. Most, if not all, states already allow a right turn on red unless otherwise signed. This doesn't give the person going against the light to cut off traffic that has the green light though.

I brought up lights though, because I have seen, on multiple occasions, where the bicycle did not even slow down before going through the red light. One of those times, if there had been a fence or building to block my view across the open lot, I would have leveled that kid at 50mph.

I do understand that some jurisdictions allow bicycles to operate like a pedestrian, and the pedestrian could cross against the light in some cases, and aren't required to stop for a stop sign, but even if a walker or jogger doesn't stop and look both ways like their mother told them, their speed gives them more time to study the intersection, and a person on foot has more options in moving if they did make an error in judgement about the oncoming car's speed.

Bicycles can be traveling at the same speeds as the cars within towns and residential areas though. That means less time for the biker to see oncoming cars before they enter an intersection against the red, and less time for any cars to see them. Just because it might be legal, doesn't make it a smart thing to do.

 

She has been sentenced to 6 years Six-year sentence in speeding, texting crash | SanDiegoUnionTribune.com

 

...and the 23 year old is still dead...because someone thought it was OK to text and drive.

 

It used to be the same way with drunk driving years ago.
Now it's not only socially unacceptable to drink and drive, a simple DUI will set you back five figures and leave you with a very black mark in your copy book which may be a tie breaker for things like employment, security clearances, etc.

Someday DWT will probably be regarded in much the same way.
Many who used to do it will stop, but you'll always have the same core of dedicated jackwagons who will have to be dealt with by LEOs.
Post accident cell phone investigations are already as common as post accident blood and breath tests.

The wheels turn slowly......

 

Then we need a law prohibiting the driver from talking to any passengers. That is worse than talking on a bluetooth. During a conversation on bluetooth the driver is going to be looking down the road. During a conversation with passengers most drivers are going to be turning to look at the passengers because most people are not intelligent enough to know their voice will carry to them without looking at them and their ears will receive their voice without looking at them. Bottom line, if it can't be a solo driver doing nothing but driving I'd rather have a solo on bluetooth than a driver with passengers conversing around me.

 

The studies so far disagree.

Speak for you own social circle.

When I took driver's education, this was very specifically discouraged. That was back in the era when they still taught manual transmissions and parallel parking.

The drivers I ride with are very proficient at keeping their eyes on the road while conversing.

 

+1

 

Sooner or later, the option to put a car into "self-driving" mode in order to handle driver distractions will become sought instead of worried about. We are not as far away from that as some might think.

 

Prioritizing distraction over basic driving skills...has anyone seen the movie Idiocracy?

 

i do find myself more distracted with people in the car, than when alone, but not as much as talking on a phone. i really have a hard time concentrating on a phone conversation. it's like when i'm on priuschat, and my wife asks me a question.

 

Unfortunately, we are not yet as close to it as some other drivers think.

 

Agree. Defensive driving will always be a lifetime job. Sadly, there is room for a lot of progress in lowering the ~40,000 deaths per year.

 

The untold story is the major injuries, often life changing. 1.14 people die per 100 million VMT and 80 people are injured per 100 million VMT.

2,362,000 people injured in 2012. 33,561 died in 2012.

 

enforcing the speed limit would be a great start. i'm thinking a new slogan, 'stay alive at 55'.

 

Throwback saying from the 1970s? I remember the gas lines.

 

55 without the gas lines, that would be novel.