I do adore a clear, legal mind. Were the world populated with such, we should be in better shape.
Aaaand, anything sharing the roadway (motorists and non-motorists alike) should assume that any random vehicle may be driving the maximum, not hoping beyond rational hope that the vehicle is driving far less.
And I donât know about your neck of the woods, but while posted is legally the maximum, practically it is the âyouâre gonna get honked and sworn at if you drive at or underâ minimum.
Aaaaand any woman who goes out at night here better make sure she assumes any male is a sexual predator, not hoping beyond rational hope that she doesnât get jumped.
No, Iâm well aware of the attitude to speed limits among drivers. Itâs a perfect example of the problem.
3 Likes
So is there any possibility in your mind of a vehicle collision NOT being the fault of a car driver? Because it really sounds like you are saying that cyclists and pedestrians cannot possibly be at fault.
Itâs an ideological position in many ways denying newtonian mechanics, law and common sense.
In Chicago, cyclists 12 and over must use the street instead of the sidewalk, and they must follow the rules of the road. This means a cyclist can get a ticket for being at fault in an accident. Pedestrians can never get a ticket for being involved in an accident involving a vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle, bike) hitting them.
This does not mean common sense and a survival instinct arenât good ideas, but you asked about fault.
No, the point I raised was not about who gets punished, it was about who is responsible. Different things.
Well, if its gods fault you donât get paid.
Are you a junior policy - maker?
6% of collisions with cars? Thatâs pretty good odds, considering.
1 Like
Of course not. Itâs entirely possible that in individual cases, other road users make mistakes - itâs just that statistics on road accidents find that drivers are to blame significantly more often, that their driving choices are invariably contributing factors (i.e. they would have seen the child that ran out, and stopped in time, had they not been going too fast for the prevalent road conditions) and their decision to drive is the ultimate source of the risk in the first place. The consequences of their decisions and errors are also graver (no pun intended) for others. Much as it is reassuring for drivers to mythologise the âsuicidalâ pedestrian or cyclist, while they sling a ton or two of steel about at high speed, it is simply not borne out by examination of the causes of accidents - which is in fact overwhelmingly âpeople driving cars, like knobsâ. Strict liability reflects the fact that in choosing to introduce a car to the road, you have made that road an inherently more dangerous place, and this factor (the presence or absence of a motor vehicle) is more intrinsic to the nature of the risk that everyone experiences than any other variable.
2 Likes
Not really, since some of them will be found to be at fault post mortem.
Iâm so fucking glad I donât live in your world
And Iâm sad that I do.
Oh, OK. I misread what you were asking.
1 Like
You do, you just havenât realised it yet.
2 Likes
Umm, no. Not always.
Again, check your local laws, butâŚ
Here in CA (10% of the US), cars turning right are required to turn right from the rightmost lane [CVC 22100(a)], even if thatâs a marked bike lane [CVC 21717].
So if the bike lane is on the far right, cars are required by law to merge into the bike lane before the intersection (yielding to any bikes already in it, natch!), and then turn right from the bike lane. [CVC 21717, again]. (Bike lane lines become dashed rather than solid approaching intersections to remind bikes that cars may be merging in to turn.)
Cars may NOT turn right across the bike lane without merging into it first. Thatâs illegal.
Further, no vehicle, bike or otherwise, may pass another vehicle on the right side when the other vehicle is in the rightmost lane and signaling a right turn.
Some local cyclists believe that cars should NEVER be in the bike lane, but theyâre mistaken - sometimes cars are legally REQUIRED to be in the bike lane, and theyâre quite often permitted to be in the bike lane.
Really, check your local laws. Unchecked assumptions can get people killed.
5 Likes
People who are never, ever pedestrians or cyclists donât have to care.
1 Like
Some people in this thread are simply delusional. It has gone to shit. Might as well lock it now.
Sure. âAccidentâ implies a lack of intent. âCollisionâ says nothing whatsoever about intent. Naturally, the lawyers prefer the less specific form.
If you want to avoid any assumption about intent, then, sure, use âcollision.â You know, maybe it was no accident, maybe it was intentional.
But unless you want/need to preserve the possibility of an intentional collision, using âaccidentâ to describe a vehicle collision is perfectly reasonable, as it only implies a lack of intent, not an absence of culpability.
Iâm not declaring anyone blameless by calling a collision an accident, so I see no need to alter my vocabulary to conform to someone elseâs political goals.
1 Like
