Driving automobiles

Re: Pedalcyclist Dies in Hit-n-Run Crash

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:34:35 -0800, Scott en Aztlán

<scottenazt…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The actions of the bicyclist, who apparently was riding against a red
>light, would be considered the “primary collision factor,” but the
>driver committed a crime by not stopping, the lieutenant said.

Holy Bullshit Batman!

<insert joke here that I’d get shot for posting>

Dave

http://www.davidphogan.com/sdroads
Amature Ass(phalt) and more!

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (6)

6 Responses to “Re: Pedalcyclist Dies in Hit-n-Run Crash”

  1. admin says:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    Scott en Aztlán wrote:
    > You see these guys all the time here in the OC: Mexicans, probably
    > wetbacks, too poor to afford a car, riding their bikes on the
    > sidewalks (despite the presence of a perfectly good bike lane mere
    > inches away). The idiot in this story was riding in a crosswalk (a
    > strong indicator he was riding on the sidewalk a moment before) AND
    > was crossing against a red light; clearly he brought this tragedy on
    > himself.

    > Say, I wonder if they’ll find OJ’s blood inside the white Bronco? :)
    > :) :)

    > http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1074824.php

    > SANTA ANA – A bicyclist was struck and killed today in a crosswalk by
    > the driver of an older-model Ford Bronco who fled, police said.

    > The victim, a Santa Ana resident in his mid-40s, was struck shortly
    > after 4 p.m. at First and Bristol streets and was pronounced dead at a
    > hospital, Santa Ana police Lt. Baltazar De La Riva said.

    > The actions of the bicyclist, who apparently was riding against a red
    > light, would be considered the "primary collision factor," but the
    > driver committed a crime by not stopping, the lieutenant said.

    Operation on Roadway  http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm

    21202.   (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed
    less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at
    that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or
    edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

    (3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not
    limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians,
    animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it
    unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the
    provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a
    "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and
    a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

    Right-of-Way at Crosswalks
    http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21950.htm

    21950.   (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a
    pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within
    any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided
    in this chapter.

    (b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using
    due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb
    or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle
    that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian
    may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked
    crosswalk.

    (c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked
    or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the
    speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation
    of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.

    (d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the
    duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any
    marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

    I imagine any attorney can get any jury to agree a old man in his
    mid-forties, now run down in a crosswalk, who was toddering along on a
    bicycle minding his own business was esentially a pedestrian.
     —–

    - gpsman

  2. admin says:

    Scott en Aztlán <scottenazt…@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >The actions of the bicyclist, who apparently was riding against a red
    >light, would be considered the “primary collision factor,” but the
    >driver committed a crime by not stopping, the lieutenant said.

    Why flee? No DL, most likely.

    "If it’s tourist season, why can’t we shoot ‘em?"

  3. admin says:

    > Justice Gustine:
    > Why flee? No DL, most likely.

    Or maybe he is one of bush’s "guest workers?"

    > —
    > "If it’s tourist season, why can’t we shoot ‘em?"

    I wish we could shoot ‘em…

  4. admin says:

    Justice Gustine wrote:
    > Scott en Aztlán <scottenazt…@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > >The actions of the bicyclist, who apparently was riding against a red
    > >light, would be considered the "primary collision factor," but the
    > >driver committed a crime by not stopping, the lieutenant said.

    > Why flee? No DL, most likely.

    Or maybe he was drunk.  Or maybe he was simply afraid of being falsely
    convicted. Being in the right don’t mean nothing in our legal system.
    If you ain’t rich, you’re guilty.

  5. admin says:

    In article <pvgh229umjbf908fn6jq8gkp807ap1k…@4ax.com>,
    SD Dave  <davidpho…@gmail.com> wrote:

    >On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:34:35 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
    ><scottenazt…@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >>The actions of the bicyclist, who apparently was riding against a red
    >>light, would be considered the “primary collision factor,” but the
    >>driver committed a crime by not stopping, the lieutenant said.

    >Holy Bullshit Batman!

    I think he means not stopping AFTER the collision.

      There’s no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
      result in a fully-depreciated one.

  6. admin says:

    On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:31:27 -0600, russo…@grace.speakeasy.net

    (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
    >In article <pvgh229umjbf908fn6jq8gkp807ap1k…@4ax.com>,
    >SD Dave  <davidpho…@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:34:35 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
    >><scottenazt…@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >>>The actions of the bicyclist, who apparently was riding against a red
    >>>light, would be considered the “primary collision factor,” but the
    >>>driver committed a crime by not stopping, the lieutenant said.

    >>Holy Bullshit Batman!

    >I think he means not stopping AFTER the collision.

    D’oh.  I’ll still place bets on the car involved being stolen or
    illegally driven though.  ;)

    Dave

    http://www.davidphogan.com/sdroads
    Amature Ass(phalt) and more!