4 ms·

> Is he implying that some significant portion of alleged car-on-bike accidents are actually purposeful assault from the automobile driver? I find that very dif

> Is he implying that some significant portion of alleged car-on-bike accidents are actually purposeful assault from the automobile driver? I find that very difficult to believe. No, he's not. He's implying that instead of motorists being charged with reckless driving or other similar charges, they're most often not even charged. I once had a car make a left turn across 4 lanes of traffic and a turn lane and t-bone me while I was cycling. He couldn't be bothered to make his way safely to the turn lane, pause, then turn left. He just swung across the entire road and hit me. He didn't even get a ticket because he told the officer the sun was in his eyes. I left the scene of the accident in an ambulance and was unable to function normally for over a year. It's not equal.

baddox 11y ago
I have no complaints about the claim that drivers should more often be charged with reckless driving, but that's very different than suggesting that a significant portion of these incidents are purposeful collisions initiated by the automobile driver.
- stephendedalus 11y ago
  > I have no complaints about the claim that drivers should more often be charged with reckless driving, but that's very different than suggesting that a significant portion of these incidents are purposeful collisions initiated by the automobile driver. I don't believe the author was saying that. He said... > We’re already at the point where every car-on-bike “accident” (police always assume it’s an accident; drivers are allowed unlimited “oopsies”) I believe what the author meant is that there's an accident and then there's something far less than accident that's more the result of reckless driving, poor driving or aggressive driving. And yet the law always errs on the side of it being an unavoidable accident.
  - baddox 11y ago
    Perhaps we are quibbling over the definition of "accident." I would consider an unintentional collision to be an accident even if one person was driving recklessly. As far as I can tell, that is standard usage of the word, especially in the context of vehicle collisions.
    - paintrayne 11y ago
      Unintentional doesn't mean no fault. The fact that it is standard usage is the whole point -- it shouldn't be. Drivers do not pay attention, they do not look when they change lanes, and they hit bicycles and motorcycles and it is called an accident, as if the driver had no control of their vehicle.
      - baddox 11y ago
        I don't understand. My point is that "accident" just means that something is unintentional. It doesn't mean there is no fault. Calling a traffic collision accident does not imply that the driver had no control over their vehicle. It only means that the driver did not intend to have the collision.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

baddox 11y ago

I have no complaints about the claim that drivers should more often be charged with reckless driving, but that's very different than suggesting that a significant portion of these incidents are purposeful collisions initiated by the automobile driver.

stephendedalus 11y ago
> I have no complaints about the claim that drivers should more often be charged with reckless driving, but that's very different than suggesting that a significant portion of these incidents are purposeful collisions initiated by the automobile driver. I don't believe the author was saying that. He said... > We’re already at the point where every car-on-bike “accident” (police always assume it’s an accident; drivers are allowed unlimited “oopsies”) I believe what the author meant is that there's an accident and then there's something far less than accident that's more the result of reckless driving, poor driving or aggressive driving. And yet the law always errs on the side of it being an unavoidable accident.
- baddox 11y ago
  Perhaps we are quibbling over the definition of "accident." I would consider an unintentional collision to be an accident even if one person was driving recklessly. As far as I can tell, that is standard usage of the word, especially in the context of vehicle collisions.
  - paintrayne 11y ago
    Unintentional doesn't mean no fault. The fact that it is standard usage is the whole point -- it shouldn't be. Drivers do not pay attention, they do not look when they change lanes, and they hit bicycles and motorcycles and it is called an accident, as if the driver had no control of their vehicle.
    - baddox 11y ago
      I don't understand. My point is that "accident" just means that something is unintentional. It doesn't mean there is no fault. Calling a traffic collision accident does not imply that the driver had no control over their vehicle. It only means that the driver did not intend to have the collision.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]