Why is the Driver Automatically the Bad Guy?

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> Earlier this month, a Yellow Hummer H2 struck and seriously injured a
> pedalcyclist. The full story is he
>
> http://www.pioneerlocal.com/cgi-bin/...06-841046.html
>
> The pedalcyclists have an ironic spin on the incident. They claim that
> the Hummer driver "ignored a stop sign" and struck the pedalcyclist.
> Odd - the newspaper report does not mention that the H2 driver ran a
> stop sign. Sloppy journalism? Perhaps...
> Here's a photograph of the intersection, looking to the northeast:

> http://i1.tinypic.com/ojeb2e.jpg

> Notice the 4-way stop. This means that the pedalcyclist, who was
> riding from right to left in the picture, would also have had a stop
> sign. It's difficult to imagine a scenario where a pedalcyclist,
> starting from a complete stop, could fail to see a "Safety Yellow"
> Hummer coming down the cross street in broad daylight;

You or the article has the wrong intersection first of all. Sherman Ave
and lake street is what is mentioned in the article. That is a three-way
intersection. While Sherman place and lake is a 4 way intersection.
Confusion can abound because of sherman ave and sherman place and the
two switching off at least according to the map.

http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?ad...w=1&name=&qty=
( http://tinyurl.com/lxjdb )

Now, the terraserver image:
http://www.terraserver-usa.com/image...anston%7cIL%7c
( http://tinyurl.com/k8vw5 )

The Hummer was traveling _WEST_ on lake as the bicycle rider was moving
north on sherman _ave_. This would put the approaching hummer under the
railroad tracks shown in both the yahoo map and terraserver image.

I think that berm and underpass make for a sufficent obstruction. Also
note the article does not state wether the bicycle rider was going to
turn left or proceed off the road directly straight.

3rdly, if your photo is the correct intersection, note the building
visible on the south east corner (terraserver, scroll east) that is not in
your photo. This would have been the obstruction.

Then again, maybe she just expected the hummer to stop and given the low
speed limits in the area, a hummer could be in view and manage to stop in
time.

> if she had been
> stopped, she would have been moving slowly and it would have been easy
> for her to stop before moving into the path of the oncoming truck.
> OTOH, if the pedalcyclist ignored her own stop sign, and rode right
> out in front of an oncoming vehicle, then whose fault is that?

I accelerate rather fast, I've seen a couple women riding in the same
manner as I over time. I am generally faster than most drivers getting
off the line with a bicycle. And if she rode out in front of a moving
vehicle that she did not see, the yellow hummer driver is still at
fault, just as that driver would have been if she (the bicyclist) had
been driving a hummer as well.

> Oh, but a pedalcyclist would NEVER ignore a stop sign. Right?

Ahh... guilty by class. Never mind the individual situation or person.
So I take it if I ever get hit by a vehicle at an intersection it's
automatically my fault by class?

> Note that there is no excuse for the H2 driver's failure to stop. I
> just find it fascinating the way the pedalcyclists automatically blame
> the vehicle driver for ignoring a stop sign, something they do as a
> matter of course. A little projection, perhaps? It's also fascinating
> how Tommy Nevin's Pub is a more recognizable landmark among
> pedalcyclists than the 12-story Best Western motel sitting on the
> opposite corner.

Do you personally know the habbits of those who wrote the press release?
How do you know I or another vehicular bicyclist didn't write it? I'm not
the only one who stops at stop signs you know.

What we do know is that the driver of the Hummer fled the scene. Now
there may be reasons like outstanding warrants or some such that a
not-at-fault driver would flee the scene, but the more probable situation
is that the driver knew he/she was at fault.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> Look up the address of Tommy Nevin's Pub, where the news conference
> was held. Why do you suppose they held the news conference there?
> Could it be because the pub stands on one of the corners where the
> collision took place?

Or because it's the nearest pub and it's still WINTER. Remember winter
scott? It sucks to be standing outside.

>>Confusion can abound because of sherman ave and sherman place and the
>>two switching off at least according to the map.

> You forget, I spent 20 years of my life in Evanston. My guess is
> you've never even been there, let alone to the intersection in
> question. Now, which of us do you suppose is more likely to be
> confused here?

I was at that best western last in the wee hours of Jan 1, 2006.

>>http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?ad...w=1&name=&qty=

> However, you've got the wrong intersection. Here is the correct one:

How do you know? Did you see the collision? No, you are guessing from
reports.

> Picture a pedalcyclist riding north on the Sherman Avenue that runs on
> the west side of the tracks. As she approaches Lake Street, that
> branch of Sherman dead-ends. In order to continue northbound
> (presumably headed to her classes at Northwestern), she would have to
> make a right hand turn onto Lake, cross beneath the Metra and "L"
> tracks, and then make a left onto the continuation of Sherman Avenue
> (the one on the East side of the tracks). In other words, the
> pedalcyclist would never have crossed the path of a westbound Hummer
> at the intersection on your maps. The only place she could possibly
> have crossed the H2's path is at the intersection shown on my map -
> the one where Tommy Nevin's Pub sits.

Now you are making assumptions. Note that bicycles don't have to stay on
the roadway and there is a paved path/sidewalk going north. I pointed
that out in my last post.

> So either she was riding north on Sherman Place (which becomes Sherman
> Avenue as it crosses Lake Street) or she was making a left turn onto
> Sherman from Lake. In either case, she was most definitely struck at
> the intersection in my map, not the one in yours.

According to all your assumptions. And I didn't pick one. I am working
under the premise that it is one or the other. You are making a chain of
assumptions and then declaring them facts.

>>I accelerate rather fast

> You are the exception, not the rule. There's no eason to expect a
> female pedalcyclist to be able to accelerate as quickly as you can.

I've seen more than one accomplish it.

>>And if she rode out in front of a moving
>>vehicle that she did not see

> ...then she has nobody to blame but herself.

She's at fault because someone else didn't stop when required because she
didn't see them. I suppose you find me at fault when the teenager turned
left about 5 feet in front of me too....

>>> Oh, but a pedalcyclist would NEVER ignore a stop sign. Right?

>>Ahh... guilty by class.

> The point is, these pedalcyclists are automatically assuming the
> Hummer driver was at fault for the collision.

Who ran the stop sign?

Who fled the scene?

>>So I take it if I ever get hit by a vehicle at an intersection it's
>>automatically my fault by class?

> Is it any more correct to automatically assign fault to the driver of
> the automobile?

Who ran the stop sign?

Who fled the scene?

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:32:36 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>
>>> Look up the address of Tommy Nevin's Pub, where the news conference
>>> was held. Why do you suppose they held the news conference there?
>>> Could it be because the pub stands on one of the corners where the
>>> collision took place?
>>
>>Or because it's the nearest pub and it's still WINTER. Remember winter
>>scott? It sucks to be standing outside.
>
> You're losing it, Brent.

Yeah... because picking the nearest pub is so illogical...

>>>>Confusion can abound because of sherman ave and sherman place and the
>>>>two switching off at least according to the map.

>>> You forget, I spent 20 years of my life in Evanston. My guess is
>>> you've never even been there, let alone to the intersection in
>>> question. Now, which of us do you suppose is more likely to be
>>> confused here?
>>
>>I was at that best western last in the wee hours of Jan 1, 2006.

> Congratulations.

You're trying to argue I was never there.

>>> However, you've got the wrong intersection. Here is the correct one:

>>How do you know?

> It's the only one that makes logical sense given all the available
> evidence.

No, your assumptions.

> But let's give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are
> correct.

I didn't say it was one or the other.

> If that's true, then we have irrefutable proof that the
> Hummer driver did not "ignore a stop sign" as THERE ARE NO STOP SIGNS
> ON LAKE STREET AT THAT INTERSECTION.

If this were true you would have mentioned it already or you are just
playing usenet games. Which is it scott?

> Do you wish to concede now, or would you like to dig your hole a
> little deeper first?

Trouble is Scott, I never took a stance of it being one or the other. I
only stated there was _DOUBT_. You assigned me one, but I simply brought
up two possibilities.

I notice you have dropped everything else.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> I'm pointing out that you're unfamiliar with the area. You claimed
> that the street is still called Sherman Place north of Lake Street.
> You're wrong.

No I did not. You are making assumptions. I said it switched off. I
didn't give any such specifics.

Really scott, I am not making the arguements you want me to make. Sorry
if that spoils your fun. It seems you are going back to your old ways,
continue in this regard and you can rejoin Adam.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:15:39 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>If you'd rather killfile me than admit you were wrong, so be it. That
>says more about you than it does about me.

I've seen pedestrians wish that cops would get shot to death over
giving out jaywalking tickets to people who were drunk and walking in
front of moving cars against the traffic lights.

Somehow our society has ingrained the idea that only cars are at fault
any time an accident occurs, which is obviously not correct.

OTOH, if I'd run over the guy who ran into First St against a red
light today I wouldn't have felt bad, but rather angry that he
probably had no insurance that would pay for the damage he'd probably
have caused to my bumper.

Of course, I forgot my camera today for the dumbass induced car-to-car
accident, caused by a dip**** pulling out of a parking lot onto 6th
ave in front of a moving Honda Civic. The police seemed anxious to
blame the Civic driver by default until I heard other witnesses start
commenting.

Dave

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:45:16 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>> I'm pointing out that you're unfamiliar with the area. You claimed
>>> that the street is still called Sherman Place north of Lake Street.
>>> You're wrong.

>>No I did not. You are making assumptions. I said it switched off. I
>>didn't give any such specifics.

> Holy Backpedaling, Batman! (Pun intended, I'll be honest.)

Read what I wrote. I said nothing about what it was north or south of
lake. I wrote it switched off and that's it. I chose those words
carefully because I didn't know if the dividing line was lake street for
certain only that it was probably lake street, and it would be place south of
lake if that was true. Not being _sure_ and knowing how you are, I
chose my words carefully and intentionally. Yet you still just decided I was
writing what you wanted me to write. Not only that, but something
entirely stupid because that would make for a sherman place north of lake
and two sherman avenues south of lake. Talk about absurd. Do you really
think me that stupid scott? Stop making **** up because you just want
to be an arguementive asshole.

>>Really scott, I am not making the arguements you want me to make. Sorry
>>if that spoils your fun. It seems you are going back to your old ways,
>>continue in this regard and you can rejoin Adam.

> If you'd rather killfile me than admit you were wrong, so be it. That
> says more about you than it does about me.

I never wrote it was place north of lake street. You are insisting that I
was wrong about something I never expressed an opinion on.

> OBTW, if there was any doubt left in your mind:

> From the photo caption:

>>Evanston Police Chief Frank Kaminski, EBC President Neal Ney, and
>>Randy Neufeld of CBF at news conference on Sherman and Lake in
>>Evanston, the site of a hit and run accident in which a Northwestern
>>cyclist was hit by a yellow hummer on Feb 16th.

> Do you still think I (and/or the Evanston Review) was confused about
> the location of the collision?

Considering that according to you the bicyclist never made it to sherman
ave from sherman place because a hummer prevented her from making it
across lake to sherman ave, well, yes. It should have read she was
heading north on sherman place which would have removed any doubt about
which of the two intersections it was.

Now of course you'll tell me it's not sherman place south of lake or some
such.... But I'll just block that now:

>.

-> There are two branches of Sherman Avenue
-> which intersect Lake Street. One runs on the west side of the railroad
-> tracks, and dead-ends (northbound) at Lake Street. The other continues
-> north from Lake Street at the intersection with Sherman Place.

So yes, someone had it wrong, apparently the paper.

> SD Dave:
> Somehow our society has ingrained the idea that only cars are at fault
> any time an accident occurs, which is obviously not correct.

Of course. The driver is the one with the insurance policy (translation
deep pockets full of cash). Follow the money...

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:25:13 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>> From the photo caption:
>>
>>>>Evanston Police Chief Frank Kaminski, EBC President Neal Ney, and
>>>>Randy Neufeld of CBF at news conference on Sherman and Lake in
>>>>Evanston, the site of a hit and run accident in which a Northwestern
>>>>cyclist was hit by a yellow hummer on Feb 16th.
>>
>>> Do you still think I (and/or the Evanston Review) was confused about
>>> the location of the collision?
>>
>>Considering that according to you the bicyclist never made it to sherman
>>ave from sherman place because a hummer prevented her from making it
>>across lake to sherman ave
>
> I made no such claim.

That's how you described the streets.

>>It should have read she was
>>heading north on sherman place which would have removed any doubt about
>>which of the two intersections it was.

> There never was any doubt in anyone's mind but yours.

From the person who rants about the media missing specifics... now it's
ok because 'everybody knows what they're talking about'. I think you just
gave up your grounds for ranting about a sloppy media.

> Tell me, when you have a street that changes names (such as Clark
> Street becomeing Chicago Avenue when it crosses Howard Street), where
> does the new street name begin and the old one end? Why, in the middle
> of the street, of course. So as soon as the pedalcyclist crossed over
> the centerline of Lake Street, she left Sherman Place and entered
> Sherman Avenue. It was at this point she was struck (the Hummer was
> travelling west, which puts it on the north side of Lake Street - the
> Sherman Avenue side).

Actually having had a collision in an intersection on a town boarder I
can tell you are just making another assumption. While it was on a town
border, one town 'owned' (cop's word) the intersection, all of it. It
didn't matter if one had crossed the center line, but crossed the plane
of the intersection so to speak.

See I had initially thought like you that the boarder was in the middle
of the road being crossed. Nope, the whole intersection belonged to one
town. Seems they divided them up as wholes rather than all of them as
halves.

So where does place become street? Well where does place become street? I
suppose a visit to evanston town hall would be required.

Not cut and dry at all.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 06:49:52 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:46:51 GMT, SD Dave >
>wrote:
>
>>I've seen pedestrians wish that cops would get shot to death over
>>giving out jaywalking tickets to people who were drunk and walking in
>>front of moving cars against the traffic lights.
>>
>>Somehow our society has ingrained the idea that only cars are at fault
>>any time an accident occurs, which is obviously not correct.
>
>What Brent said earlier is very telling: it's bad when a Hummer runs a
>stop sign because it might srtrike and kill someone, but if a
>pedalcyclist runs a stop sign nobody will be hurt.
>
>This kind of "logic" is pretty widespread in our society.
>
>>Of course, I forgot my camera today for the dumbass induced car-to-car
>>accident, caused by a dip**** pulling out of a parking lot onto 6th
>>ave in front of a moving Honda Civic. The police seemed anxious to
>>blame the Civic driver by default until I heard other witnesses start
>>commenting.
>
>Did the Civic hit the dumbass in the rear? When cops see rear-end
>damage, their blame finger automatically points to the rearmost car.

It was nearly head on, because of the way the dumbass was trying to
make his left.

Dave

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> Not at all. I know for a fact that most of the border between Chicago
> and Evanston runs directly down the middle of Howard Street.

Good for you.

>>See I had initially thought like you that the boarder was in the middle
>>of the road being crossed. Nope, the whole intersection belonged to one
>>town. Seems they divided them up as wholes rather than all of them as
>>halves.

> Of course, none of that has any bearing on the real question.

Just where dividing lines are placed in intersections....

>>So where does place become street? Well where does place become street? I
>>suppose a visit to evanston town hall would be required.

> City Hall is at 2100 Ridge Avenue. Do let us know what you find out.

You're the one who's so bloody interested in it, you go.