RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


"Had the bicyclists not run the red light,(29 posts)

"Had the bicyclists not run the red light,El Guapo
Jul 17, 2003 8:45 AM
this accident might not have happened." BRILLIANT quote from the Police Investigator, Mr. Jockers (currently investigating the motorist/bicyclist accident in St. Petersburg, Florida)! Let's use that same insane logic in other scenarios. 1.) If people hadn't gone to work in the WTC on 9/11, they wouldn't have been the victims of a terrorist attack. Yeah, that makes sense. 2.) If people hadn't congregated in the Farmers Market in California, they wouldn't have been mowed down by a senile driver. 3.) If those people that worked in the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City hadn't gone to work that day, they wouldn't have been killed. Man, Mr. Jockers is BRILLIANT! How about this: If Mr. Jockers had ever done anything in school other than pick his nose, he might have done something more with his life other than being some total moron traffic accident investigator. He aint no Barnaby Jones or Columbo.
exactly......african
Jul 17, 2003 8:53 AM
what a toss we have for a cop here. I do that ride every Sunday, but that Sunday I went Sailing, lucky me.

There is no ways that ride just blew a red light, I bet the first rider and front riders went through orange and the rest pick up the pace jumped the red while others were calling that it was "clear" therefore "safe" for the tail enders to run the light (not sure it is ever safe to run a light, but if there are no vehicles surely it is safe, a doulbe edged sword that issue). I have not spoken to any friends that were on the ride about this. Mr Columbo needs to catch a wake up.
exactly......climbo
Jul 17, 2003 9:20 AM
not exactly. If some of the riders went through a red light, they went through it, plain and simple. He's stating some basic logic there, no need to come down on him. Fact is, if you run a red light and get hit, it's your fault, there is no double edge sword there in the eyes of the law.
The red light was supposedly run more than 4 blocks ...El Guapo
Jul 17, 2003 9:30 AM
from the accident. Please don't insult me by implying that I do not understand that if one runs a red light, and as a direct result gets injured then one is at fault. Basic Logic is not, run a red light yesterday, then got run over today, so its your fault. How in all that is Holy does that make sense?
right, the light was 4 blocks back..... thisafrican
Jul 17, 2003 9:40 AM
accident happend on a quiet residential road, when the driver crossed the center line (no passing) and plowed in the group of cyclists.
The red light was supposedly run more than 4 blocks ...climbo
Jul 17, 2003 10:02 AM
I'm not implying or insulting, I'm simply responding to what you wrote. If you want to rant and rave about something, you need to give us the facts so we can understand what you are saying !! You assume we all know exactly what happened.

By simply saying "The red light was supposedly run more than 4 blocks ...", you have made a pretty important point which should have been made in your first post.
Link to press conference and videoafrican
Jul 17, 2003 11:26 AM
Here is the link to the press conference and a short clip with one of the injured (Maria) who had a collapsed lung among other serious injuries.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=3667
analagies are usually a poor form of arguementFrith
Jul 17, 2003 9:01 AM
because they fail to account for the details of the subject at hand preferring instead to account for the details of completely unrelated events.
I don't know the details of the of the event in question although it strikes me that running a red light lends itself to a rather forseable problematic result. There is no way to know that showing up at work will put you in front of a crazed terrorist's path. There is however some fairly simple logic that can suggest to one that running a red light my place them in considerable danger.
The red light was more than 4 blocks prior!El Guapo
Jul 17, 2003 9:36 AM
Details: cyclists riding on the RIGHT (correct) side of the road. Motorist crosses DOUBLE-yellow stripe and continues travelling in the WRONG direction while running over 30 cyclists! That SIMPLE enough for ya'. I didn't use any analOGIES. The red light incident is simply speculation at this point. It is a COMPLETELY unconnected incident. If the alleged "running" of the red light resulted in the cyclists getting struck by a motorist in THAT intersection, then the cyclists would be at fault. Any other scenario would be COMPLETELY disconnected.
i seeFrith
Jul 17, 2003 9:46 AM
thanks for the info. Indeed running a red light can't have been a factor.
I still say it's safer to show up for work than blow a light :)
Sorry if I came off a little harsh ...El Guapo
Jul 17, 2003 9:53 AM
It just gets my goat that an officer of the law would say something so inane as to excuse the actions of an obviously mentally impaired individual with little or no "scrupples." Be safe out there on your rides. Again, sorry if I came across harsh.
not a prob ...Frith
Jul 17, 2003 1:24 PM
I was being a sarcastic ass as I often can be...my girlfriend can attest to that. I've often said that being endangered while on my bike is one of the few things that could lead me to violence. The vulnerability and defencelesness of it would justify the serious thumping of anyone who was willing to take advantage.
Some complicated verbiage there...Jons Seatpost
Jul 17, 2003 9:46 AM
Exercise a little restraint with your complex verbiage, my friend. Consider your audience; we're a group of guys and gals gathering to have fun. As you can see from all the responses to your post (fraught with sarcasm here), the logic major arguments you've emplyed haven't resonated all that much with us.

Here's an analogy for you: as you probably shave grams off of your rig, shave the same off of your posts. Keep it real.
Ok! nm.El Guapo
Jul 17, 2003 9:49 AM
You are a friggin moronmoo2
Jul 17, 2003 10:20 AM
Listen to the entire press conference video here:
http://www.wtsp.com/video/player.aspx?aid=4558&sid=3655

The officer is not speculating anything. There are multiple witnesses stating that they saw the entire group (except for the lead rider) run the red light.

The fact that the red light was 4 blocks East of the accident scene is irrelevant. The fact is, Mr. Pastore crossed the double yellow line and struck the cyclists at a certain point in time. If the cyclists invloved in the accident ran a red light prior to the accident, then logic and physics dictate that they would not have been in the same place (the accident scene) at the same time (when the car crossed the double yellow line). Of course this assumes that the cyclists would not have accelerated after stopping at the red light to make up for lost time, but since this was not a race, I find that highly unprobable.

So go back to elementary school, and study your physics some more. The cyclists and the car had to be in the same place at the same time for the accident to occur, and if a red light delayed the cyclists, they would not have been there when the car crossed their (now future) path.
and further more....african
Jul 17, 2003 10:29 AM
if I did not go sailing I might be in a hospital right now. Also if Pastore had one more donut at the waffle house (thus delaying him from the inevitable that logic and physics dictate that he would have been elsewhere that the actual accident scene) for breakfast then the accident would not have happened. Moot point the red light, got nothing to do with nothing other than they should not have run it.
and further more....moo2
Jul 17, 2003 11:07 AM
You're absolutely correct.
But the Original Poster, and you have no grounds for calling the officer a "toss" or "total moron", no matter how obvious his statement is.

I think both of you are missing the point here. The point is not to find fault in Mr. Pastore's actions. He is certainly 100% responsible for what happened here. The point I'm trying to make is the trajic irony that this accident could have been avoided in the first place.

I think that's what the officer was trying to say, and in that light, it is absolutely relevant.
Agreed ... Tragic irony acceptable.El Guapo
Jul 17, 2003 11:11 AM
I just got the impression that the "cop" was trying to excuse Mr. Pastore. His comment may have been meant to highlight the "tragic irony" of the situation, but it came across as dismissive and justifying Mr. Pastore's negligence.
I watched the press conference live......african
Jul 17, 2003 11:21 AM
and I got that same feeling that the cop was kinda saying that it could have been avoided if the light was not blown through. MOO, I see your point now....

Scary thing is I still have to go hit the roads here 4 times a week, and the groups still blow stop signs and lights (me included) there is however a lot more caution though, a lot more, and it is different since that accident. But I think I am going to have to speak up on these rides and become a vocal M F'er. They all know me on these rides, I am strong enough to pull and attack them and break away, so now I have to back it up with my big loud african voice....... we will report back on tonights ride.
Ghandi.....russw19
Jul 17, 2003 7:37 PM
Ghandi, a wiser man than I will ever be, once said, "You have to be willing to be the change that you wish to see in the world."

If it bothers you that people run lights on their bikes, not only have a word with them, but be the first to stop at that sign or light.

I have been the group leader of rides where people run lights... it's my job (in a purely altruistic sense) to keep them safe.. I have asked people who run lights to not ride with our group because their actions may place the other riders in danger. As a group leader, at a stop sign, I often will say the road is not clear when it is, just to get people to stop at a bad intersection. Sometimes things like that need to be done.

Disclaimer.. this is not saying or speculating anything about the Tampa crash. Just that all of us that are mad that other cyclists make us look bad by running lights need to actively do something about it, instead of passively, or we all may soon face the unfortunate fate of the 30 Tampa cyclists.

Rant over, resume your day...

Russ
Wow! Fantastic rebuke! So if they hadn't run the red light ...El Guapo
Jul 17, 2003 10:48 AM
4 blocks previously, they wouldn't have been hit.
"The cyclists and the car had to be in the same place at the same time for the accident to occur, and if a red light delayed the cyclists, they would not have been there when the car crossed their (now future) path." Man, that took some REAL thought didn't it? How about this: If Mr. Pastore had paid attention, he wouldn't have crossed the double yellow line. "So go back to elementary school, and study your physics some more." What does Physics have to do with this argument. An object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force (i.e. oncoming car driven by Pastore)? I don't recall any of this occurring on a "frictionless" piece of ice. I suggest you return to your elementary physics teacher Doogie and have them explain to you why Physics has NOTHING to do with the events leading up to the accident. You are clearly one of those "wrong place at the wrong time" morons. You don't happen to have a family relation to the Pastore's do you?
You all are debating the difference between "but-for" causationbill
Jul 17, 2003 10:50 AM
and legal causation. Yes, if they hadn't run the red light, they wouldn't have been in that spot. That is indeed logical. If they hadn't waited up for Slow Joe in the parking lot, they also wouldn't have been in that spot. That is equally logical.
Because one is a legal act and one illegal doesn't make either one legal causation. Legal causation only occurs when the link between the act and the result is true causation -- if you run the red light and get mowed down by a car going through the cross street on green, who entered the intersection assuming that cross traffic was stopped it's your fault. That's what the traffic regulation is there for, isn't it? It's certainly not there to prevent you from being mowed down by someone up the road crossing the yellow line, for sure, so that, if you run the red light only to place yourself in the wrong place at the right time, where the light is otherwise irrelevant to the incident, it's not legal causation.
I am in agreement with you.El Guapo
Jul 17, 2003 10:57 AM
This has been my point all along. Running the light, since it had NOTHING to do with DIRECTLY influencing the accident, has nothing to do with the responsibility of the driver. If the riders had run a red light and been struck by Mr. Pastore in the intersection, this debate wouldn't be happening. He, however, ran them over while on a straight stretch of road. What they had done 1 minute before had nothing to do with Mr. Pastore's culpability for the accident. I am not arguing causation. I am simply saying the cop is a moron for suggesting alternatives to Mr. Pastore's guilt.
Your conclusion in right, your argument is getting better53T
Jul 17, 2003 11:17 AM
You have to admit, your first attempts to explain yourself were terrible. We agree that the drivers responsibility for the incident is not diminished by unrelated traffic violations by the victims, nor is it it effected by what they did last year at Christmas.

You could also argue the physics angle, if you were the arguing type. Assume the driver was motivated by rage, as the columnist Maxwell assumes, had the riders waited for the light (30 seconds?) They would have encountered Mr. Pastore about 1/4 mile (assuming he drives 30 mph) closer to the signalized intersection where he would have run over them just the same.
slightly off topic but very relevantseamus
Jul 17, 2003 2:50 PM
I have an idea...let's all try to stop running red lights and stop signs. I know it's hard to resist, but drivers see us do that and it fosters resentment, and makes us look like irresponsible a-holes who occasionally "get what we desterve" in their eyes. It's lame logic, considering how many drivers break countless laws, but I really think it's how people percieve us, and when drivers are stuck behind lights and we just whizz by, it makes them hate us more.

I know it's no fun to lose your momentum and all that, especially when you're stopping for no reason on a really quiet street, but if it's 5 percent safer to do so, and also makes us look a little more respectful, it might keep a few drivers from throwing soda cans at us, etc. then it's worth it, don't you think? We're all our own ambassadors when we're out there.

That said, I'm not trying to imply that the stop sign/red light was the x-factor in the accident in Florida; I merely mention all this as an aside...running lights doesn't do any of us any good, as a group.
I agree with you. We are perceived as a**holes often enoughbill
Jul 17, 2003 3:00 PM
because we are. Not to say that most drivers aren't a**holes too, but they have a little more protection. I am reminded of the slogan from a public service campaign of a few years ago (a few? lots).
Shot of a wrecked car. Voice over:
"He was right."
"Dead right"
"Drive defensively."
Hell, the stupid bike doesn't even have to be wrecked to be a fatality.
My wife hates cyclists (sometimes she hates me with a particular passion, but that really is off-topic). Cyclists make her very nervous driving. It's hard to argue with her, really.
I agree with the difficulties in dealing with nervous drivers.niteschaos
Jul 17, 2003 7:10 PM
I was at an intersection today. This intersection happened to be in Atlanta at 6pm with 8 lanes crossing. I had a red light but a line of cars wanted to wave me on through the intersection before they continued simply because I was at the head of the lane I was in. I'm not about to run any light, in car or on bike, and this was an invitation for dissaster.

A lot of the time motorist go beyond common traffic convention thinking they are helping us. Most of the time I can't even see into the car to tell what the driver is doing. Is he flicking me off? Is he trying to wave me on? The glar on normal windsheilds is difficult to see through, let alone on a car with darkly tinted windows and a black interior, the windshield becomes a one-way mirror.

I had to pull over on the side of the road today because the drivers thought that having a cyclist present changed all the rules to the road, so 8 cars missed thier chance at a greenlight. I got off my bike, walked it and myself up on the sidewalk and off into a parking lot and waited for normal traffic to resume. 3 minutes later I got back into traffic a few cars back from the light.

There are so many unknowledgeable drivers in this country I think it is an epidimic. Each year 50000 people are killed each year on America's roads. I'm willing to bet that most of those accidents started from being unknowledgeable to the real risk factors.

And at that there are so many unknowledgeable cyclist that it really is an epidimic. I was on a group ride today and people just took up the whole damn road every chance they got. I made a few enemies today when I told a bunch of yuppies "You better watch your ass at these intersections because a car won't," in reference to them going off the front of the group by blowing a redlight.
Here is one more "what if"char
Jul 18, 2003 5:53 PM
Since the driver went over the yellow line one might surmise he also didn't come to a complete stop before turning on a road leaving the parking lot at the donut shop.

Or rolled a few other stop signs and/or lights along the way. Of course this is now expected behaviour of motorists so it just isn't noticed...

just wondering

:charlie
And if Mama Cass gave half her ham sandwich to Karen CarpenterGadfly
Jul 18, 2003 6:13 AM
they might both be alive today.