re: Cyclist hit by car on Perkins road

quote:

---

if he was high he definitely shares some of the blame.

---

Give me a reason why he is to blame for his own death.

quote:

---

If two impaired drivers collide, they both share the blame for the accident. Why is it any different with a cyclist?

---

Because cycling straight is totally negligent.

Branch not only hit the cyclists, he kept going, did not call emergency services, AND refused to come out of his vehicle. What a winner!!!!!!

quote:

---

Cyclist hit by car on Perkins road
I never said Branch is a good person. He deserves everything he gets for what he did.

I'm just saying that riding a 20lb bike, high, on a very busy 4 lane road full of 4000lb+ cars going 45mph is not exactly a safe decision.

---

He wasn't high. And he has every right to use the road with a bicycle. It was still "early", 8 pm. He did not own a car or truck. And Joseph Branch is an alcoholic and this was his 3rd DUI. Joseph Branch was the one in the wrong and the jury agreed.

quote:

---

Hopefully they write her a ticket and she gets stuck with the car's insurance bill

---

I still don't understand why they want total control of every road (even ones cyclists have no business on with zero shoulder) but don't have to have any license, registration or insurance.

quote:

---

not against the law

---

neither is stupidity

Yup. Not against the law to walk down gardere with a rebel flag with a white hood on.

Doesn't mean you're not at fault when you get jumped.

quote:

---

the bicyclist was on Perkins Road and wanted to avoid stopping for a traffic light

---

So just your typical cyclist.....

quote:

---

I still don't understand why they want total control of every road (even ones cyclists have no business on with zero shoulder) 

---

Where do they say they want total control???? Cars just want to use a road, but if a cyclist wants to use it, suddenly it's "they want to RULE the road", or "they think know they own the road". Nah, just want to use it to ride on. And they do have business there, as it is written in THE LAW. In most states cyclists have the right to ride two abreast IN THE LANE or they can legally drive on the shoulder. It is not always safer for them to ride on the shoulder though.

quote:

---

but don't have to have any license, registration or insurance.

---

Think of boating on public water ways. In a motor boat, you have to do all the above things (except I don't think there's a minimum insurance). You but yet you don't have to in a canoe or kayak. If statistics showed there was an epidemic of physical injury and property damage from road cycling that is often left uncovered through lack of funds, they'd probably force insurance just as they'd probably drop the car requirement if suddenly it wasn't needed. But as you probably expect, the damage isn't high enough to warrant those measures. You're grasping at reasons to justify not liking cyclists.

I've seen people on mopeds and motorcycles try the same thing. Stupidity isn't limited to cyclists.