Safe Speed Forums

Actually a sad story since the cyclist died.

I do not know if the other car had a green light or a filter since the report says the cyclist tried to beat an amber setting - apparently a NONO over in the US. The "citing of the driver" to use the US terms here does seem to suggest they had cause to suspect he was not COAST-ing.

I am aware that our lurks will take great exception to the comment over the non-wearing of a "lid." and the rather blunt criticism in this piece.

I did not write it

However, the guy suffered serious head injuries and I do wear a helmet myself by choice and do not see this a problem for me personally, (Given the wet weather in this country - I think it keeps my hair dry. I have very dark brown hair with silvering here and there. My wife says it makes me look "distinguished". My sisters and children are less kind

This piece though does have some similarities to the texting woman saga - in that the cyclist "violated a traffic light" and the driver, allegedly but not proven, did not slow down as a precaution. I am not sure about US law but I think this would be chucked out of a UK court if the driver was not above the lolly.

What is striking is the difference in the reporting and the attitude of the police which seems to reflect both share some liablility anyway and I somehow doubt there will be compo paid out here. .




http://www.wbbm780.com/pages/2035721.php?






I have to then wonder why they are prosecuting the driver. Perhaps it's just "procedure" and he will be found innocent anyway. Perhaps "Rush-mate" can tell us more about US law here.

I admit I am fairly pleased to see the report does try to tell cyclists to be more vigilant.. and that the police will be targetting stupidity on their part too

I am sure some of our lurks will take great pleasure in reporting on various cycling fora that "one of them lot on that dark site posted a link to a report which is "anti-cycling"


I will save you the bother of typing. ::roll:

I did not write the piece ..

but I think they are right to point out that ignoring traffic light signals can prove lethal. The piece can be said to be "anti-motorist" since the driver is being prosecuted for negligence even though the lights may have been in his favour here..

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Don't forget that most of America, including the city of Chicago and surrounding suburbs, has a "Right Turn on Red" concession to drivers. This means that if turning right, a vehicle can treat the red light as a STOP sign. They have to give way to pedestrians by allowing them to cross in front of them if necessary, but if there's no conflicting traffic, they can make the right turn on a red light.

What this means is that a driver who sees that the cross traffic has stopped can sometimes fail to take account of opposite direction, left turning traffic who get a green left turn arrow before the normal green appears. This could cause a conflict. I've seen it happen when making left turns myself when over there. Was the driver who struck the cyclist making a right turn on red? - perfectly legal unless there's a sign saying "no turn on red".

Perhaps because of the confusion and problems of traffic "coming out of nowhere", right turn on red is disallowed by default in some cities, eg. New York City.