Newsgroups: rec.bicycles

ashaw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (andrew.shaw) wrote:

From article <1992Apr3.220019.16983@ncsu.edu>, by steve@bucolix.ece.ncsu.edu (Steve Garnier):
>> In article <1992Apr3.151959.9313@cbfsb.cb.att.com> 
>> ashaw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (andrew.shaw) writes:
>>>From article <1992Apr3.003313.6485@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu>, 
>>>by dabowsky@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Kamron):
>>>[unfortunate story of biker friend killed when car pulled out in front]
>>>>  Anyway, the driver claimed the same lame story as everyone else,
>>>>  "It was an accident, I didn't see her.."
>>>
>>>Why is it a lame story?  Do you think the driver deliberately tried
>>>to kill her?  Accidents *do* happen.  
>> 
>> Y'know, I'm really gettin' sick-and-tired of hearing this lame llama-feces!
>> "Accidents *do* happen."  Suuuuuuurrrrre.  You want to label the fact that 
>> a cyclist wasn't observed and then blasted into Eternity by some cager as
>> an "accident"!  I'd prefer to label what you call "accidents" as acts of
>> negligence.  Look, the cager occupied space that belonged to the cyclist,
>> simply because the cager never observed the cyclist.  Yes, that is a mistake
>> on the part of the cager; a very fatal mistake...but it is not an "accident".  
>What do you think an accident is?  An accident is a mistake.  As
>differentiated from an intentional act.

I believe that Steve's response was quite understandable, but let me point
out for you the difference between an accident and a mistake.  An accident
is an unintentional act, but a mistake is not, since a mistake implies an ill-
judged or just plain wrong CHOICE.  You could perhaps argue that some
incorrect choices are unavoidable, but not in this case.  

Most people learn early in childhood (ie. soon after they learn to walk)
that it always a mistake to physically move about without confirming that
the way is clear.  If a driver chooses to take that risk I call that a
mistake.

In the original story, please interpret "I didn't see her.." as one of the
following:
a) I forgot to look
b) I failed to detect her, ie. I need better eyesight and/or a more alert
   brain.  Similar arguments apply for bad visibility conditions.

Sadly, most drivers who make mistake a) or b) will falsely claim...

c) I saw her, but she swerved (or pulled out in front, etc.) in such a
   way that it was unavoidable for me to hit her.

Sorry, but the driver seems to be asking you to believe the impossible...

d) There was no one there, but I hit her anyway.

[..]

>I agree with collision avoidance; I agree that the driver should not have
>pulled out; however I do not agree that "I didn't see her" is a "lame
>excuse": it sounds to me like an unfortunate statement of the fact in
>a regrettable situation.

You may have to mull the above points over for awhile...  If you still
think it's excusable to claim "I didn't see her", complacency and a 
false sense of invulnerability could provoke mistakes in your own 
driving.  (I don't know--was that an unfair jab?)

>16-wheelers don't run me off the road.  I can accelerate, deccellerate,
>and swerve faster than any 18-wheeler on the road.  I have also been
>hit many times by jackasses, but since I am protected in a nice steel
>cage, I have never even been injured.

>If you are operating a vehicle that you *know* offers you *no* protection
>in the event of a collision, and a collision happens (despite your own
>perfect operating skills and the mandatory imprisonment of every non-perfect 
>driver), don't you think you may have been negligent in your choice of
>vehicle?  BTW, having just been in a side collision, I can tell you that
>door beams are great.

Ahem.

>Well, I'm all for more training and stringent licensing requirements.
>But if you think that you can create the perfect, risk-free environment,
>you are sadly mistaken.

Risk-free might be impossible, but the first step is to eliminate 
avoidable mistakes.  Drivers who have already been proven incapable of 
wielding an automobile should not be dealt with lightly.

>	Andrew
--
Rob (rghuehn@sunee.uwaterloo.ca) Computer Engineering, University of Waterloo
Huehn (huehn@waterloo.hp.com) Panacom Automation Division, Hewlett Packard Co