Chris Woodyard is not getting a Christmas card from my family this year.
[A] driver on the way to work struck a St. Mary’s County, Md., bicyclist earlier this month and killed him. . . The driver, a 20-year-old in her Honda Accord, told police she never saw the biker. But the accident might have been prevented if the 47-year-old bicyclist had been riding in the right, not in the dead center, of the lane, a major contributor to the accident.
See Two-wheel troublemaking: Have motorists let bicyclist ‘rights’ go too far?
If she did not see him in the middle of the lane, directly in front of her, does Mr. Woodyard suggests she would have seen him if he was “riding to the right”? Or, perhaps Mr. Woodyard is suggesting that even if she had still not seen him, if he had only been where he belongs, “riding to the right,” she would have harmlessly passed him by, albeit still completely oblivious to his presence in the roadway?
Blame the victim, right? Always a class move, Mr. Woodyard. Always a class move.
Unfortunately, Mr. Woodyard, it simply does not work that way. When the operator of a motor vehicle fails to see an object in the roadway, whether that object is a cyclist, another car, or a squirrel, it really does not matter where the object was located when motor vehicle hit it – be it the center or all of the way across to right hand side of the roadway. What does matter is that the object was not seen and then was struck by the motor vehicle. Do not lose sight of these simple facts.
And, I suggest, that if you cannot seem to notice a person on a bicycle directly in front of you, in the same lane, traveling in the same direction that you are, and you run square into the back of that cyclist with enough force that you kill him, you should not be operating an automobile on this nations roadways.by