Comments on: It is always the cyclist’s fault.

By: John the Lawyer

John the Lawyer — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:53:25 +0000

Keep sayin’ it, Big Jonny, no matter what you sound like. If the driver had hit a pedestrian, she’d be strung up by her toes. Since when does putting a pedestrian on two wheels make it okay to run them down? And why does adding two more wheels somehow put it back into the realm of not okay?

Oh, wait, that doesn’t work, either. If she had hit a motorcyclist, that would have been bad, too.

How has it that so many people hate cyclists so much that it’s okay to chalk up killing them to “excusable neglect?”

By: Prayin4snow

Prayin4snow — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:05:40 +0000

peter says:
“In his defense, cyclists are harder to see than your average american”

Yeah, like your average american pedestrian? You can’t hit them legally either.

Wierd catch-22. Maybe jonny could comment. Would cyclists have more legal clout (or legitimacy) if they were liscenced vehicles such as mopeds and motorcycles?

By: Latin

Latin — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:28:15 +0000

…Jesus Jonny, you’re starting to talk just like a lawyer!! – although in this case you are of course correct….

By: peter

peter — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:19:41 +0000

In his defense, cyclists are harder to see than your average American.

By: David

David — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:22:57 +0000

Horse-driven carriages aren’t forced to the side of the road, nor are motorcycles or mopeds (which top out at 30mph in most cases). His prejudice in the article is especially confusing given the last sentence of his bio:

“I may have three cars, but find it’s more fun and better exercise to commute to work on a bike.”