BLU ZOOM – drunk driver on CCT

[mstone]

@MCL1981 24304 wrote:

If you ride your bike into a bollard, that is not the bollard’s fault. I have no sympathy at all. If you are so zoned out that you don’t notice the big yellow bollard, then I’m glad you hit the bollard and not me.

Well, I hope you don’t go looking for any sympathy if you have an accident. I won’t belabor all the ways that bollards can pose a risk to people due to factors other than “zoned out”. But it is good to see that you’re remaining true to form.

[Certifried]

@MCL1981 24304 wrote:

don’t notice the big yellow bollard, then I’m glad you hit the bollard and not me.

weren’t some of the ones that had been blogged about black?

[dbb]

@Certifried 24309 wrote:

weren’t some of the ones that had been blogged about black?

Indeed. Some are black, some are at the bottom of long hills, some are around blind corners, and some are spaced too closely together. In the aggregate, I would posit that it is often the bollard’s fault in some contributory way.

[rcannon100]

If you ride your bike into a bollard, that is not the bollard’s fault.

As a matter of law, yes it is. This is known as a design flaw, and is a tort. If you can anticipate injury by your design, and you fail to design to eliminate that risk, it is your fault. It is your responsibility to design in order to mitigate known risks.

Sort of like ships failing to carry emergency radios. If the captain drives it into an iceberg, its not the icebergs fault, its the captains. But the design flaw is that the ship needs to carry working radios, life boats, and life jackets.

In this case, bollards generally can be designed to minimize or mitigate injury. Where the designer (here the govt) fails to mitigate injury, they are at fault – regardless of how the anticipated accident happens.

[MCL1981]

@mstone 24308 wrote:

Well, I hope you don’t go looking for any sympathy if you have an accident. I won’t belabor all the ways that bollards can pose a risk to people due to factors other than “zoned out”. But it is good to see that you’re remaining true to form.

By “true to form”, you mean expecting people to take responsibility for themselves and not be idiots, yes.

[mstone]

@MCL1981 24318 wrote:

By “true to form”, you mean expecting people to take responsibility for themselves and not be idiots, yes.

No.

[MCL1981]

Well expecting people to not be idiots, and have some responsibility for themselves is all I’m doing. And that’s all you ever disagree with me about. So why don’t you try to better contain your bitterness from some other unrelated thread rather than being foolish in this one too.

[mstone]

@MCL1981 24335 wrote:

Well expecting people to not be idiots, and have some responsibility for themselves is all I’m doing. And that’s all you ever disagree with me about. So why don’t you try to better contain your bitterness from some other unrelated thread rather than being foolish in this one too.

Mostly I take offense when you make blanket condemnations with no basis in fact, and do so in a rather confrontational and obnoxious way. It’s a shame, because this forum is mostly very civil and free of internet-typical behaviors.

[MCL1981]

Which I haven’t done. In this thread or any other one. I can not help that you choose to take bits and pieces of what I say and whine about them out of context, ignoring everything else I said on the matter. Then you blame me for somehow disturbing the forum when I have to defend what I said against your made up crap. Like this.

[MCL1981]

@rcannon100 24311 wrote:

As a matter of law, yes it is. This is known as a design flaw, and is a tort. If you can anticipate injury by your design, and you fail to design to eliminate that risk, it is your fault. It is your responsibility to design in order to mitigate known risks. In this case, bollards generally can be designed to minimize or mitigate injury. Where the designer (here the govt) fails to mitigate injury, they are at fault – regardless of how the anticipated accident happens.

So when people are riding too fast, riding stupidly, zoned out, or trying to pass where they have no business passing, and plow into a bollard that any remotely attentive monkey could see, that is now the government’s fault. Ok.

I’m not suggesting there are poorly placed bollards out there that should be rethought. But the bottom line is YOU are responsible for watching in front of you and not hitting things that you can see and avoid. How is this any different than a pedestrian, or a child, or another bike, being stopped in that spot. Oh sorry I ran into you. I wasn’t paying attention, zoned out, speeding, and trying to pass everyone else so I don’t have to slow down and I ran your ass over. Maybe you shouldn’t have been standing there. I’m suing you for making me fall off my bike now. Does that make sense? Of course not. The bollard didn’t just jump out in front of you because it was confused.

[jnva]

Now I get why I was called a troll in the other thread. LOL…

[Author]

Posts