Bicyclist knocks pedestrian unconscious, flees scene

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what is the chance this cyclist is caught? I guess very little.

Who knows what happened. Did the woman walk out from between to cars and it was an accident or did the biker see her and hit her?

You're not allowed to leave the scene of an accident, even if you think you're innocent. Also, let's be clear here. The cyclist left a woman laying in the middle of the street, unconscious. He didnt provide any type of first aid or assistance. He just left. If he's ever caught, he's going to have a hard time explaining to the cops why he left if it wasn't his fault.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]No one supports what this jerk did to the pedestrian and no one reasonable supports biking in a way that risks this. That includes me, someone who bikes almost daily.

I also don't support impractical and punitive ideas from people who irrationally hate me just for riding a bike to get where I'm going.[/quote]

Like what's impractical? and punitive?

Can pedestrians have the sidewalks to get to where they need to go safely? Can we cross the street without being yelled at by people on bikes?[/quote]

Cyclists don't think they should have to follow any rules whatsoever. And if anything ever goes wrong, it's always someone else's fault. They are like spoiled children. [/quote]

Talk about spoiled children. You’re big mad that somebody chooses a different method of transportation than you do. [/quote]

Nah, I'm mad that you don't stop at crosswalks or lights or stop signs and that you are constantly telling me to get out of your way when I'm on the sidewalk. I coudn't care less how you get from point A to point B.[/quote]

Cars literally never stop at stop signs.You are especially mad at people on bikes for your own strange reasons. [/quote]

You lose all credibility when you say dumb shit like that. I hope you know that.[/quote]

Cars never stop at stop signs unless they are literally blocked by opposing traffic. Just sit and watch at an intersection.

And of course although a speeding bike can hurt a person (as here) cars are many many times more deadly.

The focus on bikes as especially bad is wholly irrational. [/quote]

You sound like a complete nutjob.

I liike how the cyclists here don't condemn one of their own knocking a woman unconscious and then not even stopping to help her. They're just like "what about the people who drive cars?"[/quote]

I know, right? And on top of that, try to tell a very obvious and blatant lie that "cars don't stop at stop signs." As if we are not all drivers and don't stop at stop signs regularly. And as if drivers don't get ticketed all the time if they do not stop. True madness. [/quote]

Either you don’t know the meaning of the word “stop” or you have never spent any time in DC. A tiny fraction of vehicles come to the legally mandated stop at “Stop” signs in the city. If you don’t believe me, share your digits and we can get together to undertake a survey.[/quote]

Dude, just give it up. No one is buying whatever BS you're selling. [/quote]

Are you with a straight face claiming cars come to a complete stop for stop signs? Lololol. We all know that is false. Seriously stand outside and watch. I think drivers are so used to rolling through stop signs that they don’t even think they are doing it. [/quote]

No, we don't know that. You keep repeating that nonsense and it doesn't become any more true the next time you say it.

Falsely claiming cars do not stop at stop signs does not exempt bicycles from stopping at stop signs. [/quote]

Come on, you can’t expect people to take you seriously if you’re contending that every car comes to a complete stop at every stop sign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what is the chance this cyclist is caught? I guess very little.

Who knows what happened. Did the woman walk out from between to cars and it was an accident or did the biker see her and hit her?

If a cyclist hits a pedestrian hard enough to knock them unconscious, then obviously they were going too fast.

Not true at all. All it takes is a head bump on the way down.

[Anonymous]

Fine, go ahead and require license plates for bikes. I will happily comply with the law, just as I comply with traffic laws when I’m on my bike (or in my car). I look forward to seeing how you plan to enforce the rules for, say, 6-years-olds. Also, I assume that once you require cyclists to pay registration fees, we won’t have to constantly put up with complaints about spending money on bike infrastructure?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what is the chance this cyclist is caught? I guess very little.

Who knows what happened. Did the woman walk out from between to cars and it was an accident or did the biker see her and hit her?

If a cyclist hits a pedestrian hard enough to knock them unconscious, then obviously they were going too fast.

Not true at all. All it takes is a head bump on the way down.

For most collisions the fact of the collision itself is proof on its face that the at-fault party was going too fast, regardless of whether anyone was hurt. At a human level, if you knock someone out with your bike, it means you were going way too fast. Try not to knock people out with your bike. If you can’t do that, then you need to put the bike away. Why is that hard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what is the chance this cyclist is caught? I guess very little.

Who knows what happened. Did the woman walk out from between to cars and it was an accident or did the biker see her and hit her?

If a cyclist hits a pedestrian hard enough to knock them unconscious, then obviously they were going too fast.

Not true at all. All it takes is a head bump on the way down.

Come on. I ride a bike frequently, so I agree that it’s possible to hit a pedestrian accidentally without going too fast — if they walk out between parked cars, for instance. But if you (a) knock someone down and (b) they wind unconscious, you probably didn’t even try to brake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what is the chance this cyclist is caught? I guess very little.

Who knows what happened. Did the woman walk out from between to cars and it was an accident or did the biker see her and hit her?

If a cyclist hits a pedestrian hard enough to knock them unconscious, then obviously they were going too fast.

Not true at all. All it takes is a head bump on the way down.

Come on. I ride a bike frequently, so I agree that it’s possible to hit a pedestrian accidentally without going too fast — if they walk out between parked cars, for instance. But if you (a) knock someone down and (b) they wind unconscious, you probably didn’t even try to brake.

If you hit a pedestrian you’re going too fast. You need to determine your speed based on conditions. If you’re in a place where a pedestrian could walk out between parked cars and you’re close to the parked cars you need to reduce your speed so that you have time to stop. I slow down when I’m in a space with limited visibility or where I’m likely to encounter cyclists and pedestrians. It’s just common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fine, go ahead and require license plates for bikes. I will happily comply with the law, just as I comply with traffic laws when I’m on my bike (or in my car). I look forward to seeing how you plan to enforce the rules for, say, 6-years-olds. Also, I assume that once you require cyclists to pay registration fees, we won’t have to constantly put up with complaints about spending money on bike infrastructure?

yeah, the government is going to have a really hard time deciding how to give licenses to do something to certain people but not other people. how will they ever figure out how to do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, go ahead and require license plates for bikes. I will happily comply with the law, just as I comply with traffic laws when I’m on my bike (or in my car). I look forward to seeing how you plan to enforce the rules for, say, 6-years-olds. Also, I assume that once you require cyclists to pay registration fees, we won’t have to constantly put up with complaints about spending money on bike infrastructure?

yeah, the government is going to have a really hard time deciding how to give licenses to do something to certain people but not other people. how will they ever figure out how to do that?

So kids don't need license plates on their bikes, or kids aren't allowed to ride them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what is the chance this cyclist is caught? I guess very little.

Who knows what happened. Did the woman walk out from between to cars and it was an accident or did the biker see her and hit her?

If a cyclist hits a pedestrian hard enough to knock them unconscious, then obviously they were going too fast.

Not true at all. All it takes is a head bump on the way down.

Come on. I ride a bike frequently, so I agree that it’s possible to hit a pedestrian accidentally without going too fast — if they walk out between parked cars, for instance. But if you (a) knock someone down and (b) they wind unconscious, you probably didn’t even try to brake.

If you hit a pedestrian you’re going too fast. You need to determine your speed based on conditions. If you’re in a place where a pedestrian could walk out between parked cars and you’re close to the parked cars you need to reduce your speed so that you have time to stop. I slow down when I’m in a space with limited visibility or where I’m likely to encounter cyclists and pedestrians. It’s just common sense.

lol sure you do. You are likely to encounter bikes and pedestrians everywhere in DC. Are you saying you slow to 10MPH everywhere?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what is the chance this cyclist is caught? I guess very little.

Who knows what happened. Did the woman walk out from between to cars and it was an accident or did the biker see her and hit her?

If a cyclist hits a pedestrian hard enough to knock them unconscious, then obviously they were going too fast.

Not true at all. All it takes is a head bump on the way down.

For most collisions the fact of the collision itself is proof on its face that the at-fault party was going too fast, regardless of whether anyone was hurt. At a human level, if you knock someone out with your bike, it means you were going way too fast. Try not to knock people out with your bike. If you can’t do that, then you need to put the bike away. Why is that hard?

So basically cars are at fault for every accident?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, go ahead and require license plates for bikes. I will happily comply with the law, just as I comply with traffic laws when I’m on my bike (or in my car). I look forward to seeing how you plan to enforce the rules for, say, 6-years-olds. Also, I assume that once you require cyclists to pay registration fees, we won’t have to constantly put up with complaints about spending money on bike infrastructure?

yeah, the government is going to have a really hard time deciding how to give licenses to do something to certain people but not other people. how will they ever figure out how to do that?

So kids don't need license plates on their bikes, or kids aren't allowed to ride them?

Somehow the government gives people licenses to practice medicine and own guns and drive cars and run restaurants and a million other things, and believe it or not, they've figured out how not to give them to six year olds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, go ahead and require license plates for bikes. I will happily comply with the law, just as I comply with traffic laws when I’m on my bike (or in my car). I look forward to seeing how you plan to enforce the rules for, say, 6-years-olds. Also, I assume that once you require cyclists to pay registration fees, we won’t have to constantly put up with complaints about spending money on bike infrastructure?

yeah, the government is going to have a really hard time deciding how to give licenses to do something to certain people but not other people. how will they ever figure out how to do that?

So kids don't need license plates on their bikes, or kids aren't allowed to ride them?

Somehow the government gives people licenses to practice medicine and own guns and drive cars and run restaurants and a million other things, and believe it or not, they've figured out how not to give them to six year olds.

Right, but then, is the idea of bike license plates/licenses that kids aren't allowed to ride a bike? Or just that they don't need them to be registered? Because a kid riding a bike could also hit a pedestrian, so it does sort of undermine the whole stated goal of this policy if you don't license kids. And yet if the policy means kids aren't allowed to ride bikes, that seems really dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, go ahead and require license plates for bikes. I will happily comply with the law, just as I comply with traffic laws when I’m on my bike (or in my car). I look forward to seeing how you plan to enforce the rules for, say, 6-years-olds. Also, I assume that once you require cyclists to pay registration fees, we won’t have to constantly put up with complaints about spending money on bike infrastructure?

yeah, the government is going to have a really hard time deciding how to give licenses to do something to certain people but not other people. how will they ever figure out how to do that?

So kids don't need license plates on their bikes, or kids aren't allowed to ride them?

Somehow the government gives people licenses to practice medicine and own guns and drive cars and run restaurants and a million other things, and believe it or not, they've figured out how not to give them to six year olds.

The Council is completely captured by the bike crowd, so don’t hold your breath for any common sense bike safety regulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, go ahead and require license plates for bikes. I will happily comply with the law, just as I comply with traffic laws when I’m on my bike (or in my car). I look forward to seeing how you plan to enforce the rules for, say, 6-years-olds. Also, I assume that once you require cyclists to pay registration fees, we won’t have to constantly put up with complaints about spending money on bike infrastructure?

yeah, the government is going to have a really hard time deciding how to give licenses to do something to certain people but not other people. how will they ever figure out how to do that?

So kids don't need license plates on their bikes, or kids aren't allowed to ride them?

Somehow the government gives people licenses to practice medicine and own guns and drive cars and run restaurants and a million other things, and believe it or not, they've figured out how not to give them to six year olds.

Right, but then, is the idea of bike license plates/licenses that kids aren't allowed to ride a bike? Or just that they don't need them to be registered? Because a kid riding a bike could also hit a pedestrian, so it does sort of undermine the whole stated goal of this policy if you don't license kids. And yet if the policy means kids aren't allowed to ride bikes, that seems really dumb.

Wow. You raise a really good point. I mean, an eight year old could steal a car and drive it over a pedestrian, so why do we even require any adult to have a drivers license or license plates?