The carnage continues

Posted by: Barthélemy Barbancourt

Tagged in: Untagged 

Police say a woman on a bike was struck and killed by a school bus in Winona Monday.

Deputy Police Chief Tom Williams says the crash happened about 8:30 a.m. at an intersection near Winona Senior High School. Williams says the Minnesota City Bus Company school bus, driven by a 55-year-old man, was attempting a left turn when it struck the bike and the 74-year-old woman. She was pronounced dead at the scene.

Williams said the Minnesota State Patrol is investigating the crash because it involved a commercial school bus.

Superintendent of Schools Scott Hannon tells KAGE radio there were two students on the bus at the time of the crash. Neither student was injured.

Where to start with this one? Why was a 74 year old woman biking in traffic? How did she not see a huge yellow school bus? How traumatized are the kids that had to watch the death of an elderly lady?

When with the tree hugging leftists admit that biking in traffic is inherently dangerous? When will the stop encouraging people to rick their lives for some mythical green benefit?

In the last week we have noted the deaths of a 25 year old student by a dump truck and a 74 year old woman by a school bus. These bikers were killed by huge slow moving vehicles which tells me that the bikers were 100% to blame and should not have been playing in traffic in the first place.

But hey, laugh when I point out the increased fatalities that the environmental movement ignores. They see only lower carbon footprints (ironically dead people lowers the carbon level even more) and they never admit to the costs in terms of lives. This is one of the many reasons that I hate enviromentalists.

Trackback(0)
Comments (38)add comment
Chell
...
written by Chell , April 25, 2011

When will impatient motorists admit that it's inherently dangerous not to follow the law, almost the same rules of the road, when it comes to bicyclists, and that bicycles are traffic? For that matter, with all the fatalities involving only motor vehicles, does the thinking that went into this article apply to them as well? Shouldn't they stop being allowed on the roads?

Perhaps it's just time all drivers (of motor vehicles and non-motor vehicles) respect one another as well as the law.

Btw, not everyone rides a bicycle for the benefits to the environment. And... the fact that the bus struck the bicycle and not the other way around indicates that the bus driver could well be at least partially responsible.



Barthélemy Barbancourt
How fast do you think the bus was going?
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , April 25, 2011

We're talking about a huge yellow bus! When will bikers admit that they need to look out for themselves as they have chosen to play with cars, trucks and buses that can all kill them.

Roads were built for motorized vehicles, they were not built for cars and toys. You can whine all you want but in the end the people on toys tend to lose 99% of the time. I have pointed out repeatedly that cars hit other cars, buses and trucks regularly yet I never see people whining that dump truck drivers need to look out for douches in Priuses. It's only when you mention bikes that it's suddenly always that motorized vehicle's fault.

But hey, continue to encourage people to thin the herd. You can ignore the laws of physics but they will not ignore you.



Chell
...
written by Chell , April 25, 2011

I'm sure the investigation will reveal who's at fault (which may lie with one or both parties). It normally works that way, and thankfully fault isn't determined by the size of one's vehicle. If that were the case, semi's would bear no responsibility for randomly plowing into small cars. Good thing we have laws, since some drivers really don't think they are responsible for the 2000 pound vehicle they are steering.


Woody
"Encourage people to thin the herd"???
written by Woody , April 25, 2011

That's a nice thought Bart. I wish I could tell you to get away from this topic to avoid looking more foolish and callous but it's not my place to tell you what to do. Besides it's your blog. My sympathies to all of those involved in this tragic accident and their families.


Robert Perry
...
written by Robert Perry , April 25, 2011


Here's a map:

http://classic.mapquest.com/maps?city=Winona&state=MN&country=US&latitude=44.049999&longitude=-91.639198&geocode=CITY

There is no way the bus had the right of way in this situation. None. The bus driver was turning left from a small street to a larger street, and the victim was on the opposite side of the street. He has no excuse for not seeing the woman, either, at 8:30am.

Unless there are some seriously mitigating circumstances, I will be very disappointed if the bus driver does not do some jail time. There is no excuse for hitting someone with the right of way going 10-15mph.



Barthélemy Barbancourt
How do you know which intersection?
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , April 25, 2011

And as far as the woman is concerned, she is still dead.

The point isn't that if motorists just used more caution, less bikers would get squished, as I have shown motorists don't see other cars, trucks and even trains. Car crashes killed 33,808 in 2009. Most of those deaths involved other large heavy vehicles that were much easier to see than bicycles.

You can try to live in the world as you wish it to be or you can admit reality and adjust to the real world that we actually live in. Drivers kill drivers of other cars, alot! But at least drivers in other cars have a fighting chance. In a car vs. bike accident, the biker is fucked.

Too many bikers are more worried about being right than staying alive. And then there are the majority of bikers that are just plain wrong. The driver of the dump truck that ran over the 25 year old isn't facing charges as he was probably doing nothing wrong.



Jonny Texas
...
written by Jonny Texas , April 25, 2011

Robert could you answer a few questions for me?

How exactly do you know where the accident happened? It is not listed in the article or in Bart's post.

How exactly do you know the woman had the right of way? Even if your map is correct I see multiple places where she could have been coming off of the sidewalk, pulling into traffic from the parking spaces, or crossing main street against the light.

Why would you be disappointed if someone didn't dp time for an accident when you apparently don't know the simple facts of the incident?

If you want to call Bart an ass for having an opinion you don't like I am sure he wont mind. If you are going to present blind guesses as facts I'll call you on it.



Jonny Texas
When
written by Jonny Texas , April 25, 2011

Does it cross the line from cheap mode of transportation to "EXTREME" sport?

http://www.startribune.com/business/120519169.html

This halfwit is actually promoting winter biking in Minnesota? YGBFSM. This fucktard needs his dosage upped because the current prescription aint cutting it.

I am not as anti bike militant as Bart, but come on you need to draw the line somewhere.



Robert Perry
...
written by Robert Perry , April 26, 2011

Follow your news report to the second link. Sarnia and Chippewa. Now go to Mapquest or your favorite map/map site. It's in the western side of the city towards the southern end. Sarnia is a main drag, Chippewa is a side street. Hence, the cyclist had the right of way, and at 8:30 am, the bus driver had no excuse not to see her.

It's also likely that the bus needed to not only cross the median, but also cross the street entirely to get to the cyclist, who at 74 years of age was likely going no faster than 12mph.

There are many cases where the cyclist is at least partially at fault--any case where someone is wearing an IPOD comes to mind--but absent some seriously extenuating circumstance, this is not among them. Bus driver needs to go to jail for this one.



Robert Perry
...
written by Robert Perry , April 26, 2011

For reference, winter biking in Minnesota isn't too bad--if you can take the cold, it's actually better than some warmer states because we do a better job clearing the roads. Hence it does less damage to your bike (slush is nasty to chains and gears), and it's actually less dangerous.

And kudos to a guy making a business work with cycling. Isn't our gracious host all about capitalism here? He's helping people escape the clutches of Lord Vader, I mean Obama. We should be cheering!



Nobody
YGTBFSM...
written by Nobody , April 26, 2011

Winter biking in MN ? dude. We clear roads better than where? Phoenix ?


Chell
...
written by Chell , April 26, 2011

Brrr... way too cold to bike in a MN winter! But I sure admire those who can. Maybe that would be more doable in-town. In rural MN, to other towns to grocery shop or work, not so much. Saw a TV clip recently of someone who had put snowboards on a bicycle, with a slot cut out so the back tire could move it. Throw on some doors, a roof, and a kick-butt heater and I might try it.


Woody
...
written by Woody , April 26, 2011

I commuted to the U one winter and would not recommend it. Once the snow gets deeper than 3 inches or so it becomes nearly impossible to steer. The wider the tires the beeter for these conditions. I see a guy in Minneapolis in the Isles/Wirth area that has a bike he uses in the winter with wide snow tires on it. Would love to try it sometime but, to be honest, I don't have much interest in biking in the winter anymore. Prefer XC skiing instead.


Jonny Texas
...
written by Jonny Texas , April 26, 2011

Robert, thanks for the clarification it really helped. Now, go to the Google street view.

Was she on the sidewalk on the south side of the street? Was she west bound in the south side of the divided street? Did she pull out of that church parking lot? The truth is that you have no idea of what happened. If a pair of nearly identical seven sentence stories are your only source of information, you might as well be looking at sheep entrails. Pronouncing guilt and suggesting punishment on some guy for an accident makes you look like a pro biking zealot or an ass, your choice. Come talk to me when you have some facts.

And for reference, LIVING in Minnesota during the winter is not really advisable, biking there boarders on a reason to be committed.

I am all for Mr. Ishaug running a successful business, much less one that pays its employees well and offers benefits. I applaud him for working in consort with other businesses to achieve their goals while earning a living. I thing he is a self serving asshole for trying to get govt money to support his hobby and hobby supply business especially during times when real needs are being cut.



Robert Perry
...
written by Robert Perry , April 26, 2011

The article states she was westbound, which ordinarily would mean she was on the north side of the street. Even if she were on the wrong side of the street, though, she's still got the right of way as long as she's on Sarnia, unless for some odd reason there's a light at the intersection.

And Minnesota does a far better job than most places south of here and north of the Mason-Dixon, where there is a lot of ice and slush on the roads. I've ridden as cold as about 5 degrees--dress like your'e going skiing or skating, and you'll be fine.



Barthélemy Barbancourt
I hate winter bikers
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , April 26, 2011

Minneapolis doesn't plow curb to curb so by January there isn't room for 2 cars to pass on most streets. Then you add in a dipshit on 2 wheels that is one ice patch away from slipping under your wheels and you have a recipe for disaster.

I get poor people biking, but not by much as the bus is pretty cheap. People that just bike for fun in the winter deserve all the abuse that they get. Biking at -20 is insane.



Jonny Texas
...
written by Jonny Texas , April 26, 2011

"The article states she was westbound,"

Wrong

"Williams said the Minnesota City school bus, driven by a 55-year-old male, was attempting a left turn on to Sarnia from Chippewa when it struck the bicycle which authorities BELIEVE was westbound on Sarnia." (Emphasis mine)

They THINK she was, but since she lost an encounter with a bus they are not sure. If they are not sure, and they had to pick her up off of the pavement, what makes you so sure?

"Even if she were on the wrong side of the street, though, she's still got the right of way as long as she's on Sarnia"

So you mean to tell me Robert, that if you are traveling the wrong way on a divided road you have the right of way? I think you may have ridden in cold a little to long.

Robert, you cannot even get your quotes right from a seven sentence piece. Your logic is all fucked up. Finally, you seem to be fighting this from some sort of ideological viewpoint that the motorist is always at fault.

May I suggest that since it's raining up there how about you take a ride on the stationary, reread my posts and realize that all I am saying is that how about we get a few more facts before we put together a lynch mob for a school bus driver, then log back on and call Bart an insensitive bike loathing asshole. I promise that you will feel better.



Barthélemy Barbancourt
Yeah, the dead biker is always right
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , April 26, 2011

It is impossible for the biker to be headed west on either side of the street and have the right of way.

The bus driver isn't going to have anything happen to him as it sounds like no one is sure what happened.

The biker was 74 and most people know 74 year-olds shouldn't be biking in traffic. The cop will close this case without making any fuss. They know that the driving public outnumbers the biking public by at least 20 to one and drivers know bikers are a major pain in the ass.

Sorry, but the behavior of the 90% of bikers the violate the law ruin it for the 10% that do follow the law.



Chell
...
written by Chell , April 26, 2011

Bart, I respectfully disagree. Not where it has to do with where the bicyclist was on the street, since we don't know. But as far as how the law is applied to drivers, it's not a popularity contest. Whether or not anything comes of this will be based on the findings and non-findings of any investigation. Also, where do you get your figures, the 90% - 10% numbers? Does this only apply to cyclists, and not motor vehicle drivers? If so, is it simply based on vehicle size? And if that's the case, do semi drivers have more right to the road than sedan drivers?

So 74 is too old to be on a bicycle? Guess I'm not one of the most people that know 74-year-olds should pack it in.

The law is the law. Yes, all too often bicyclists do stupid and illegal things. But so do motor vehicle drivers. Even kids in driver's ed are given a handbook that includes the rules on driving around bicycles. Some more experienced drivers could use a refresher, or they may rightfully face the consequences as they remain ignorant and impatient.



Jonny Texas
...
written by Jonny Texas , April 26, 2011

Bart for all we know the buss driver got up on two wheels and jumped the curb to peg the old lady.

The point is that we don't know anything.

The bus driver will probably not get anything as it was a traffic accident.

She died, it sucks, he probably feels like shit, nothing will ever be said about this by anyone other than the families after next week. Life goes on.



Barthélemy Barbancourt
Jonny is right
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , April 26, 2011

Chell can rail against injustice and beg for more training but the reality is bikers lose on most of these deals and cops know that bikers don't follow traffic laws. The poor bus driver already feels bad enough, prosecuting him will do no good.

As for driving around bikes, you might want to get a new book. Many Minneapolis bikers like to take the whole lane as they have been told by people like Chell that they have the same rights as cars. Then they get pissed when the cars go around them even though the bike is only going 15 in a 30 zone. Bikers also love to use the busy streets and then bitch that drivers are too close and drive too fast.

Bikers are a nuisance and they will continue to die as long as they insist on playing in traffic. Drivers don't try to kill other drivers, yet it happens 100's of times a day everyday. No amount of training is going to exempt bikers from the laws of physics and probability. More people on bikes in traffic = more deaths.



Chell
...
written by Chell , April 26, 2011

Well, I don't see an injustice in the handling of this case, so I haven't been railing against it. As far as a new book, I doubt the laws and driving manuals have been suddenly rewritten because of your blog on this news item. You may look at the current laws yourself Here: http://tinyurl.com/3vss97x (pay close attention to the first paragraph) and here: http://tinyurl.com/3ersqtb (under Subd. 3. Passing). Sorry these laws displease you. I consider the true nuisances to be not only irresponsible bicyclists, but motor vehicle drivers who do not accept responsibility for the vehicle they are driving, or who blatantly disregard the law and endanger others.


Jonny Texas
Have fun Bart. Slow hanging curve........
written by Jonny Texas , April 26, 2011

169.222 OPERATION OF BICYCLE.
Subdivision 1.Traffic laws apply.

"Every person operating a bicycle shall have all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle by this chapter"

Subd. 4.Riding on roadway or shoulder.

(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

(basically, avoiding hazards is the only way this does not apply)

Subd. 8.Turning, lane change.

An arm signal to turn right or left shall be given continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the bicycle before turning, unless the arm is needed to control the bicycle, and shall be given while the bicycle is stopped waiting to turn.

I woul ddo more but I have to go to a cubscout meeting. TTFN



Nobody
Slow hanging curve
written by Nobody , April 26, 2011

I'm gonna Bart from the on deck circle ROFLMAO! OK Bart, go for the fence !


Woody
...
written by Woody , April 26, 2011

Chell you can throw all the rules you want at these anti-bike folks and it's not going to change their behavior or attitude in any way. So you go ahead and throw your curve ball and tell the shortstop to get ready for a slow rolling double play ball. Nobody, was that a typo or did you intend to say I'm gonna Ba"r"t from the ODC?


Chell
...
written by Chell , April 26, 2011

Agreed, Woody, that the attitudes and behavior will likely not change. I just like to make that information available in the hopes that even one motor vehicle driver or cyclist might learn something and actually take responsibility for even getting behind a wheel or on a bicycle seat. It scares me that the road is shared with drivers who don't. But then, it's equally nerve-wracking to be on the same roads as them whether I'm in my truck or on my bicycle.


Jonny Texas
...
written by Jonny Texas , April 26, 2011

[Gasp] cant....breath......too much....smugness and.....self righteousness in here......

Seriously. First I get Bart blaming a dead woman for scaring kids because she was insensitive enough to get crushed to death while she was apparently flagrantly engaging in a legal activity.

Then I get a troll pretending he is one of the villagers in Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail screaming "Burn the Witch" because he apparently can divine the guilt of some poor schmuck in an accident from a pair of 7 sentence articles, which he cannot even casually reference correctly.

I get self righteous retorts from bike enthusiasts like they are the damn freedom riders that bikes get all of the legal rights and privileges of other vehicles. To prove the point a troll posts a link that actually contains legal language that supports Bart's original premise that they indeed need to stay the fuck out of the way of the multi-ton steel people crushing machines. It also contains an obligation on bikers that not a single soul reading this post has EVER seen a bicyclist do or get ticketed for in the history of mankind that just might prevent them from getting hit.

The icing on the cake is the "oh these heathen will never learn" holier-than-thou attitude when the logic of their argument fails.

People on bikes are no smarter, rule compliant (if anything I would argue that they are less rule compliant as there is no repercussions for their unlawful behavior), or better than the driving public. Bikers are mass and inertia challenged which means for their own safety they need to be more vigilant and aware of their surroundings. Biking for the vast majority is not a necessary mode of transportation it is a legal activity, hobby, or form of recreation that adds unneeded risk to their lives. If you want to do something dangerous that is legal and is not a threat to others, knock yourself out, I am a live and let like kind of guy. However, do not preach to me that I am somehow responsible for the consequences.



jk noreen
Still missing the point
written by jokin , April 26, 2011

"Agreed, Woody, that the attitudes and behavior will likely not change. I just like to make that information available in the hopes that even one motor vehicle driver or cyclist might learn something and actually take responsibility for even getting behind a wheel or on a bicycle seat. It scares me that the road is shared with drivers who don't. But then, it's equally nerve-wracking to be on the same roads as them whether I'm in my truck or on my bicycle."

I think Bart made it clear that it isn't "equally nerve-wracking" in a truck or on a bike, your odds of walking away unhurt/alive in a collision are exponentially higher in your truck, laws of physics and all, with the same set of bad drivers out there. I noticed you haven't defended the Ipod student-biker. A 74 year old probably had possessed the same level of attentiveness and much less physical dexterity, and the part that you and Woody aren't getting- being in the right on a bicycle while up against 3000-10000lb behemoths is little solace- in the end, you're still going to be an unsightly corpse or, at best, sustaining life-altering grevious bodily harm.




Chell
...
written by Chell , April 26, 2011

It would be hard for anyone but me to "make it clear" whether or not idiot drivers of motor vehicles make me as nervous whether I'm in my truck or on my bicycle. Thanks for skimming over that post though. Idiot drivers are dangerous either way, and injure and kill others either way.

And no, I do not defend idiot bicyclists either. That is why I won't defend someone who is listening to an ipod while riding a bike. I've made it clear that both bicyclists and motor vehicle drivers are equally responsible for sharing the road.

The laws I linked (directly on the government website) are simply that. They not only define the responsibilities of bicyclists, but also define, for the literate, their rights as well as the responsibilities of motor vehicle drivers.

Unless you were on the scene or knew the 74-year old in this incident, or walked in her shoes, I really don't think you're qualified to state what happened or judge her ability to ride the bike safely. No more than any of us is qualified to point fingers at the bus driver, anyway.



Jonny Texas
...
written by Jonny Texas , April 26, 2011

You have total control and freedom over the way you feel behind the wheel or handlebars. A little nervousness would probably do most vehicle operators a some good.

You seem determined that bicycles enjoy legal parity with other vehicles. Subd. 4 basically identifies bicycles as impediments to traffic flow and that they need to make way for other vehicles, contending that they have equal right to the road is an error in fact and also in reality.

I agree with you on the "at fault" party of the accident. Nobody here anyway has a clue as to what really happened.



Robert Perry
...
written by Robert Perry , April 27, 2011

Guys, yes you CAN tell something here. Sarnia is the main road, cyclist was on it, bus was not. Hence, absent seriously mitigating circumstances, the bus went into the cyclist's right of way.

(possibilities of mitigating circumstances; cyclist went through a red light at the intersection or hopped off the curb into the flow of traffic right in front of the bus)

I don't view motor vehicles as guilty all the time--witness my response to the death of the U student riding wearing an IPOD--but in this case, a first glance at the data indicates the bus driver did not have the right of way.

And regarding the idea that bicyclists shall ride as close to the shoulder as practical; yes, but we're allowed to make left turns, and potholes and road damage do indeed constitute a hazard. (one reason I love my mountain bike that will handle potholes well)



Barthélemy Barbancourt
not too bad.
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , April 27, 2011

Not much need for me to chime in as some people have gotten the point. I like the part where I blamed the dead biker for scaring the kids, some people really know how to cut to the heart of the matter. (For those just joining, yeah I did!)

The law says that bikes should not impede traffic. This means that they are not entitled to an entire lane. If a biker rides down the middle of the street blocking traffic, he isn't claiming his rights, he's breaking the law.

But in the end, the laws of physics will always favor my view that bikers shouldn't play in traffic. If a biker is killed, I have little sympathy for them as they choose to live dangerously and they reaped their reward. People die trying to climb Mt. Everest every year, do people think Everest should be made safer?



Jonny Texas
...
written by Jonny Texas , April 27, 2011

Yes, you can tell some things about the accident. Assuming that the information in the piece(s) is correct.

1. Geographical location of the accident.
2. The actions of one of the participants.
3. The end result of the accident on one of the participants.
4. The approximate time of the accident.
5. The name of Winona's police chief.
6. The age and sex of the active participants.
7. The mode of transportation the participant chose.
8. There is an investigation gong on as to what actually happened.

Robert, everything else is an assumption. You obviously believe that the bus driver has been grossly negligent and deserves to be punished, therefore you are willing to make assumptions that support your belief.

"There is no way the bus had the right of way in this situation. None." Opinion presented as fact. You know nothing other than the precious few facts from the articles yet you can determine who had right of way.

"The bus driver was turning left from a small street to a larger street, and the victim was on the opposite side of the street." Assumption presented as fact. You don't know where she was or which side of either of the divided streets she was on, for all you know the driver might have jumped the curb to get her on the sidewalk.

"Unless there are some seriously mitigating circumstances, I will be very disappointed if the bus driver does not do some jail time." Wow, jail for a traffic accident that might have only been a fender bender if she was in a car. What would constitute a moderate mitigating circumstance? Your bias really comes to the fore a shines through on this one, Bravo!

"Chippewa is a side street. Hence, the cyclist had the right of way." Faulty logical conclusion. No actually, right of way is a more complicated than that and many things effect right of way.

Do I really need to go on? Robert, you have an pro bike agenda and a poor grasp of logic. You do not have enough facts to determine what actually happened yet you make assumptions because and colored by your agenda driven perspective.

let more facts come to the surface. I am not saying that you or your assumptions are necessarily wrong, just that we should find out more before we rush to judgement and get a cell and a jumpsuit ready.



Robert Perry
...
written by Robert Perry , April 27, 2011

Jonny, you're the one with an agenda. All I said was that if the facts were as stated in the article (no majorly extenuating circumstances), the bus driver is almost certainly at fault, and that is 100% true.

Now you can claim without evidence that the facts are not so, but quite frankly, that's simply bad logic on your part--arguing from the absence of evidence, more or less.

And that doesn't depend on whether I'm a cycling advocate or not--that would be another fallacy on your part called the ad hominem.



Barthélemy Barbancourt
The crux of the matter
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , April 27, 2011

"a traffic accident that might have only been a fender bender if she was in a car"

At worst the bus driver didn't yield the right of way. This is not a felony in MN nor even a gross misdemeanor. This is why we all agree that the bus driver will get a ticket at worst. He may or may not have made an error on the right of way. The fact that the opposing vehicle was a bike has no standing here.

The thing missing from so many bikers minds is that if they are given the same rights as cars, they have the same responsibilities. I don't see them advocating jail time for every fender-bender, but when a car does the same with a bike they scream bloody murder, hence the crux of my argument. You are playing on a field where you are woefully ill-equipped. Pedestrians have more rights as they aren't playing by the same rules as cars. Bikes should be treated more like pedestrians legally, meaning they should be separated from cars.



Barthélemy Barbancourt
Failure to yeild right of way
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , April 27, 2011

This seems to be a traffic ticket in MN. Not a prison worthy offense.


Jonny Texas
Bikebubba
written by Jonny Texas , April 27, 2011

You're right, I do have an agenda and if you had much experience around here you would know that. I strongly advocate people waiting until they have actual facts before coming to conclusions, pronouncing guilt, or recommending punishment. I am a big fan of letting people talk and avoiding name calling of people who have been here a while contributing to the discussion.

I also dislike people who peddle opinions, assumptions, and guesses as facts.

I am not saying that the bus driver is at fault and I am not saying that the woman was fault. I am saying that there is not enough information to say much of anything other than: 1. There was an accident. 2. A woman is dead. 3. It happened at a particular intersection in Winona. You however are ready to incarcerate a menace to travelers for the good of society n punishment for his crimes.

Please, tell me what relevant facts I overlooked from the two pieces. If you have new information I would love to see that too.

For any statements of mine to be considered an ad hominem fallacy I would have had to present an attack on your character or the flaws there in that are irrelevant to the discussion (liar, cheat, fruit pimp, etc.) in an attempt to discredit you. What I attacked was your baseless assumptions, guesses, and your lack of evidence. I pointed out your pro-bike agenda due to the fact that I fully believe that your enthusiasm for biking was coloring your arguments. Unless you are talking about the "troll" moniker. I will admit that you may not be a troll, you could very well be a noob, at least on this board. I would have to ask Bart to verify which of those is correct.

The best line I saw on this whole topic was Chell's.

"I'm sure the investigation will reveal who's at fault (which may lie with one or both parties). It normally works that way, and thankfully fault isn't determined by the size of one's vehicle."



Barthélemy Barbancourt
Fault isn't but death is
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , April 27, 2011

Nothing beats being right and still dead.



Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy