I agree with Mike. I am sick of excuses. If this driver had hit another car what would law enforcement reaction be? If this driver gets away with this, will other drivers have an excuse that they can use that has worked in the past? " Sorry about that ped/bike/car/baby carriage, I was having a "diabetic reaction" to alcohol, officer". BTW, what is the difference between a diabetic reaction to alcohol and having a "I'm drunk" reaction to alcohol? Just wondering? Both reactions seem to result in a person's inability to drive in a safe manner.
Ann M. Freiwald, ASLA -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 9:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Bikies] Re: fatality update > ... the cyclist who was killed recently on Femrite Rd. It was pitch dark out, he didn't have any lights or even a reflector. They think the driver may have had a diabetic reaction tho alcohol is a possibility. They are awaiting lab reports before deciding what to do next. > The "diabetic reaction" sounds like a made up excuse to me. This bicyclist was hit from behind, remember? It is not pitch dark if the car had its headlights on! Granted, the bicyclist should have had lights and a reflector. But that still doesn't take away from the fact that the driver of the motor vehicle was at fault for hitting him. The DOT Motorist Handbook says your headlights will let you see about 400 feet ahead and that you should drive at a speed that allows you to stop within 400 feet (Page 41 of: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/docs/e-handbook.pdf ). Therefore, there is no excuse for hitting a bicyclist from behind, even if the bicyclist doesn't have any lights or even a reflector on the bicycle. The driver of the motor vehicle in the case should have been issued a citation regardless of whether the bicyclist had lights and reflectors or not. Mike Neuman _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
