Thanks, Scott. My post wasn't to say who was at fault. I agree that the cyclist should have had lights and may not have been visible to the motorist. I just wanted to point out that he incident report implies two legal violations - no lights (cyclist) and failure to yield (motorist) - while the TCT article only mentions the cyclist's violation.
I didn't investigate the collision, so it's up to law enforcement and/or the courts to decide whether extenuating circumstances (e.g. darkness and absence of bike lights) make the failure to yield excusable. On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Scott Ellington <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Kathryn Kingsbury wrote: > > > but *does* state that the bicyclist had a green light. That would imply a > failure to yield right-of-way on the part of the motorist. > > > I don't know just how dark it was when the incident occurred, but only > street lighting could have been significant. Judging from the number of > close calls I've had with invisible bikers (while riding my own well-lit > bike), it is certainly possible the biker was invisible to the motorist. > Certainly, such crashes do occur when the biker was clearly visible and had > right of way, but this may not be one of them. I completely fail to > understand why so many bikers refuse to use lights at night. > > > > Scott Ellington > Madison, Wisconsin > USA > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
