Reply With Quote
But were they on the shoulder? Can you maintain any integrity stating that as fact?
That is not established fact, but an opinion, unless there are farther developments than I have found or anyone else has and not linked.
Facts please.
First of all, they weren't hit on the median they were hit on the shoulder.
Secondly, while what we have heard is by definition hearsay, in court it won't be hearsay, it will be direct eyewitness testimony.
Let me break it down for you since you don't know the difference between median (which essentially means in the middle) and shoulder, which much like the shoulder on your body, is on the side of the road.
It's hearsay right now because we are hearing this information from the police officer who heard it from an eyewitness, however in a court of law the eyewitness will offer his or her direct testimony as to what he or she saw that day, which is not hearsay.
But were they on the shoulder? Can you maintain any integrity stating that as fact?
That is not established fact, but an opinion, unless there are farther developments than I have found or anyone else has and not linked.
Facts please.
Link please. This is the first I heard of an eye witness.
This thread is old news.
Might be old news, but I want to know about the "Eye Witness."
As I mentioned before, Police don't just make it up as they go along, they use facts available to them via eye witnesses, and evidence. If there weren't any witnesses or evidence, they'd just say they have no idea what happened, or that they are still investigating.
I don't have to prove to you that what the police stated is fact, you have to prove that it's not.
Last edited by PM5K; 11-14-2009 at 12:57 AM.
Yes, actually, they do. All the time.
Oh, I see.
You're just full of .
You are wrong. Police officers often make things up. The deputies are reporting, as fact, what the investigator said "appears" to have happened. The investigator never stated it as fact that I have seen. Therefore I ask for proper evidence.
Do you know what the instigators words are? The best I find is:
"He said it appeared that Sullaway, a resident of Helotes, veered off the highway in a Ford F-150"
An appearance of what happened is not a fat of what happened. The investigator is not willing to put his reputation on the line and state it as fact. How can you? If you have evidence the police don't have, then you should go to the authorities and report what you know.
I have yet to see any facts about the driver swerving. Now I am not stupid ignorant to say he didn't swerve. Apparently there are numerous people ignorant enough to say he did, outside of any reasonable facts.
What's the latest? Unable to find anything new.
OK People...
Those of you living in the area, what's the newest news?
Silence tells me the case is dismissed.
God, you're ADD. Lawsuits can drag out for years. They also won't do interval updates. You'll find out the decision when it's made. There will be no "newest news" until then.
I never claimed otherwise.
I do find it funny that there is a new piece of news out there, but not mentioned. Guess I'll sit on it.
So, you don't believe the law enforcement account of the accident, but you believe the driver?
driver denies being distracted. yeah right.
That also means they're still doing preliminary filings. Unless there is a settlement, we're a long way from home.
Novelty bike. Shoulder of a busy highway. You've got to be pretty dumb if you believe the driver should be held responsible.
I would only hold him to that if it could be shown he did it intentionally.
What does the fact that they were riding a tandem have to do with it?
I have not hit a biker with my car yet but I will one day. I ran a few off the road.
They are everywhere on the weekends in my neighborhood. When I see them I drive real fast and get as close to them as I can. Sometimes I slow down and tell them to themselves. I throw things at them. I hate those dumb, dumb, dumb adult dildos
They break the laws. They run lights, stop signs, get no where near the 45 mph speed zones, these dumb mother ers have ear phones on as they pedal there way to death. They have to take one hand off the steering handles to tell us which way they are turning or if they are stopping. Real safe there. Maybe that is why you SELDOM see this law in action. Next the hot air balloon people will be having there festivals at airports.
You are one DUMB MOTHER ER for riding your lil bike on the streets. You deserve to die.
Wow...I have not hit a biker with my car yet but I will one day. I ran a few off the road.
They are everywhere on the weekends in my neighborhood. When I see them I drive real fast and get as close to them as I can. Sometimes I slow down and tell them to themselves. I throw things at them. I hate those dumb, dumb, dumb adult dildos
They break the laws. The run lights, stop signs, get no where near the 45 mph speed zones, these dumb mother ers have ear phones on as they pedal there way to death. They have to take one hand off the steering handles to tell us which way they are turning or if they are stopping. Real safe there. Maybe that is why you SELDOM see this law in action. Next the hot air balloon people will be having there festivals at airports.
You are one DUMB MOTHER ER for riding your lil bike on the streets. You deserve to die.
Calm down...
You prescription meds run out?
So you'd do away with civil negligence claims or prosecution for crimes that require only a negligent mental state (criminally negligent homicide, for instance)?
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 11-29-2009 at 12:50 PM.
How can you hold the driver of a vehicle responsible for differing amounts of damage for the same type of mistake? The bicyclist must assume some responsibility too. If this driver hit another vehicle, on this road, meant for motor vehicles, chances are, only property damages would have occurred. Assuming the driver was at fault, why should two different penalties apply for the same mistake just because one was a car, the other a bicycle? Sorry, but a bicyclist must assume the risk of such things happening.
It should not be legal to have an unpowered vehicle on a fast stretch of road. Just because it isn't illegal doesn't mean its safe to do so. Anytime a bicyclist chooses to do such a stupid act, a driver should not have to pay for their stupidity.
At 70mph? That's highly unlikely.
Point is, another vehicle will be traveling a similar speed. Delta velocity is dramatically reduced.
That's why:
1. in the criminal law, there are differing penalties for the same act depending on the mental state of the actor -- intentional criminal acts are punished more harshly than negligent criminal acts (which usually bring only probated sentences or fines);
2. in the civil law, the culpability of the injured party is also a matter that a jury can consider -- if the jury believes that the plaintiff's conduct caused the accident, it can reduce the liability of the driver accordingly; under Texas law, a jury could simply decide that the driver wasn't negligent at all.
I've noted this several times in this thread.
Well, if you're a man, you sholdn't be caught riding a tandem bike anywhere. But when these dumbasses took their novelty bike act to a busy highway, well, it was only a matter of time before they were wiped off the road. They basically guaranteed they would both be taken out at the same time. People were probably losing control all over the road that day being distracted by that tandem action.
And if you have half a brain, you don't put yourself in harm's way for a scenic bicycle ride.
I consider them honorary winners of the Darwin Award.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
