Texting Driver Who Slammed Cyclist: I, Like, 'Just Don't Care'

[Rippleman]

the cyclist should sue for medical of course, and then civilly too, he has public proof and a judge would agree easily with his side.

[einsteinbqat]

The judge should have been much stricter with her.

 

She barely got a slap on her wrist.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I wrote attempted murder.

 

Using your cell-phone whilst driving is premeditated, I.M.H.O.

You're still wrong. Attempted murder has to be premeditated, whereas she had no intention of killing anyone - she just recklessly put other people's lives in danger.

[Denis W. Veteran]

I could only imagine the amount of public outrage were it to happen in this city. There's already a significant car-versus-bike mentality prevailing here.

We once had a former attorney general that was involved in a road rage incident that claimed the life of a cyclist. The cyclist was apparently overtly aggressive in this case, but regardless the former AG's reputation was and still is the subject of heated scorn especially amongst cyclists: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/bryant-reflects-on-life-changing-incident-in-28-seconds-1.1138955

On topic: it's a bit troubling to know that there are people on this planet that lack any empathy whatsoever.

[FloatingFatMan]

Glad I live in a bike-friendly city :laugh:

 

Not that I don't understand the hate - especially in cities, a lot of cyclists are idiots, but some of us actually do obey traffic laws and wear helmets, and can respect the fact that we're riding next to things that could kill us and not miss a beat :p

 

Also, the girl in this story is an idiot.

 

The "hate" is because people like you are very much the exception.

What about pedestrians? When they cross the road they can cause an accident so should they all have to carry insurance too? Common sense, please.

 

Pedestrians are not on the road as a matter of course.  For someone requesting common sense, yours is seriously lacking.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Pedestrians are not on the road as a matter of course.  For someone requesting common sense, yours is seriously lacking.

Most people cross the road on a daily basis and many road accidents involve pedestrians. My statement stands.

 

I don't understand where you intolerance of cyclists comes from.

[McKay]

The "hate" is because people like you are very much the exception.

 

They irritate me because the majority I see here only follow traffic laws when it suits them, the instant a light turns red I see most of them pick up their bike and use the Zebra crossing to continue, some even just cycle through red lights the moment they see a gap. 

[FloatingFatMan]

They irritate me because the majority I see here only follow traffic laws when it suits them, the instant a light turns red I see most of them pick up their bike and use the Zebra crossing to continue, some even just cycle through red lights the moment they see a gap. 

 

I don't mind those that dismount and use the crossing. It's those that just cycle through it that <bleep!> me off!

[compl3x]

I can understand people not realising how dangerous using a mobile phone is while driving, as most of the time they'll probably be able to get away with it, 

 

(I only just seen this reply, so it might look odd on the 4th page) Ignorance, at least in Australia, isn't much of an excuse. The dangers of texting while driving have been well known here for some time. I suspect the risks are well known pretty much everywhere. It really falls under the "taking your eyes off of the road or splitting your concentration between driving and something else" is a dangerous idea.

 

Also, I'm not sure how getting away with something tells us anything about whether the person is aware it is illegal or not. Being caught doing the wrong thing isn't the only way to find out that said thing is wrong or illegal. You don't need to be caught drunk while driving to find out it is illegal to be intoxicated behind the wheel, for example.

[leesmithg]

the cyclist should sue for medical of course, and then civilly too, he has public proof and a judge would agree easily with his side.

Could take her to civil court.

 

They might do the same, the cyclist will have to front the bill, maybe the cyclist should start a thread on a ''give now'' charity site, so the funds can be sought to sue and take the berk to court.

 

I will dontate, I am sure thousands will.

[Original Poster]

Not sure if trolling, but I'll answer anyway.

 

It speaks to her complete lack of empathy or remorse for her wrong doing. That is the sign on a psychopath.

 

And considering we factor in remorse and empathy for wrongdoing during sentencing, the perpetrator's attitude is relevant. 

in all honesty was not a troll, I dont understand why people care about someone elses lack of caring? It was a genuine question maybe seemed trolly due to my swearing ... I also think its odd remorse is taken into account at trials...I dont suffer from empathy (I accidently typed suffer but I quite liked how it sounded so left it) so I guess I just dont understand it

[riahc3]

Using your cell-phone whilst driving is premeditated, I.M.H.O.

Serious question and no offense, but do you know what premeditated means?  

"think out or plan (an action, esp. a crime) beforehand."

She did not think out or plan beforehand a murder. Therfore it cannot be premeditated murder.

 

You're still wrong. Attempted murder has to be premeditated, whereas she had no intention of killing anyone - she just recklessly put other people's lives in danger.

Exactly. Im not sure where he got that this was a premeditated murder.

[webeagle12]

I hope somebody will run her *** over while she walking

[GotBored]

the cyclist should sue for medical of course, and then civilly too, he has public proof and a judge would agree easily with his side.

 

He doesn't need to, her car insurance covers any medical bills she causes with her vehicle. 

 

I could only imagine the amount of public outrage were it to happen in this city. There's already a significant car-versus-bike mentality prevailing here.

We once had a former attorney general that was involved in a road rage incident that claimed the life of a cyclist. The cyclist was apparently overtly aggressive in this case, but regardless the former AG's reputation was and still is the subject of heated scorn especially amongst cyclists: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/bryant-reflects-on-life-changing-incident-in-28-seconds-1.1138955

On topic: it's a bit troubling to know that there are people on this planet that lack any empathy whatsoever.

 

I live in the Melbourne CBD, Only outrage I can see would come from cyclists. Most City drivers I'd say dislike cyclists cause majority of them are morons who think they own the road. I've seen cyclist cut off motorbikes and causing accidents, cyclists cutting through lanes to get to the front of locked up traffic and then holding back the rest of the traffic going 10km/h in a 60km/h zone and I also see cyclists go through red lights all the time.

 

I'd lack empathy also if I was being charged for something I believed I wasn't at fault for. Sure she was on her mobile but we don't know where or how she hit the cyclists, I know I would've hit a few cyclists if I wasn't paying attention to the road and braked when they decided to merge into my lane but that doesn't change the fact that it would've been their fault if I drove into them as they can't merge into a lane with traffic that need to press the brakes in order to not collide with them.

[Denis W. Veteran]

I live in the Melbourne CBD, Only outrage I can see would come from cyclists. Most City drivers I'd say dislike cyclists cause majority of them are morons who think they own the road. I've seen cyclist cut off motorbikes and causing accidents, cyclists cutting through lanes to get to the front of locked up traffic and then holding back the rest of the traffic going 10km/h in a 60km/h zone and I also see cyclists go through red lights all the time.

 

I'd lack empathy also if I was being charged for something I believed I wasn't at fault for. Sure she was on her mobile but we don't know where or how she hit the cyclists, I know I would've hit a few cyclists if I wasn't paying attention to the road and braked when they decided to merge into my lane but that doesn't change the fact that it would've been their fault if I drove into them as they can't merge into a lane with traffic that need to press the brakes in order to not collide with them.

 

I see what you're saying about the poor and dangerous behaviour exhibited from cyclists. As a casual cyclist myself, I see it too when I'm cycling and see cyclists casually run traffic lights or stop signs without a care. Some don't wear helmets either.

 

Fixing bad cyclist behaviour is tricky. Licensing or taxing bicycles? I strongly disagree. In urban centres, we should be doing more to discourage the use of private vehicles - yeah public transport is great, but getting it built is bloody expensive and surely you can't expect public transport to fill in for everyone requiring short trips to the local grocer. Taxing an otherwise inexpensive mode of transportation removes a large incentive to consider it over other options. Furthermore, for something you can easily buy off the shelf in a sports store or bike shop, and something that is used by kids to adults inclusive - how do you arbitrarily impose a cutoff age when even young children use these things? It's not like children operate mini-Smart cars or something. I just see licensing in the case of bicycles as imposing too much trouble than its worth - the amount needed for police to run around and enforce licensing, plus the bureaucracy needed for said licensing.

 

(As an aside, I'll also mention that lately, these things - e-bikes - are becoming more popular downtown. They take advantage of what the law defines as a motor vehicle - it's technically a bike as it has pedals (good luck seeing anyone use those though), and the electric motor is not permitted to exceed something like 35 km/h. Any modification to increase its speed will make the e-bike a vehicle requiring licensing in the eyes of the law. These e-bikes have actually caused tensions not with motorists, but cyclists who believe the e-bikes are simply poor men's motorcycles not requiring licensing, yet taking up more space in bike lanes due to their mini-Vespa appearance. Anyways, reason I mention this - I could see why they may someday target these e-bikes for licensing as, by their nature, they're closer to being motorbikes than traditional bicycles.)

 

The easy, but expensive fix is simple. Cities need a hell lot more bicycle infrastructure so that cyclists can ride safely in their own traffic-separated lanes, yet said lanes need to integrate with the existing road infrastructure so that they are useful, instead of being glorified recreational lanes. Don't get me wrong - recreational trails are great for relaxation! But they by far should not be the only bicycle infrastructure a city builds. Until this is possible, under our provincial legislation governing vehicles on roads (Highway Traffic Act), bicycles have the right to take up an entire lane of traffic if they wish - though in practice, most keep to the curb lane as much as possible. Personally I'm scared to hell to be as close to vehicles and always try to hug the curb lane - I try to do indirect left turns by using the pedestrian crosswalks, to avoid weaving across two lanes of traffic to reach the left turn lane. In fact, in the more suburban parts of this city - especially where I live - I'll admit that I continue to cycle on sidewalks even though my bike's tires are technically too large to be used on sidewalks. Why? Because out in the suburbs, the roads and amenities were clearly built around the car, being a post World War II development, and as such cars have free will to go 60 km/h in three lanes of traffic per direction. That's not something I would want to risk placing myself in! On the other hand, the roads in the CBD/downtown are smaller, cars travel at slower speeds due to higher traffic, and on some roads there are traffic-separated bike lanes - thus a safer environment for cyclists overall.

 

Now I acknowledge that even separated traffic lanes only solves part of the problem - it doesn't fix cyclists not giving a damn about traffic lights or stop signs. Here is where I'll agree with police occasionally doing spot checks to catch cyclists running stop signs - and they do hand out tickets. Coincidentally, one of our city councillors was caught doing just that and was handed a ticket. But again, licensing isn't needed to catch cyclists blowing stop signs, just as pedestrians aren't required to have licenses to be caught jaywalking.

 

Now regarding the empathy side. Assuming she made these comments before her judgment, regardless of whether it was her fault or the cyclist's fault this accident happened - and we know, based on the account I gave above, it can be the cyclist's fault - I and others in this thread don't believe it's simply good form for her to publicly express indifference - "I, like, just don't care" - towards a person's injuries that she may or may not have been directly responsible for. Something like "I feel bad for what that guy is going through, but at the same time, he holds responsibility for his actions that led to this, as well as the damage I now face" shows a lot more tact. And that's simply what she should publicly express - if she personally doesn't really give a flying crap about the cyclist's injuries, then we won't know and that's fair. However, seeing as she was found guilty and police had evidence of her exhibiting poor behaviour, it reeks of more intolerance and selfishness on her part.

[Xerxes]

The police down under don't really seem to try hard to deter mobile use while in cars. Added to the general apathy of the younger australians these days, and it's a recipe for disaster

 

They don't seem to try at all! :/ I think part of the problem is the people who have the "it couldn't happen to me" syndrome.  You know that old chestnut, "I've been doing it for X years and never had an accident, why should I change now?" they never consider the accidents they CAUSED by people trying to avoid their careless driving nor the bad example they leave young drivers. I often travel by bus because traffic is pretty bad where I live and the things I see other drivers doing is horrifying. The usual culprits are holding the phone to their ear with one hand while driving with the other hand. One time saw a woman driving with her knees while BOTH hands were on her phone texting in her lap with her eyes on the phone...how she didn't have an accident is beyond me. Then a few years back there was that idiot who put his car in cruise control and stuck his feet out the window while on the freeway  :|, yet the police will nail you for going a few km/hr over the speed limit but let these other dangerous drivers go (to be fair the cops did nab him and it was all over the news). Seems they are more interesting in getting easy money then actually going after the real problem drivers  :huh:  :/

 

To the topic at hand, personally I feel cyclist shouldn't be allowed on the road during peak hours. Even when the cyclist is doing the right thing it still causes issues and disruptions to the traffic. Apart from the obvious that they cannot keep up with the traffic, the rules that are in place to protect them also create issues for other road users. They essentially become a rolling road block and on a busy main road this is the last thing you want. When I occasionally drive to work, quite often dual lane roads are essentially reduced to single lane due to cyclists and is really slows the traffic down and on single lane roads it can bring things to a standstill. During the day when the traffic is lighter, I am more tolerant of them as it's easy enough to safely pass them. I also cycle occasionally too but I refuse point blank to ride on the road, I will always use bike paths or sidewalks where applicable because I know how dangerous and disruptive riding on the road can be.

[GotBored]

I see what you're saying about the poor and dangerous behaviour exhibited from cyclists. As a casual cyclist myself, I see it too when I'm cycling and see cyclists casually run traffic lights or stop signs without a care. Some don't wear helmets either.

 

Fixing bad cyclist behaviour is tricky. Licensing or taxing bicycles? I strongly disagree. In urban centres, we should be doing more to discourage the use of private vehicles, and taxing an otherwise inexpensive mode of transportation removes a large incentive to consider it over other options. Furthermore, for something you can easily buy off the shelf in a sports store or bike shop, and something that is used by kids to adults inclusive - how do you arbitrarily impose a cutoff age when even young children use these things? It's not like children operate mini-Smart cars or something. I just see licensing in the case of bicycles as imposing too much trouble than its worth - the amount needed for police to run around and enforce licensing, plus the bureaucracy needed for said licensing.

 

The easy, but expensive fix is simple. Cities need a hell lot more bicycle infrastructure so that cyclists can ride safely in their own traffic-separated lanes, yet said lanes need to integrate with the existing road infrastructure so that they are useful, instead of being glorified recreational lanes. Don't get me wrong - recreational trails are great for relaxation! But they by far should not be the only bicycle infrastructure a city builds. Until this is possible, under our provincial legislation governing vehicles on roads (Highway Traffic Act), bicycles have the right to take up an entire lane of traffic if they wish - though in practice, most keep to the curb lane as much as possible. Personally I'm scared to hell to be as close to vehicles and always try to hug the curb lane - I try to do indirect left turns by using the pedestrian crosswalks, to avoid weaving across two lanes of traffic to reach the left turn lane.

 

Now I acknowledge that even separated traffic lanes only solves part of the problem - it doesn't fix cyclists not giving a damn about traffic lights or stop signs. Here is where I'll agree with police occasionally doing spot checks to catch cyclists running stop signs - and they do hand out tickets. Coincidentally, one of our city councillors was caught doing just that and was handed a ticket. But again, licensing isn't needed to catch cyclists blowing stop signs, just as pedestrians aren't required to have licenses to be caught jaywalking.

 

Now regarding the empathy side. Assuming she made these comments before her judgment, regardless of whether it was her fault or the cyclist's fault this accident happened - and we know, based on the account I gave above, it can be the cyclist's fault - I and others in this thread don't believe it's simply good form for her to publicly express indifference - "I, like, just don't care" - towards a person's injuries that she may or may not have been directly responsible for. Something like "I feel bad for what that guy is going through, but at the same time, he holds responsibility for his actions that led to this, as well as the damage I now face" shows a lot more tact. And that's simply what she should publicly express - if she personally doesn't really give a flying crap about the cyclist's injuries, then we won't know and that's fair. However, seeing as she was found guilty and police had evidence of her exhibiting poor behaviour, it reeks of more intolerance and selfishness on her part.

 

I don't believe cyclists should pay road taxes, for children riding bikes they should stick to footpaths, parks and recreation areas which allow bike riding. In Melbourne CBD we have bike paths that cyclists must use, these bike paths are usually a lined section on the side of the road or pedestrian pathways and if a road has these pathways cyclists aren't legally allowed to be on the road with cars.

 

But with these bike paths they are usually in between parking and traffic lines:

 

 

So when a car indicates left to park into a parking zone by law the cyclist is supposed to stop for the left turning vehicle, this never happens though they usually try to squeeze through or merge into the right to bypass the vehicle while going into a lane with traffic.

 

Here is an image of cyclists moving into car lanes when there is a dedicated bike lane:

 

 

From VicRoads (Melbourne's Road Rules & licencing body)

 

 

Left turning vehicle

Rule: A bike rider must not ride on the left side of a vehicle that is indicating left and turning at an intersection.

Tip: Stay in the traffic lane behind the turning vehicle. 

 

I've been driving on the road for years and I don't think I've once had a cyclist slow down or stop in the bike lane so I could turn left when the bike lane overlaps a turning lane. 

 

I don't think most cyclist even know these road rules and should acquire a license before they are allowed to use the roads, everyone else needs to do tests and get a license to do so.

 

I also agree with Xerxes that cyclist should not be allowed to use the roads during peak traffic times as it severely impacts traffic and traffic is terrible in Melbourne during peak hours.

[leesmithg]

I don't believe cyclists should pay road taxes, for children riding bikes they should stick to footpaths, parks and recreation areas which allow bike riding. In Melbourne CBD we have bike paths that cyclists must use, these bike paths are usually a lined section on the side of the road or pedestrian pathways and if a road has these pathways cyclists aren't legally allowed to be on the road with cars.

 

But with these bike paths they are usually in between parking and traffic lines:

 

 

So when a car indicates left to park into a parking zone by law the cyclist is supposed to stop for the left turning vehicle, this never happens though they usually try to squeeze through or merge into the right to bypass the vehicle while going into a lane with traffic.

 

Here is an image of cyclists moving into car lanes when there is a dedicated bike lane:

 

 

From VicRoads (Melbourne's Road Rules & licencing body)

 

I've been driving on the road for years and I don't think I've once had a cyclist slow down or stop in the bike lane so I could turn left when the bike lane overlaps a turning lane. 

 

I don't think most cyclist even know these road rules and should acquire a license before they are allowed to use the roads, everyone else needs to do tests and get a license to do so.

 

I also agree with Xerxes that cyclist should not be allowed to use the roads during peak traffic times as it severely impacts traffic and traffic is terrible in Melbourne during peak hours.

Cyclists can be complete arses.

 

Where I live they cycle on the pavements, go around bends on the inside rather than wide so they can see if people are coming.

 

We also have cycle lanes with cars always parked in them.

 

From those images, the Police need to deal with the cyclists not using cycle lanes and pedestrians walking in cycle lanes.

[FloatingFatMan]

Most people cross the road on a daily basis and many road accidents involve pedestrians. My statement stands.

 

I don't understand where you intolerance of cyclists comes from.

 

When you get ?2000 worth of damage done to your car thanks to an accident caused by a jerkoff cyclist ignoring the rules and then scarpering after realising they caused an accident, then you'll understand.

[compl3x]

in all honesty was not a troll, I dont understand why people care about someone elses lack of caring? It was a genuine question maybe seemed trolly due to my swearing ... I also think its odd remorse is taken into account at trials...I dont suffer from empathy (I accidently typed suffer but I quite liked how it sounded so left it) so I guess I just dont understand it

 

 

Just so we're clear, if you do something wrong, especially if it causes harm to another person, you feel no sense of remorse or guilt? I'm fairly certain that is a sign of being a psychopath. That's not necessarily an insult. Not all psychopaths are murderers. Apparently 1 in 100 people are classed as psychopaths.

[Original Poster]

Just so we're clear, if you do something wrong, especially if it causes harm to another person, you feel no sense of remorse or guilt? I'm fairly certain that is a sign of being a psychopath. That's not necessarily an insult. Not all psychopaths are murderers. Apparently 1 in 100 people are classed as psychopaths.

No any sadness or fear i feel is only about how it might affect me. im autistic (sometimes mild autism is mistaken for psychopathy) 

[FloatingFatMan]

No any sadness or fear i feel is only about how it might affect me. im autistic (sometimes mild autism is mistaken for psychopathy) 

 

Emotionally you might not be able to grasp the concepts (I quite understand that you don't, my son is the same as well with mild aspergers), but intellectually you should be able to grasp it. You just have to apply empathy through intellectual processes instead of automatic emotional ones.

[Original Poster]

Emotionally you might not be able to grasp the concepts (I quite understand that you don't, my son is the same as well with mild aspergers), but intellectually you should be able to grasp it. You just have to apply empathy through intellectual processes instead of automatic emotional ones.

This is true, but empathy is emotion, logically I dont see a problem with it either if it doesnt affect you, why is it your problem? dont get me wrong I have morals on what I beleive is right and i can have logical arguments/debates which may even change my view... but in all honesty I dont see the concept of why people would care about this situation... I believe I am still thinking about this emotionally, logically i can see people are annoyed with her lack of caring about a human life and her general arrogance regarding the situation but I can not imagine this feeling for this situation :/ its difficult to explain gah lol

[bradsday]

[Nashy]

the cyclist should sue for medical of course, and then civilly too, he has public proof and a judge would agree easily with his side.

 

the cyclist should sue for medical of course, and then civilly too, he has public proof and a judge would agree easily with his side.

 

Australia has a decent health system, so the only bill he should get is if he elected to go into a private hospital with an excess charge (No more than $1000).  If he's gone public, it's covered by our Government.

There are also insurances over here when registering a car that protect the costs of anyone you hit, so it's covered too.