Views: 213

Comment by RunLikeADog on December 21, 2012 at 7:34am
How about half of the award going to something more worthwhile like Project Share, Habitat for Humanity, Barrett House...
Comment by shotsie on December 21, 2012 at 9:46am

I think the bicyclist is already donating half back to the insurance company owing to his own stupidity....

I think converting the Vagabond Inn to efficiency apts is a great idea - the area is saturated with hotels already, and this building is close to campus.  Of course, UNM is looking out for itself - (or rather, the company running the student village is pushing a lot of administration buttons right now...) 

Comment by Phil_0 on December 21, 2012 at 11:42am

@shotsie: we agree. This is a sensible reuse in a suitable location. There are few if any "property values" to be affected in the immediate area of this location. It's pretty hard to see UNM's resistance as anything other than a desire to wipe out potential competition for its overpriced new dorms.

Comment by once banned twice shy on December 21, 2012 at 11:52am

I think the bicyclist is already donating half back to the insurance company owing to his own stupidity...

WTF?  So, just curious, shotsie--if some asshat turned in front of you in your car, into your lane and you had no time to stop, would you think you were being stupid?  Let me explain this really slowly to you:  the bicyclist's lane was not backed up.  So he continued forward not realizing that some asshole was just going to go ahead and turn left without the right-of-way and without looking to see if ALL lanes were clear, not just the car lanes.  Picture this scenario on MLK (which I see all the time on MLK):  you are in your vehicle proceeding east.  The furthest left car lane is backed up through the intersection of Elm, which has a signal.  However your lane, the right car lane, is NOT backed up, but has room for you to proceed.  Do you stop at the intersection even though there is adequate space for you to proceed?  NO YOU DON'T.  Bike lanes are traffic lanes.  So any traffic should yield to traffic in the bike lane AS WELL AS THE CAR LANES.

God.  I can't believe I had to explain that.

Comment by shotsie on December 21, 2012 at 4:28pm

Here's a better article:  http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/12/20/news/bicyclist-awarded-2m...

Look, even though the bicyclist had a clear biking lane, that's not the same as a car lane - you just can't see bicyclists until they emerge from the lead car - the traffic was stopped - the truck couldn't see him until it was too late.  For the bicyclist, if the traffic next to you is stopped, then you need to look and make sure the intersection is clear - this is defensive riding - you have no protection against some asshat making a turn.  None.  Yeah, the bicyclist was maintaining his lane, but he didn't look left, and the driver couldn't see him.  Don't make assumptions, or get arrogant on the road if you're on a bike - you'll live longer.  ( I hate riding on these major roads - people are always turning in front of you - but we don't have a lot of choices in ABQ... you have to be defensive and assertive at the same time... ) 

Comment by Hunter on December 21, 2012 at 7:11pm

Based on the above descriptions, it seems to me that if the cyclist had been an auto in a designated lane the truck making the turn would have been 100% at fault.  He ought to sue his attorney for the 50% being disallowed. 

Comment by hettie on December 21, 2012 at 7:29pm

I think the Christmas day invitation shows a trust in one's fellow human beings that you don't often see on display these days. Maybe if they don't get any takers, they can wrap up their leftovers and share them with people who are living outdoors and might not have ready access to the internet.

Comment by Lahjik on December 21, 2012 at 8:50pm

Yeah.  If there were two car-lanes and one was backed up, but the driver allowed space at an intersection and someone traveling forward in the other, unblocked, lane hit them it would be a clear case of the turning vehicle not yielding right of way to oncoming traffic.  The bike is a vehicle and that rider was doing what he is legally supposed to do which is filtering forward in his own lane.  The person who turned in front of him was in the wrong and should be stuck with the total of the damages or at least the most significant percentage.  Bikes are vehicles, all the morons bitch and moan that riders don't follow the laws but when they do and they get hit it's still their fault?  Make up your mind, folks, if bikes have to follow the laws and are penalized if they don't (here's a hint" riders do have to follow laws and are subject to penalties if they don't) then riders also should enjoy protection of the law and indemnification for when they are injured by drivers who don't follow it.  This ruling pretty much tells me that riders should ignore the laws or just pack heat or possibly both.

Comment by RunLikeADog on December 23, 2012 at 2:30pm
Exactly, Kenny. That's what they call defensive driving. It doesn't matter if you are in a car or on a motorcycle or bicycle; defensive driving is your responsibility. Bicyclist seem to believe that since they are the only ones out there saving the planet, they don't have to practice this.

Comment

You need to be a member of Duke City Fix to add comments!

Join Duke City Fix

© 2014   Created by Duke City Fix.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service