What's going on, Albuquerque?
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...)
@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.
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.
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... )
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.
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.
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.
Join Duke City Fix
Welcome toDuke City Fix
Sign Upor Sign In
• "Sunday Poetry" with The Ditch Rider Johnny_Mango
• Daily Photo by Dee
• "Morning Fix" with Phil_0, Sophie, once banned twice shy, Kitson
U.S. irrigation – more efficient, shifting east
IID to state of California on Salton Sea restoration: “But you guys promised!”
Water buffalos – embracing the pejorative?
For Thanksgiving, I made PIE
Goodbye and thank you
Camping with Beth Moore-Love
Scenes From the Hanna Skandera Parent-Teacher Conference
Morning Word: Final Morning Word for NM Telegram
Annals of adaptation: Cally Carswell on desert cattle
New Mexicans Take A Holiday Break Along With Their Many Visitors, Plus: Looking For A Silver Lining In State Economy, Dispatches From The Oil Patch And Happy Thanksgiving, New Mexico!
Stuff I wrote elsewhere: NM water policy tools poorly suited for the job
Morning Word: One more day of Morning Word at NM Telegram
Oil Makes For The Wealthiest Man In New Mexico As State Frets Over Boom's Possible End, Plus: Right To Work Isn't Fairy Dust
The end of NM Telegram as we know it
© 2014 Created by Duke City Fix.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.