Jump to content

EUC rider struck and killed by a car near San Francisco, 04May2021


Recommended Posts

  • RagingGrandpa changed the title to EUC rider struck and killed by a car near San Francisco, 04May2021
Posted (edited)

It says a car or a vehicle struck and killed the EUC riders, and if so then it'd be trivial to request Tesla (the only semi-autonomous vehicle manufacturer) to find the car based on the collision time.

And apparently these self-driving vehicles seem quite dangerous. On that same page is another vehicle that drove into a pedestrian and killed him.

 

Edited by LanghamP
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thats what safety distances are for, a shame nobody respects them..
Rest in peace rider..

Edited by null
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LanghamP said:

It says a car or a vehicle struck and killed the EUC riders, and if so then it'd be trivial to request Tesla (the only semi-autonomous vehicle manufacturer) to find the car based on the collision time.

And apparently these self-driving vehicles seem quite dangerous. On that same page is another vehicle that drove into a pedestrian and killed him.

Nowhere in these articles does it say anything about autonomous vehicles... soo.... where are you getting this from? Did you even read the articles? In the one you link it even says the driver of the vehicle stayed on the scene. 

 

Shame about the rider though. Be careful out there people!

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, EUCRexy said:

Nowhere in these articles does it say anything about autonomous vehicles... soo.... where are you getting this from? Did you even read the articles? In the one you link it even says the driver of the vehicle stayed on the scene. 

 

Shame about the rider though. Be careful out there people!

I'm terribly confused about both articles, actually. In both titles they state a car or a vehicle struck and killed someone, but they also mention a driver was involved.

I suppose it's akin to saying, "man is shot and killed by a handgun" which is the same as "man is struck and killed by a car".

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Scottie888 said:

Not down playing this sad event but really, what's so strange about someone getting hit & killed by a car? This happens daily & I'm pretty sure its fairly common amongst cyclists (epower or otherwise). Indeed I've been swacked by a car at least once while cycling.

I think getting hit by a car is extremely unusual, extraordinarily so, and so far in all of recorded history only one person has been killed by a car.

So, yes, we talk about it extensively.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, LanghamP said:

I think getting hit by a car is extremely unusual, extraordinarily so, and so far in all of recorded history only one person has been killed by a car.

So, yes, we talk about it extensively.

I wouldn't say extraordinarily. My buddy ray was hit just 3 or 4 weeks ago. A car rolled a stop sign at the same time he rolled a stop sign and they collided. Luckily both where going relatively slow and he walked away with only a bad bruise on his hip and a twisted ankle.

Another rider i know claims to have been hit multiple times, but he has i believe 100,000+ miles on euc almost all in busy roadways. Luckily for him also every incident has been trivial and he has walked away unscathed. 

A total of 843 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles in 2019. That means more than 2 people die every day on average just in america. And thats not including non fatal incidents. We have the advantage of speed however which means being passed less often which is the number 1 risk factor for sure. But night riding imo is very dangerous, drivers are not only on average more likely to be intoxicated, but its much harder for even sober riders to see you. No one expects a standing individual to be moving at our speeds even if they can see you. The tail lights are so low to the ground, plus a lot of riders carve back and forth adding to the danger. 

its certainly something everyone needs to think about and evaluate on their own. Stay safe everyone 

Edited by GoGeorgeGo
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GoGeorgeGo said:

A car rolled a stop sign at the same time he rolled a stop sign and they collided.

Which model Tesla was this car that rolled a stop sign?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LanghamP said:

Which model Tesla was this car that rolled a stop sign?

I dont know where your getting the tesla information from. In the article is states

"Police have not released any description of the vehicle or driver"

it was a hit and run, my buddy ray was also victim of a hit and run they are still trying to find the guy unfortunately (its illegal to leave the scene of an accident in RI before the police arrive). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, GoGeorgeGo said:

I dont know where your getting the tesla information from. In the article is states

"Police have not released any description of the vehicle or driver"

it was a hit and run, my buddy ray was also victim of a hit and run they are still trying to find the guy unfortunately (its illegal to leave the scene of an accident in RI before the police arrive). 

I think the person you’re responded to has for some reason decided to become inappropriately super pedantic about the use of the word vehicle or car as causing the accident, as if everyone doesn’t already know someone is driving the car. Silly thing to be obsessed over in this tragic accident. 
 

Terrible and sad accident. Sounds like the guy was down on his luck too financially. Looks like an MSuper type wheel in the video. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Keep your heads on a swivel people... Ride in a happy mood when you can, for obvious reasons. Sincere condolensces to the family of the man who went 'home' a tad early.:innocent1:

Edited by ShanesPlanet
Link to post
Share on other sites

This f'ed me up all day... sorry. I don't care who's fault it was, it sucks. Be as safe as you can out there.

5 minutes ago, ShanesPlanet said:

Ride in a happy mood when you can

Will do tomorrow for our fallen friend.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, RagingGrandpa said:

What we know:

Rider
Male, age 52

EUC
Gotway ACM

Environment
35mph public roadway
~9:45 p.m. (dark)

Still no reports that mention a helmet or crash gear :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LanghamP said:

I think getting hit by a car is extremely unusual, extraordinarily so, and so far in all of recorded history only one person has been killed by a car.

So, yes, we talk about it extensively.

I'd say that in most major towns / cities etc being hit by a car is a reasonably common occurrence. It certainly isn't 'extremely unusual' as you put it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gasmantle said:

I'd say that in most major towns / cities etc being hit by a car is a reasonably common occurrence. It certainly isn't 'extremely unusual' as you put it.

 

Because cars just drive themselves into people? Nonsense. We don't say "he was shot by a gun". We shouldn't say "he was hit by a car." Now my brother-in-law law can say he was hit by a car, because a Tesla on autopilot rammed into the back of him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LanghamP said:

Because cars just drive themselves into people? Nonsense. We don't say "he was shot by a gun". We shouldn't say "he was hit by a car."

It's common language. We say dogs were run over/hit by a car, why not people? It's obviously significantly more common to be hit by a a car... BEING DRIVEN BY A PERSON than otherwise, but we still say hit my a car. And while we don't say "he was shot by a gun", we DO say "he was shot" or "he suffered a gunshot wound". 

Semantics, man. Just let it go...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, LanghamP said:

Because cars just drive themselves into people? Nonsense. We don't say "he was shot by a gun". We shouldn't say "he was hit by a car." Now my brother-in-law law can say he was hit by a car, because a Tesla on autopilot rammed into the back of him.

We don’t say ”he was driven over by a car”, which would be akin to saying “shot by a gun”.

We do say “killed by a bullet”, or “killed by colliding with a car”, since that is the item that physically does the killing. The driver doesn’t accidentally kill pedestrians, since the driver doesn’t even touch the victim.

 But as pointed out, this is a pointless discussion. Or languages are full of figures of speech and common expressions that don’t make perfect sense.

 This really is sad news. By my count we are now at (least at) five EUC rider deaths.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, LanghamP said:

Because cars just drive themselves into people? Nonsense. We don't say "he was shot by a gun". We shouldn't say "he was hit by a car." Now my brother-in-law law can say he was hit by a car, because a Tesla on autopilot rammed into the back of him.

It sounds to me as though you are just being pedantic for the sake of it.

In order for us to communicate effectively implied facts are necessary. At the present time the vast majority of cars are driver operated, it is implied that if a person was killed by a car then a driver will be involved. Perhaps in 50yrs time when self driven cars are prevalent the term 'hit by a car' may not imply a driver but at the moment that isn't the case.

To follow you reasoning every headline in the newspaper reporting a person being killed by a car would report that  'Joe Bloggs was killed by a car driven by a human'.

It's common sense once you think about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Gasmantle said:

It sounds to me as though you are just being pedantic for the sake of it.

In order for us to communicate effectively implied facts are necessary. At the present time the vast majority of cars are driver operated, it is implied that if a person was killed by a car then a driver will be involved. Perhaps in 50yrs time when self driven cars are prevalent the term 'hit by a car' may not imply a driver but at the moment that isn't the case.

To follow you reasoning every headline in the newspaper reporting a person being killed by a car would report that  'Joe Bloggs was killed by a car driven by a human'.

It's common sense once you think about it.

I think it was a bizarre attempt at sarcasm due to the news that a Tesla last week crashed an killed the 2 occupants and nobody was in the driver seat. For the time being the legislation requires a human to be the "operator" of a vehicle and even if you have a Tesla with autopilot, the "operator" is still responsible. The days when we can take a nap in the backseat while our vehicle takes us from point A to B is sadly still far away. 

And exactly because if tragedies like this, as you can not hold a car responsible and the car manufacturers for sure will not take the responsibility as they would be bankrupt in a matter of years due to all lawsuits that would follow.

I have installed a dashcam in all my vehicles and the idea of riding with an insta 360 at all times for sure seems like a good idea after reading stuff like this. Not that it would have helped this poor soul but at least they would have a chance at finding the responsible party and hold them accountable.

Stay safe out there!

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, LanghamP said:

Because cars just drive themselves into people? Nonsense. We don't say "he was shot by a gun". We shouldn't say "he was hit by a car." Now my brother-in-law law can say he was hit by a car, because a Tesla on autopilot rammed into the back of him.

 

2 minutes ago, Gasmantle said:

It sounds to me as though you are just being pedantic for the sake of it.

In order for us to communicate effectively implied facts are necessary. At the present time the vast majority of cars are driver operated, it is implied that if a person was killed by a car then a driver will be involved. Perhaps in 50yrs time when self driven cars are prevalent the term 'hit by a car' may not imply a driver but at the moment that isn't the case.

To follow you reasoning every headline in the newspaper reporting a person being killed by a car would report that  'Joe Bloggs was killed by a car driven by a human'.

It's common sense once you think about it.

Pedantic perhaps but he has a point.  And it is - as you say, "... to communicate effectively implied facts are necessary" - unfortunate that our language has devolved into a mess of implications & assumptions. 

And while @mrelwood  & others are correct in that this is a pointless discussion, I think @LanghamP is referring to the direct language being used. 

16 hours ago, LanghamP said:

I think getting hit by a car is extremely unusual, extraordinarily so, and so far in all of recorded history only one person has been killed by a car.

So, yes, we talk about it extensively.

Getting hit by a car IS extremely unusual but will become more commonplace as autonomous cars are released into the jungle.

But put yourself in the shoes of a cyclist or EUC rider who's been hit by a driver (operator) of a motor vehicle & been paralyzed.  Most of us would want justice.  We are paralyzed & can no longer walk let alone ride our EUC's. 

Now let's say for the sake of argument the driver is operating a gas powered BMW.  He gets ticketed for improper use of the lane or for improper control of the vehicle.  You go to the hospital with an immediate $230k of bills.  He decides to fight the ticket.  Now this is where the language is going to become EXTREMELY important.  His lawyer is going to try & trip up every witness for the cyclist who describes the car hitting the rider.  Logic you say, common sense perhaps.  However, in a court of law, when the lawyer shows the car cannot operate or even function by itself, the case will be dismissed & the driver of the car who hit the cyclist will walk away.

It is very important that we as common folk, practice the proper language, regardless of what the papers print.

The media calls it an 'accident' (implied).  Most of us here would call it an 'accident'.  However, when the lawyers for the insurance get involved, and you are on the witness stand & the lawyer for the other guy starts asking you questions & trips you up with it being an 'accident', you will lose your insurance.  Why?  Because it was not an 'accident', it was a crash.  There was negligence involved by one party or the other.  An accident involves an act of nature.  A tree falling in front of or on your car while driving along a rural road is an accident.  If someone operating a motor vehicle hits an EUC rider, there is negligence involved & it is a crash.

So I agree with @LanghamP, it is extremely unusual at the moment to be hit & killed by a car.

Again, a pointless argument if an argument is what you are looking for.  I prefer to see this as an informational posting.  Regardless, something to keep in mind when (not if) you encounter an incident similar to this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gasmantle said:

It sounds to me as though you are just being pedantic for the sake of it.

In order for us to communicate effectively implied facts are necessary. At the present time the vast majority of cars are driver operated

I agree and I hate how this thread is being derailed into something pointless instead of the actual tragedy.

Just a minor nitpick here that nobody seems to understand. ALL cars are driver operated. Anyone who thinks a Tesla on autopilot is not driver operated has clearly never used a Tesla or is confused about the technology. Even one of the very few Teslas in the Full Serve Driving beta require full driver attention.  So there really is no confusion, as there is no car yet which drives itself. That might change in 20 years but it’s irrelevant to this discussion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone personally know the victim David Jones or know if he was active in these forums? Does the family have a gofundme or anything like that for funeral expenses?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...