Lead Developer of Yum Killed In Hit-and-run

An anonymous reader writes "Seth Vidal, a lead developer of Yum, was killed in a hit-and-run accident while riding his bicycle in Durham, NC last night." The Fedora Project posted a statement. Quoting: "Seth was a lead developer of yum and the update repository system, and a contributor to the CentOS project as well as the original Fedora Extras system. He worked tirelessly on the infrastructure for the Fedora Project to make all systems work well and consistently for our contributors around the world. He was a gifted speaker, a brilliant thinker, a clever wit, a humble and genuinely funny person, and a good friend. The Fedora community owes an enormous debt of gratitude to Seth's dedication to Fedora and other free software projects, his commitment to community values, and his passion for excellence in his work. To say he will be missed is an understatement." Update: 07/10 00:24 GMT by U L : Local news reports that the driver turned himself in.

Comments

When you ride at night,

[Spy Handler]

wear white.

Re:When you ride at night,

[CanHasDIY]

blame the victim. i guess you think women in short skirts are asking to be raped?

He's not "blaming the victim," he's pointing out a safety tip for those of you who don't understand the basic physics of how our eyes work, you Fuck.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it was a word of warning to other cyclists to always do what you can to be seen, not blaming the victim.
Modern feminists have you tricked into thinking you are either fully in control of a situation or you are fully a victim of a situation.
Fortunately, life isn't black and white

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

No amount of high-vis can protect you from stupid drivers. Given that the driver did not stop, I think we can assume that they place no value on the lives of others.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

blame the victim. i guess you think women in short skirts are asking to be raped?

This is not the same thing, asshat. The OP was making a statement about safe practices. For all we know, he was wearing white, which won't stop you from dying if you get hit.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

White doesn't cut it at night.
Wear reflective.

Re:When you ride at night,

[characterZer0]

White does not always help. If you ride at night, use bright headlights and taillaights. I commute by bicycle and have lights on regardless of time of day. Too many drivers just do not pay sufficient attention.

In many places hit and run carries a lighter penalty than DUI, so often drivers have an incentive to flee. Hit and run should be a felony.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they panicked, which is a thing that happens.

I would venture to guess they probably do value human life, just not as much as their freedom, which is not 0.

Re:When you ride at night,

[CanHasDIY]

In many places hit and run carries a lighter penalty than DUI

... The fuck????

Where? I want to know which communities/states to add to my "Avoid Like the Bubonic Plague" list.

Re:When you ride at night,

[VAXcat]

He's not blaming the victim, he's quoting a Roling Stones song lyric. Jeez....woooshhhh

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah but reflective doesn't rhyme with night.

Re:When you ride at night,

[roninmagus]

I have never been to nor heard of such a community. The article seem to imply that this is a felony, as in this case I would think murder is the proper charge. "Anyone with information about the hit-and-run should call Crime Stoppers at 919-683-1200. Crime Stoppers pays cash rewards for information leading to arrests in felony cases and callers never have to identify themselves."

Re:When you ride at night,

[wisnoskij]

Yes, because bicycling down the middle of a street in complete black and with zero lights or reflectors is not asking to be run over.
This accident very well might of ruined the other guy's life as well, and might of been totally not his fault, for all we know.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

The phrase is "might have" or "might've", tardo.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Having once been a victim of this, although I'm usually against the death penalty in virtually all cases, I would personally be more than willing to consider arguments to make an exception for people who do the hit and run thing. Irrational I know, but your perspective changes a lot as you slide across the hood of a car going 60 miles an hour in a residential area (he chased and hit me).

Re:When you ride at night,

[wisnoskij]

And no amount of driving skill can protect you from invisible stupid bicyclers.

"I think we can assume that they place no value on the lives of others."
Or they did not want to go to jail for 20 years for a no-fault accident.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they didn't even notice they hit him. They slightest love tap from the side mirror of a 4000lbs vehicle can send a 250lbs bicycle and rider flipping, with the car driver none the wiser. Bikes can not safely coexist with 40+mph cars. If there are no pedestrians on the sidewalk, use it. Bike cops do.

Re:When you ride at night,

[barc0001]

The driver fleeing the scene is a pretty clear indication of whose fault the driver presumed the accident to be. Hint: not the cyclist's.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Culture20]

When you ride at night, wear lights. Unless you're going to the airport.

Re:When you ride at night,

[dan828]

Or he was drunk. Or high. Or had a suspended license. Or a warrant. Or was an "undocumented worker". Or any number of things that would lead the guy to flee the scene, even if he wasn't the at fault party. I mean, my experience tells me that the driver likely was at fault, but we really don't know, and there can be a ton a reasons why someone would take off.

Re:When you ride at night,

[pspahn]

I received Revolights for Christmas last year.

Of course, they won't prevent me from getting hit, but they sure do help. Cars, pedestrians, other cyclists... they all stop when I go by simply because they are looking at my lights because they look pretty fucking cool.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

wear white.

Wrong. Passive reflected light is nowhere near good enough.

Use LIGHTS. Multiple ones. BRIGHT ones. BRIGHT FLASHING ONES.

If you have those, you don''t need much else, although reflective pedals and tire sidewalls do help drivers identify a bicyclist.

Re:When you ride at night,

[QuadEddie]

He was a black guy with a suspended licence.

Re:When you ride at night,

[DavidJSimpson]

From the article, the accident happened at 9pm. So it probably wasn't dark.

Re:When you ride at night,

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

" i guess you think women in short skirts are asking to be raped?"

I say it depends. If she wears it within a cosmopolitan Western city, then no. But she shouldn't try that when traveling through some deeply conservative country where tradition dictates that a woman should cover herself up from head to toe.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Dishevel]

Not sure what he was wearing or the lighting conditions in the area he was hit.
But if you wear black clothes while riding at night in an area with no streetlights and you get hit by a car ...
While it might not legally be your fault ... You are still an idiot and contributed to your death.
With rape. A rapist is always wrong. But if I were a woman I would not go to strange places with strange men and leave my drink unattended.
If you are a parent and you are not teaching children these things then ... They are not the criminals but they have seriously increased the chances of bad things happening.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Hokan]

blame the victim. i guess you think women in short skirts are asking to be raped?

He's not "blaming the victim," he's pointing out a safety tip for those of you who don't understand the basic physics of how our eyes work, you Fuck.

So "don't wear short skirts" is a good safety tip after news of a rape?

Re:When you ride at night,

[Duhavid]

"And no amount of driving skill can protect you from invisible stupid bicyclers."

Try riding a bike for about a year, seriously. You will start to think "what will protect me from blind, stupid car drivers".

"Or they did not want to go to jail for 20 years for a no-fault accident"

Mind made up already? From what I have read, it sounds like the car driver was at fault.
He was hit from behind, and the driver slowed, and swerved
And then drove off. Could be either at fault. With the hit from behind part, it is hard to seriously argue is was the cyclist at fault.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. When you're riding day or night visibility is your you friend. The most dangerous person is the spaced out driver driving home on the same daily commute he's been doing for the last decade. You need to make yourself stick out or he'll plow in to you like you're not even there.

Right now I'm at work and I'm charging my serfas thunderbolts. Even in broad daylight they're shockingly visible.
https://www.serfas.com/products/view/669/referer:products|index|lights|tail-lights

That and a 700 lumen front light for when it's dark (Sometimes set it to flash on daytime commutes, particularly overcast days) You'd have to be near blind to miss me.
http://www.cygolite.com/products/expilion700.html

Yeah, the routine is weird when I get home. Pop off 4 devices (Bike gps/computer is USB charged too) and USB charge them all.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

So it was you? YOU BASTARD!!

Re:When you ride at night,

[characterZer0]

New York State.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

wear white.

Wrong. Passive reflected light is nowhere near good enough.

Use LIGHTS. Multiple ones. BRIGHT ones. BRIGHT FLASHING ONES.

If you have those, you don''t need much else, although reflective pedals and tire sidewalls do help drivers identify a bicyclist.

mod parent up

Re:When you ride at night,

[Duhavid]

"Yes, because bicycling down the middle of a street in complete black and with zero lights or reflectors is not asking to be run over."

    Was he cycling in the middle of the street? Probably not. And if he was?
    Was he in complete black? Probably not. And if he was?
    Did he have no lights or reflectors? Probably not. And if he was?

    I doubt seriously he was asking to be run over. As someone who used to ride seriously, you can make your bike up like a Christmas tree and still not be seen. You can be not seen in perfect daylight conditions. And you can, as a cyclist, be perfectly well seen and have someone decide they are going to run you over, deliberately. I have been the victim of that ( obeying the rules of the road ) on several occasions. Roll a few miles in a cyclist's pedals before you judge ( no, I don't think those "cyclists" who run red lights and disobey the rules as OK. Not OK to run them over, but I personally dislike intensely when I see a cyclist disobeying. )

"This accident very well might of ruined the other guy's life as well, and might of been totally not his fault, for all we know."

    It might well be as you say, but then, why not stay? Why not try to help?
    We dont know.

Re:When you ride at night,

[wisnoskij]

My mind is not made up at all, I am playing Devil's Advocate with someone who has made up their mind.

You have already made up your mind, and then seeing data that fits your scenario, you claim it gives evidence for your case.

But there is simply no hard data here. I hear "He was hit from behind, and the driver slowed, and swerved", and I can imagine an invisible cyclist at night with inadequate lights and reflectors. I can imagine a driver at full alert level and adequate skill seeing this cyclist without enough time to stop. I can imagine them slamming on the breaks and trying to swerve out of the way. Then panic stricken, and with a lower responsibility for their actions, continue driving, as they cannot think or comprehend what has even happened.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

I "understand the basic physics of how our eyes work" but also see the comment as blaming the victim.

oh, and I forgot to punctuate my indignation with "you Fuck"

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

you're right it was probably an illegal without a license or any insurance.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Duhavid]

Your presentation didn't match my exception of "Devils Advocate"....

But, something to consider, even without lights and a reflector, a cyclist is not invisible. Hard to see, yeah, not invisible.
Anyone driving should be looking for stuff, kids or animals running between cars, etc, etc.
It's not supposed to be "git the heck out of my way, I'm in a car!".

And on the slowing and swerving, that is what was in the article. It might be wrong, which would require a reevaluation.

On the driving away, even with a lower responsibility, it is hard to comprehend that they could think that driving away without checking would be a good idea.

I get what you are saying, you have a point.
I think I have one also.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Duhavid]

exception = expectation

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Or he was drunk. Or high.

So if the drive was drunk or high, it wasn't his fault?

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Having once been a victim of this, although I'm usually against the death penalty in virtually all cases, I would personally be more than willing to consider arguments to make an exception for people who do the hit and run thing. Irrational I know, but your perspective changes a lot as you slide across the hood of a car going 60 miles an hour in a residential area (he chased and hit me).

Sounds pretty arbitrary.

Did you not consider that other victims (eg. of stabbings or shootings) might want the death penalty used in their cases as well?

Re:When you ride at night,

[Charliemopps]

You're misconstruing "death by hit and run" with "hit and run" Most hit and runs are in parking lots and the other drivers inside the store. Also, in many states now, DUIs are considered so heinous the punishments in the "insane" category. It's not that hit and runs are lenient, it's that DUI offenses are treated ridiculously harsh. My state has one of the most lax DUI laws in the country and you still get a $2k fine, lose your license for at least a year and likely will get jail time.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

I once narrowly avoided a bicyclist at night while it was raining. There were no street lights. He had no bike lights and dark clothes on an overpass designated at 80km/h. Some people do not know how hard it is to see them. He lit up 15 feet right in front of me as I passed to the right from the street lane to the ramp lane for the highway. It pissed me off so much at the thought that I could have hit him and ruin my life that I wanted to circle around and kill the bastard. Of course, I would be in jail and he would get the Darwin award so I continued on my way.

I don't know any of the facts in this case but drivers need to pay attention and bicyclists have to make themselves as visible as possible. That should go without saying but apparently it needs to be said and often.

Re:When you ride at night,

[wisnoskij]

An perfectly working average set of lights with 0 fog will illuminate 30 meters of road. Without illumination or lights, you would be invisible further away than that.
An average person in perfect conditions, and on perfect roads, using perfect breaks, in an average vehicle would need to be driving under 40 MPH to stop in time. But in a real life situation, with slightly dusty lights and other factors, a real number might be half of that or less, depending on the situation.

Re:When you ride at night,

[ATMAvatar]

I have had multiple times in just the last few weeks where I will be sitting at a light, get the green, and a driver in the left turn lane on the opposite side will creep out, look directly at me, wait for me to start going, and *then* start to turn in front of me. Good times.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

The murderer was driving with a suspended licence which means he wasn't fit to drive. So yes, it was his fault because he's a crappy driver who should never have gotten into the car in the first place. And if he had been drunk or high or had a warrant he'd probably have had the same callous disrespect for human life. If you get drunk behind the wheel and kill someone, it's your fault, simple as that. So what exactly do you mean by ‘or’?
Someone very talented whom we'll sorely miss, who helped the world out a great deal is forever gone because some superfluous piece of shit wanted to shave three minutes of his transit, and the best thing you can do is argue that when you're drunk it isn't your fault when you drive over cyclists. Do you even read your posts before you hit submit? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

He had a suspended license.

Which means he is an assassin. If your license is suspended, you MUST NOT drive.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The safety tip is: don't look like a whore if you don't want to be treated as a whore.

Now, whether short skirts make you look like a whore *really* depends on location and time. And how people will deal with whores ALSO depends on location and time, last I checked it is against the law to force yourself on a whore... but she'll get a lot less sympathy, which makes them more likely to be rape victims.

The same goes to defensive driving. You do it because you are not a moron that values making a statement more than he values his life.

Actually, that means I cannot bike anywhere here in Brazil, it is too damn dangerous. When I want to bike, I really have to go by car to a public park, and bike there in no-motor-vehicle private streets.

And none of this has any relevance with the specific death of Mr. Vidal. I value his life a lot more than the life of the assassin that killed him, as far as I'm concerned, the unlicensed driver should have crashed and died right there while Vidal went on with his life.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Duhavid]

Invisible is not the right word. Harder to see? Sure.
Also, the light doesn't stop at 30 meters.

And if someone is driving fast enough that they cant stop when something comes within range of the headlights and it truly is that dark out, then I would argue that they were driving unsafely, period.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Duhavid]

Yikes. There is a lot of hostility out there, it seems.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Rennt]

Yes, let's blame the victim instead of the hit and run driver.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Or he was drunk. Or high. Or had a suspended license. Or a warrant. Or was an "undocumented worker"

If it was any of those things, then the driver shouldn't have been operating a vehicle and is therefore at fault automatically, no matter what the cyclist did.

Re:When you ride at night,

[wisnoskij]

You have pretty much no way of knowing exactly how far they can see, or how long their vehicle take to stop in optimum conditions, at any given speeds.

Add to that, that you cannot really expect people to slow down to 10 MPH every time the road conditions are not completely optimal, or to drive half the speed of your traffic peers.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Artifakt]

If you are a man, I would still advise not going to strange places with strange men and leaving your drink unattended.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Duhavid]

You made it sound like there was a big gap between their car's ability to stop and the distance out they can see.

If that is the case, then, yeah, I expect them to drive at speeds consonant with safety, and to ignore ( within the bounds of safety ) what other cars are doing ( and those other cars should be driving in a manner consonant with safety ). If they cant see out far enough so they can brake if something comes in view, that seems like a problem to me.

You cant really be arguing that it would be OK to drive at such a speed and in such conditions that a surprise like bad road, a box in the middle of the road, or an unexpected cyclist would result in a high probability of trouble/collision.

Re:When you ride at night,

[quantaman]

For the past few years in order to commute I've run instead of cycled and my worries about traffic were a definite factor in that decision.

Granted running decreases your range and takes a higher level of fitness, but it's not as hard as you imagine. Plus you don't have to drag a bike around, keep it maintained, and most of all you don't have to share the road with rolling blobs of death.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

He was a black guy with a suspended licence.

Citation, you racist ignorant fuck? (note, recind that last part if you actually *supply* a legitimate citation)

http://www.wral.com/man-charged-in-durham-hit-and-run-that-killed-bicyclist/12644209/

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt at 9pm in North Carolina it was all that dark. It's 9:10p here in Cincinnati and it's certainly still light enough out to see clearly.

Re:When you ride at night,

[wisnoskij]

But the average driver does not even have the ability to know how long ti takes to stop their vehicle, so you are expecting people to follow guideline that they do not know.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

The driver fleeing the scene is a pretty clear indication of whose fault the driver presumed the accident to be. Hint: not the cyclist's.

No, people are prone to simply panic and flee, they aren't thinking anything other than "OH SHIT!"

Re:When you ride at night,

[damicatz]

North Carolina is one of those places.

Felony hit and run is a Class H Felony (http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/Councils/spac/Documents/FelonyChart_12_01_11MaxChart.pdf). With no priors, the maximum you can get is 8 months in prison.

Felony death by motor vehicle (any death from a motor vehicle that is the result of driving while impaired) is normally treated as involuntary manslaughter (Class F, 20 months max with no priors) but can be upgraded to second degree murder (Class B1, 300 months for no prior offense) if there are aggravating circumstances (e.g. a prior history of DWI).

Re:When you ride at night,

[Paradise Pete]

yeah but reflective doesn't rhyme with night.

Good point.

"When the sun's defective, wear reflective." No, that's no good.
"When the sun's not detected, make sure you're reflected." That's better.

(And of course right out is "If you're not reflected, the mourners will be genuflected." It's not even a good rhyme.)

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Dusk. The absolute worst time from a visibility perspective.

Bummer. It's a shame however it happened. Rest in peace, Seth.

Re:When you ride at night,

[bws111]

New York State does not have any offense called 'hit and run'. They (and I assume most other places) have a law called 'leaving the scene of an incident without reporting'. That only covers the 'run' part. If a death was involved, leaving the scene is a class D felony, carrying a two to five thousand dollar penalty.

That still leaves the 'hit' part. Depending on the circumstances, the 'hit' part may be vehicular homicide, which is an additional charge to the 'leaving the scene' charge. That can also be a class D felony, carrying both a fine and/or imprisonment.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, the light doesn't stop at 30 meters.

You mean those dots in the sky ... they're like as far as 100m away?

Re:When you ride at night,

[MacGyver2210]

Also, in many states now, DUIs are considered so heinous the punishments in the "insane" category.

I'd love to know which ones. In Wisconsin, where I live, I see people FREQUENTLY getting 4th through 8th DUIs, and I can't help but wonder why the cops are so fucking terrible at keeping these people off the streets(or, you know, doing their job at all). I quickly realized that they don't WANT these people off the streets, as they use it as a revenue generator.

"We give you a real hard slap on the wrist, and take your plastic card, and suddenly you can't drive. Oh wait, you don't follow the law, you'll drive anyway(or pay the exorbitant fines and fees to get your 'sort-of' license reinstated). When you break the law again, we can charge you even MORE and let you go AGAIN!"

If the government actually wanted to prevent DUIs, they would adopt Germany's DUI penalty: First offense - ENORMOUS fine, lose your license(which costs thousands of euros to obtain in Germany), vehicle seized and sold, proceeds donated to any victims or a fund for the same. Second offense - Huge fines, and prison. Lots, and lots, of prison.

Re:When you ride at night,

[bws111]

Those two laws are not mutally exclusive. The 'hit' part of hit and run is covered by the second law. The 'run' part is covered by the first law. So, yes, the most you can get for running is 8 months, but that is 8 months on top of, not instead of, the other charge.

In this case, the driver was driving with a suspended license, so he will probably face the second degree murder AND the leaving the scene law.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is both illegal and dangerous. I've actually almost gotten into fights with people because they were riding on the sidewalk and I instructed them to ride in the road.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Black LED]

This is why I encourage all drivers and bikers to install a dash/handlebar camera that just records in loop mode. This way if anything happens, there is video evidence of exactly what happened. If the driver truly was not at fault, they would have no reason to fear and might even be able to save a life because they weren't afraid to stop and phone in the accident.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

wear white.

The best answer is hyper vigilance. I've had a motor cycle for years. Cars are constantly trying to merge with me. Heck, most of us have had cars try to merge with us in our cars. So, while it's a good start, getting lights or reflective clothing is not enough. I had all of this on a much bigger cycle, and I was still invisible to most cars. Ask anyone who rides, and they'll tell you the same thing.

If you ride a bike, bicycle or motorcycle, awareness of your surroundings is your best tool. Second, treat every vehicle that approaches or is near you as a threat. Third, make yourself visible. This includes bright clothing and flashing your lights at approaching vehicles. All three steps should be done day or night. Following these steps offers no certainty, but it's everyone's best bet.

As someone who rides, has survived a number of near misses, and recent losses of my own, my thoughts and condolences are with Seth's family.

Re:When you ride at night,

[flimflammer]

Even if he was wrong (he wasn't), how would that have made him an "ignorant racist fuck"?

Re:When you ride at night,

[datavirtue]

I wonder what would happen is slashdot started automatically expanding contractions.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Antibozo]

Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is both illegal and dangerous. I've actually almost gotten into fights with people because they were riding on the sidewalk and I instructed them to ride in the road.

That could because riding on a sidewalk was not illegal.

That is, it is illegal in some places, but it's far from a universal law. In Washington, D.C., it is legal to ride on the sidewalk in most of the city, excluding a high-traffic area in the downtown. In Northern Virginia it is generally legal unless signed otherwise; in fact some of the trails in Arlington, just outside D.C., are routed over sidewalks.

Whether it's dangerous depends on a lot of things, including the expectations of the other sidewalk users. In the D.C. area, i can tell you, injuries to pedestrians from cyclists riding on the sidewalk are exceedingly rare.

Check your local laws, and please don't misinform.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Rakarra]

But, something to consider, even without lights and a reflector, a cyclist is not invisible. Hard to see, yeah, not invisible

As a regular driver and a regular biker, I can see both sides. First, I know a lot of bicylists do some truly stupid things, like not stopping at stop signs even when cross-traffic is approaching. When biking I tend not to stop completely at stop lights (though I slow down) when I don't see cars coming, because I hate starting from a cold stop. And as a driver, I know how difficult it can be to see a bicyclist dressed all in black at night in the rain when my car's headlights aren't on high-beams. Sure, I won't hit them when they're biking on the side of the road out of direct traffic. Even if they were in the middle of a lane I wouldn't hit them. But I have almost hit bicyclists with my car (hell, sometimes with my bike!) when they crossed a road at night while wearing dark clothes and said intersection had no lights. Even if you have a cross-walk, if you have no lights, there's no guarantee. You don't see someone like that, even when you look, until they pass before your headlights! Once they're in front of me? Oh sure, of course I can see them. But they might pass right in front of me and it would be too late. Has it ever happened that a cyclist passes before me and I haven't been able to stop? Thank heavens, no. But there have been close calls when someone naively road across the street right in front of me.

Remember, as a cyclist, protect yourself. Rules of the road? Right of way? All of that is bullshit that doesn't matter if the driver doesn't notice you, because a car/truck will beat a bike every time. Who will come out the worse in such a collision? Being in a full-body cast in the hospital and saying "but I had the right of way" will be no comfort. Be defensive and bike defensively yielding the right of way to anyone that you're not sure can see you.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Rakarra]

And as a followup, this is why I hate biking at night and avoid it when I can, or choose quiet streets with little to no traffic where any cars coming to, from, or across can be seen with plenty of time.

I did once run into a car about a year ago when a car in the lane left of me made a right turn across a bike lane into a driveway. His excuse? "But I had my right blinker on!" As if that excuses cutting across a lane of oncoming traffic. Even if you take precautions you can't avoid any act of negligence! But hopefully you can avoid most of them.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Duhavid]

That is pretty sad. And quite true.

How does anyone operate a machine capable of creating so much death and destruction without having a fair idea of it's parameters?

But yeah, I do expect them to follow that guideline. I think in most places, the law would hold them to it also.
My personal opinion is that most people should not be driving. My oldest daughter just started driving, and I hope and believe I have impressed an appreciation that driving is much more than just pointing the car in a given direction....

Re:When you ride at night,

[Rakarra]

. Even if you take precautions you can't avoid any act of negligence!

Dammit, sometimes I wish you could edit your own posts. Preview all you want, sometimes you won't catch typos until minutes later. That SHOULD read "Even if you take precautions you can't avoid EVERY act of negligence."

Re:When you ride at night,

[Rakarra]

Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is both illegal and dangerous.

It depends in the situation. I've been in situations before where there was an intersection or road junction where traffic moves fast and there's no shoulder and riding on the sidewalk was the safer option. Do I slow way down? Sure, down to walking speed if walkers are around. I've learned to avoid such locations completely, but if you aren't in the area, taking a quick sidewalk detour -can- be a lot safer than the road. "Can," because some idiots ride unsafely on the sidewalk; sadly there's no hope for them.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Duhavid]

I agree completely. There are many "cyclists" that I would like to make it so they are not allowed to ride any more.
Course, there are a good number of car drivers I would extend the same privilege to...

So, yeah, there will be car/bike accidents where the car driver did everything right. But I have had too many almosts with boneheads to think that is anything like a small percentage. And there will be ones where the cyclist was a bonehead and did it to themselves. And I see too many idiot cyclists to believe that that is a small percentage.

Definitely, protect yourself cyclists, and idiots, stop being idiots!
Car drivers, keep your eyes and minds on your responsibilities.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Duhavid]

I had a similar thing ( car turning across bike lane ) happen to me. Old dude in a huge convertible, top down.
Took me right into the curb and laid me down, just barely passed me, then turned.
I'm lying on the ground, he drove off.
Didn't get hurt, I started braking and turned into the curb ( which stopped me cold and put a big gash in my RH crank arm ) while it was happening.

So, yeah, I would avoid night riding, were I actively cycling, and be similarly reserved.

( and for what it is worth, I don't get belligerent while riding, I do realize you are right about "i had the right of way" wont help when dead or maimed or ... ).

Re:When you ride at night,

[spike hay]

Actually riding on the sidewalk is much more dangerous. Cars do not expect fast moving vehicles on the sidewalk, and it is comon to be hit in driveways/crosswalks. Cyclists do best as part of traffic. Even bike lanes are more risky than a shared lane, because drivers aren't accustomed to looking to the side, making for tons of left or right hook crashes. Of course, widely available bike lanes increase bike commuting by quite a lot, and there as a huge safety benefit from numbers (because drivers come to expect cyclists).

  Despite how dangerous people think it is, cycling is actually slightly less dangerous per mile than walking. It's only three times as dangerous in terms of fatalities/mile as driving. That is of course outweighed by the health benefits many times over. And you are more likely to get laid.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Rakarra]

So "don't wear short skirts" is a good safety tip after news of a rape?

In dangerous areas, maybe it is. Don't wear provocative clothing while walking alone through a bad neighborhood. I don't leave $100 bills on the passenger seat of my car if I park in a place with a high break-in rate (or anywhere, really). Most car stereos come with detachable face-plates so people can put them in the glove compartment and hide the fact they have a mid-high-end stereo system to discourage break-ins. Is that a statement from the stereo manufacturers saying "fuck you, you deserved to get stolen from?" No, it's an acknowledgement that sometimes it's safer when miscreants are around to avoid dangling temptation. Unless, like, you're Batman and you can totally protect yourself. Because "but I have the right to wear nice clothes" means nothing after you've been raped. If you can, avoid the rape in the first place.

This is a weird argument that comes up in so many strange circumstances. "Are you saying if he didn't lock his front door in the city, he deserved that someone walk away with his TV?" "Are you saying if she wore a short skirt she deserved to get raped?" "Are you saying if he rode a bike across traffic in black clothes and no lights he deserved to get hit by a car?" I'm saying none of those things. But it is an acknowledgement that the real world does not work on pure ideal, and that people do have to be aware of risks and adjust their behavior appropriately. What we do in a perfect world can never match the real world.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Charliemopps]

Well first of all, I was talking about Wisconsin, that's where I live to. Yes we have some of the weakest DUI laws in the country but you've clearly never gotten a DUI here. Neither have I, but I know people who have and it's no easy thing as you make it out to be. The people that get multiple offenses don't have licenses and don't have jobs. They just keep racking up tickets and not paying them. They spend a few months in jail, get out, re-offend. The ironic twist is often these people are such horrible alcoholics they rarely make it very far out of the bar parking lot before getting picked up. If you have no money, a $2k fine doesn't really matter to you.

However, if you've got a job that you need to drive to... and a mortgage to pay... i.e. you're a normal person... a first offense DUI is unmerciful. Of particular annoyance are court ordered drug counseling classes that you now have very few legal means to get to in our mostly rural state. You're basically either bumming rides weekly from friends or going back to jail for contempt. Oh, and don't forget your car insurance is going to drop you immediately and when you do get your license back are going to triple your rates for the next 7 years or so.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Rakarra]

Oof. I'm not sure where you live, but where I live, it's just... a common convention that left-turners creep out into the street, ready for an opening. If the light turns fully red and they're still there (which sometimes happens because sometimes jerks run yellow lights even when left-turners are in the intersection, avoid doing that), other people wait for the intersection to clear before heading through. Occasionally you'll get someone directly following that left-turner right through the red light, because apparently it's OK if you're directly following a person going through the intersection.

This is just... convention, how people treat those situations in a major metropolitan area in the US, not just the sticks. I'm sure other regions will do things differently.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Rakarra]

KKK hoods are stylish, but they really reduce your peripheral vision which can be a real problem when riding a bike.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Rakarra]

I'd love to know which ones. In Wisconsin, where I live, I see people FREQUENTLY getting 4th through 8th DUIs, and I can't help but wonder why the cops are so fucking terrible at keeping these people off the streets(or, you know, doing their job at all). I quickly realized that they don't WANT these people off the streets, as they use it as a revenue generator.

I feel for the cops on the street, chances are they have no say whether your driver's license gets suspended/revoked or not.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Antibozo]

Actually riding on the sidewalk is much more dangerous.

As i said, whether it's dangerous depends on a lot of things. There are plenty of places in my area where there are long stretches of sidewalk without driveways or crosswalks. There are people who ride at more or less a walking pace, which incurs no more danger than walking itself. There are places such as open beachfront areas where there are enough cyclists on sidewalks that drivers are conditioned to look for them. There are places where a roadway is grooved, or has badly placed drainage grates that make a sidewalk a safer option. And so on.

I'm a regular bike commuter. I generally avoid sidewalks, unless trails are routed over them. My post was primarily to correct the misinformation that cycling on the sidewalk is illegal; this is one of several commonly held myths about cycling law (another one, absurdly, being that cyclists must ride on sidewalks). In some places sidewalk cycling is illegal, and some places it's dangerous. It is not, however, universally both of these.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is illegal throughout all of California (where I live), unless specifically posted. In all of the circumstance when I've told people to ride in the road, they were areas where bicycles aren't allowed. On a couple of instances, people were actually riding on a very narrow (think one walking person's width) on a freeway overpass.

Next time, try not to jump to conclusions.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Antibozo]

Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is illegal throughout all of California (where I live), unless specifically posted. In all of the circumstance when I've told people to ride in the road, they were areas where bicycles aren't allowed. On a couple of instances, people were actually riding on a very narrow (think one walking person's width) on a freeway overpass.

That is not correct. See, for example: http://la-bike.org/resources/california-bicycle-laws

"Each city in California has its own rules about riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. Some cities allow sidewalk riding, some don’t. Check with your city’s municipal code."

Generally the state code allows it, but allows municipalities to outlaw it. Many have done so in their business districts.

Next time, try not to jump to conclusions.

Next time, try to be right.

Re:When you ride at night,

[barc0001]

"Or he was drunk" - His fault and he was breaking the law

"Or high" - His fault and he was breaking the law

"Or had a suspended license" - Indeed he did, and once again, HIS FAULT for being on the road when he shouldn't have been.

"Or a warrant." - So he's breaking the law 24/7 and should have turned himself in to sort it out.

"Or was an 'undocumented worker'" - You mean someone in the country illegally who hasn't got a driver's license? You mean someone breaking the law by driving a motor vehicle without a license? His fault.

"even if he wasn't the at fault party" - These words do not mean what you think they mean. If any of your conditions you listed for fleeing were true (and one was!) then he should NOT have been on the road, and by choosing to drive he deliberately started a chain of events that ended in tragedy. His fault.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is illegal throughout all of California (where I live), unless specifically posted

Learn to read.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

People should not be riding bikes on streets, period, without a separate lane, especially in suburban areas, and especially at night, no matter how visible you are.

The problem is that people tend to change their direction toward whatever they're looking at. It's why cops, and people changing the tire on their car, get run over all the time. It's not that drivers don't see these people. Drivers don't randomly swerve off the road enough to account for the number of accidents. It's that they *did* see them, but were zoned out*. They saw them, focused on them, and subconsciously drove right into them.

* Yeah, zoned out. Ever drive a few miles down the road and realize you have no memory of how you traversed that distance. Happens to drivers, bike riders, walkers... everybody.

The answer isn't to rant and rave at drivers. The answer is more dedicated bike lanes and bike paths. Here in San Francisco, for example, they should close-off every few streets to through-traffic and dedicate it to bikes. You can allow cars to park, but just put up barriers at the intersections for the entire length of the street. I don't understand why the city doesn't do this. I'm not a biker, but I'm cool with dedicating resources for bikers, just like we do for cars. If biking were safer I'd probably pick it up.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Antibozo]

Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is illegal throughout all of California (where I live), unless specifically posted

Learn to read.

Indeed, you should. There is no specific posting requirement. It is generally legal throughout all of California, unless specifically outlawed by a municipality. How that municipality chooses to inform people is up to them. So you're pretty much exactly wrong.

Here's the real problem: you've been starting fights with people for doing something perfectly legal, laboring under the false belief that they were breaking the law and OMG! Now you, understandably, feel like a douche, but instead of saying, "Hey, you know, i really should check, and if i was wrong, well, i wish there were a way to apologize to those people i was hassling for no good reason, but live and learn—I stand corrected," you're doubling down.

This way lies madness. Repent.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Reflective doesn't cut it at night. Wear active--as in battery-powered and blinking.

Re:When you ride at night,

[peppepz]

Or they panicked, which is a thing that happens.

Indeed it happens, and when it happens you go to jail for it, and justly.

I would venture to guess they probably do value human life, just not as much as their freedom, which is not 0.

People who give more value to anything than human life are criminals, what's your point? What if somebody values my life a lot, but just a bit less than taking all my money?

Re:When you ride at night,

[peppepz]

And no amount of driving skill can protect you from invisible stupid bicyclers.

Actually, it's quite easy, you just have to drive slow enough to be able to brake before hitting anything that is in front of you. That would have avoided most of the accidents I've seen.

Or they did not want to go to jail for 20 years for a no-fault accident.

A no-fault accident is when a biker appears from the side of the road and you can't manage to avoid hitting him. In this case, the biker was hit from behind, so the fault his the driver's, full stop. Moreover, when you have an accident, you don't get to decide whose fault it is. You stay there and help the victim. If you run, you're a criminal, no excuses.

Re:When you ride at night,

[fnj]

Jesus. She cannot be presumed to be asking for it regardless of the hang-ups of the local medieval population.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Zontar The Mindless]

Thanks to my dad, I was introduced to the physics of automobiles starting at about age 14.

F=ma, baby.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Zontar The Mindless]

She can be presumed to be an idiot if she knows the locals are like that and insists on showing some leg anyhow--or even her face, in some places.

Please don't confuse value judgements with facts.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Duhavid]

Yes, F=MA, to be sure.

So, no one should ride a bike, ever?

Re:When you ride at night,

[wonkey_monkey]

New York State does not have any offense called 'hit and run'.

Does anywhere? I thought it was just a colloquialism.

Re:When you ride at night,

[wonkey_monkey]

as in this case I would think murder is the proper charge

Based on what? Reading a couple of articles? How about we leave this to someone who'll spend more than five minutes on the case and gets to read the reports of everyone involved and see all the photos and interview all the witnesses?

Re:When you ride at night,

[NotSanguine]

No. The safety tip is: don't look like a whore if you don't want to be treated as a whore.

Okay, let me make sure I understand your point. You're saying that it's appropriate to rape sex workers? Or are you saying that anyone wearing revealing clothes should expect to be offered money in exchange for sex? I can kind of see some logic in the latter, but where I come from the latter is right out. Call me old fashioned, but I believe that rape is *never* justified. Consent is necessary for sexual activity. Period.

If you believe differently, then we need to keep a close eye on you.

Re:When you ride at night,

[victorhooi]

Hi,

Err, let's see, it's a *hit-and-run* - meaning the driver scampered off after hitting the guy, instead of stopping to lend assistance, calling 911, or at least check if he was alright. Last time I checked, that's not only illegal (hence the police charges), it also makes you a pretty horrible human being.

Anyhow, the guy must have had pangs of guilt (or he was worried he'd get pegged anyway)., because he's now handed himself out - then it turns out he was driving on a suspended license...go figure.

Cheers,
Victor

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

" He was charged with felony hit-and-run and driving while license revoked."

http://www.wral.com/man-charged-in-durham-hit-and-run-that-killed-bicyclist/12644209/

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Your attitude (which unfortunately is that of most people) may be why the driver flee the scene.

Consider this scenario: you are driving a car on a desert road, suddenly out of nowhere a cyclist comes in your path and you hit him before you can do anything; you stop to see if he is okay, but he is dead beyond boubt; nobody has seen you; would you call the police?

EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty. The driver fleeing the scene is not an indication of fault.
Before it can have a chance to defend himself, his only fault is fleeing the scene.

As long as the "non victim" part is guilty by default, the best option is flee if you can.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh.

I think he was poking fun at the women-who-dress-like-whores-deserve-to-get-raped schtick. Every single time someone suggests that wearing a bikini and rambling around drunk in a dark alley in a major metropolitan city might not be a good idea rape-wise, the militant feminists jump out of the woodwork and basically post what he posted with some added vitriol.

The fundamental misunderstandings being 1. there is enough "blame" to go around and 2. taking steps to reduce likelyhood of an event is not the same as assuming the full responsibility of preventing said event.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there is. Come here and trying riding on some random sidewalk and see if you don't get stopped by the cops.

Keep talking. I'm slightly amused.

Re:When you ride at night,

[dunkelfalke]

Not just wear, use them as well. I have seen too many stupid cyclists cycling without light at night because they were too lazy to switch the lights on. They just don't get that the light is not for them to see better, but for the others.

Re:When you ride at night,

[dunkelfalke]

Or you can use a hub dynamo and a lamp with USB output, you know.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Joce640k]

I can imagine them slamming on the breaks.

If they were mixing a dance track while driving, they're at fault.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Antibozo]

Yes, there is. Come here and trying riding on some random sidewalk and see if you don't get stopped by the cops.

Random? Sure, stochastically speaking, choosing a random sidewalk in California carries some small probability that one will be in violation of a municipal law, a much smaller probability one will get cited, and an almost infinitesimal probability that some ignorant pipsqueak will try to pick a fight, although, in the last case, cycling will almost certainly be legal on that particular sidewalk, because, as has already been established, the pipsqueak is ignorant.

If you're in the L.A. area, you can review this to figure out what areas you can pick fights in without yourself being arrested for Being So Wrong That the Law Must Intervene:
http://ladotbikeblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/la-county-sidewalk-riding-part1/

Re:When you ride at night,

[tofarr]

As I cyclist, I can tell you that when riding at night, wearing white is not enough. Wear dark clothes, and you are invisible. Wear white clothes or a florescent top, and you are invisible under orange sodium lamps. Your best bet is reflectors (included with most hi visibility cycling clothing) which will make you glow like a beacon under direct headlights, florescent coloured fabrics (Which make you stand out when there is any ambient light), and strong working lights (Make sure to check/replace your batteries regularly) for when it is dark and you are not directly in the beam of a headlight. Source: Years cycling home in heavy traffic after dark and still alive!

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously as he's black, we don't want to be jumping to any conclusions.

It was probably the cyclist who rode in front of him. He just drove home to get help.

Nope, we're not racist. We find him innocent - see, we're not racist.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

It really irritates me when people trot out this "blaming the victim" crap. You know what, nobody wants to be the target of a crime. That much should be obvious to anybody.

If I am robbed at 2am, walking through the bad part of town, with my iPhone 5 in my hand and a twenty dollar bill hanging out of my pockets, people would rightly tell me that I should have avoided all of those things. Likewise, if an attractive woman is walking alone in a sketchy area wearing clothes that are openly displaying her assets, where should not be much cause for surprise if she attracts unwanted attention.

Human nature is what it is, and there ain't no changing that. Use your damn common sense.

Re:When you ride at night,

[sturle]

.. in the summer ..

wear white.

Yellow reflective vest works even better at all times of day and year.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Classic DWB.

Re:When you ride at night,

[malkavian]

Especially when you're banned from driving at the time you hit the cyclist.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's quite easy, you just have to drive slow enough to be able to brake before hitting anything that is in front of you. That would have avoided most of the accidents I've seen.

Has saved me a few times from striking another vehicle that was ignoring posted signs.

I've nearly hit cars that were ignoring prohibited U-Turn signs and people ignoring yield signs.

Re:When you ride at night,

[X0563511]

Lights and hi-vis on your clothing.

It's kind of hard for a driver to miss a strobing red light...

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll grant you situations where there is no street lighting, but where there are street lights I've never had a problem seeing stupid cyclists riding without lights, if you do then you should get your eyes checked.

Re:When you ride at night,

[X0563511]

You'd see lots of clbuttic expansion errors, I'm sure.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

""Or was an 'undocumented worker'" - You mean someone in the country illegally who hasn't got a driver's license? You mean someone breaking the law by driving a motor vehicle without a license? His fault."

Just commenting to correct this. An undocumented worker can have a driver's license. For example, you could get a student visa, get your license, and then not leave when you visa was up.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Duhavid]

It should be. It seems to have to do with the cognitive process some drivers go through,at a guess.
I would ride where a bike is supposed to be, would light up like a Christmas tree at night, and cars would *still* not see me.
I had one guy make a right hand turn directly in front of me. Visually, in terms of photons bouncing off me, I could not have been more visible.
The guy just drove right past me, then directly across my path. There was nothing preventing him seeing me, yet, still he didn't.
( and there are other incidents like this that inform my opinion on this... )

Some ( many? ) treat the responsibility seriously and are looking for "things I can hurt/damage" and "things that can hurt/damage me".
Others have a different take on things ( at least as experienced by me ), and are only looking at "things that can hurt/damage me"

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you do not live in Wisconsin. They take lax to its extreme limits. http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/offenses.htm

$150 to $300 and 6-9 month revocation. But you can apply for occupational license immediately, and those are similarly lax.

Re:When you ride at night,

[CanHasDIY]

I agree completely. There are many "cyclists" that I would like to make it so they are not allowed to ride any more.
Course, there are a good number of car drivers I would extend the same privilege to...

I'm a firm believer that if we were as strict with driving requirements as we probably should be, the vast majority of vehicle operators would be permanently relegated to public transportation.

Re:When you ride at night,

[CanHasDIY]

It should be. It seems to have to do with the cognitive process some drivers go through,at a guess.
I would ride where a bike is supposed to be, would light up like a Christmas tree at night, and cars would *still* not see me.
I had one guy make a right hand turn directly in front of me. Visually, in terms of photons bouncing off me, I could not have been more visible.
The guy just drove right past me, then directly across my path. There was nothing preventing him seeing me, yet, still he didn't.
( and there are other incidents like this that inform my opinion on this... )

If it makes you feel any better, that happens to motorists a lot as well - idiot flies past in the left lane, zips right in front of you, then slams on his brakes (and, of course, doesn't hit his turn signal until he's pretty much done turning).

The major difference being, obviously, that I'm a lot more likely to survive the ordeal in my truck than I would if I were on a bicycle, but it still pisses me off.

Re:When you ride at night,

[CanHasDIY]

A no-fault accident is when a biker appears from the side of the road and you can't manage to avoid hitting him.

That's not 'no-fault,' if one of the vehicle operators failed to yield to right-of-way (for example, if one of them blew a stop sign).

I can't speak for anywhere else, but where I live the only place you can have a no-fault accident is in a parking lot.

Re:When you ride at night,

[CanHasDIY]

She can be presumed to be an idiot if she knows the locals are like that and insists on showing some leg anyhow--or even her face, in some places.

In other words:

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Re:When you ride at night,

[omnichad]

obligatory (and yet not xkcd):
http://thedoghousediaries.com/1934

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

My daughters friend was killed by a hit and run driver, got 36 months. He was walking at night in an unlit area wearing dark clothes. It is not blaming the victim to point out that it was a stupid thing to do and he paid a heavy price for it. The 'blaming the victim' meme needs to die in a fire. Walking through central park at night alone is a stupid thing to do, especially if you are female. Doesn't mean that she deserved getting raped, but it was still stupid.

Re:When you ride at night,

[omnichad]

You need a full-size car horn on your bicycle. That'll scare them into submission.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of the James Kim(editor for CNET) incident. It was his stupidity that put himself and his family at risk, and when he left his car and family he sealed his fate. Riding a bike at night increases your risk of injury or death. Reminding people of that is a public service.

Re:When you ride at night,

[omnichad]

Where it is legal, cyclists should yield at crosswalks, as they're not pedestrians and should have no expectation that cars should stop for the unexpected high-speed traffic.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Duhavid]

I never wanted submission, only to be able to ride my bike, legally, and according to the rules of the road without fear of becoming hamburger because someone couldn't be bothered to see what is right in front of them.

And a car horn would not work to make them see when needed, only after I am already in trouble ( or do I blow it continually? )

Re:When you ride at night,

[omnichad]

Although flashing lights are more noticeable, it's much harder to judge distance when the light keeps going dark.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Arbitrarily deciding on the race of the driver and reason why he ran sounds pretty much like racist ignorance to me. Should to you too.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Gen_Music]

Doesn't mean he was at fault stupid. Nobody said he wasn't breaking the law by doing thse things, only that the actual crash could have been the fault of the cyclists.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Retard Pointing out that the bike rider did something stupid is a public service. If you leave a couple $100 bills in your car, in view, don't you deserve some of the blame when someone breaks in your car? If you leave on vacation, and didn't lock your doors/garage don't you shoulder some of the blame when your house gets broken into? It is tragic that he is dead, but reminding people that if they go out on the roads at night make sure they are as visible as possible is not blaming the victim.

Re:When you ride at night,

[roninmagus]

...that's exactly what is going to happen ? Hello, and welcome to the internet.

Re:When you ride at night,

[DuckDodgers]

Actually, it's quite easy, you just have to drive slow enough to be able to brake before hitting anything that is in front of you. That would have avoided most of the accidents I've seen.

At speeds as "slow" as 30 mph (just under 50 km/h) you are moving at 44 feet per second ( ~13 m/s ), so if something goes wrong and it takes you half a second to react properly, you will travel 22 feet ( 7 m ) before your vehicle even begins to slow down.

In a really sporty car with great brakes and nearly new summer tires, on dry roads, it takes 100 feet (~30m) to come to a dead stop from 60 mph (~97 km/h). With all-season tires or worn brakes or a vehicle that is not a sports car, the distance to stop can be twice as long.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't even know what racism means. So, in summary: You're the ignorant fuck.

Re:When you ride at night,

[peppepz]

50 km/h is still too much in case of fog or blind curves. I'm thinking about the kinds of road where you can expect to find bicycles, not motorways.

You have no idea of the things I've found behind one of those curves: cows, landslides, drugged bikers... once even a wise man who deemed it a good idea to have a kid drive his car on one of those roads that have a stone wall on one side and a chasm on the other.

Re:When you ride at night,

[snl2587]

Ok, where in the hell are you getting that the victim was wearing dark clothing?

Re:When you ride at night,

[barc0001]

I tend to take a bit of a strict view of these things. If you are doing something you are not supposed to be doing, like driving with your license suspended or drunk, and an accident happens, you're automatically partly at fault. Because if you were doing what you were supposed to, your vehicle wouldn't have been on the road and the accident would most likely not have occurred at all. I don't care if the immediate accident was your fault or not, the simple fact of the matter is you shouldn't have been there at all.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Antibozo]

Where it is legal, cyclists should yield at crosswalks, as they're not pedestrians and should have no expectation that cars should stop for the unexpected high-speed traffic.

Cyclists and pedestrians should use caution at crosswalks. Generally, where cyclists are entitled to use sidewalks, however, they have the same rights as pedestrians on sidewalks and crosswalks, and do not need to yield the right of way any more than pedestrians do, except to actual pedestrians. So, yes, be cautious with speed (runners need to also), but don't accept relegation to second-class status.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you please cite at least one modern feminist that you're pulling from? I mean feminist writers, not TV personalities.

Re:When you ride at night,

[omnichad]

At least in my state, you don't have the right of way to cross unless the drivers have time to slow down for you:
http://dps.illinois.edu/universitypolice/pedestrian.html

On a bicycle or running, that's pretty much going to require you to stop and look both ways. A car doesn't have to yield unless you were already in the intersection early enough for the car to then react and slow down. If you aren't in the intersection yet, a car can zoom right by even if you were about to take your first step or pedal - so be careful!

Re:When you ride at night,

[Antibozo]

At least in my state, you don't have the right of way to cross unless the drivers have time to slow down for you:
http://dps.illinois.edu/universitypolice/pedestrian.html

On a bicycle or running, that's pretty much going to require you to stop and look both ways. A car doesn't have to yield unless you were already in the intersection early enough for the car to then react and slow down. If you aren't in the intersection yet, a car can zoom right by even if you were about to take your first step or pedal - so be careful!

Yes, i think that's commonly true, but it's true for pedestrians, runners, and cyclists, alike. I'm saying cyclists aren't second-class crosswalk users in this regard, which i think was implied, if unintentionally, by your earlier post. For legal purposes, they are pedestrians.

Yes, definitely be careful!

Re:When you ride at night,

[omnichad]

Well - part of the problem is that pedestrians don't think they have to be seen before stepping out. So extending that to all is an ugly picture. So I was just clarifying.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Meski]

Further, have lights that are visible to vehicles at right-angles (or so) to you. LED's pointing for and aft are useless if a bike is travelling across. Use those wheel reflectors. Or wheel lights.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Meski]

Perhaps the offense originally carried adequate penalties, but the nanny-state decided to increase DUI penalties out of all proportion to the rest.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Meski]

That we need a law for this is pretty amazing. Anyone who leaves the scene after hitting another car/bike/animal is scum.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Antibozo]

Fair enough—point taken.

Re:When you ride at night,

[uninformedLuddite]

My friends 12yo daughter was run down by an SUV. The driver (who had connections in the South Australian justice system) pled not guilty for a few years then changed his plea. The penalty he got for killing a twelve year old girl was a $100 fine and NO BAN from driving at all. Did I mention that somehow he was never tested for drugs or alcohol?
Why bother running here when you don't get in trouble anyway?

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

I received Revolights for Christmas last year.

Of course, they won't prevent me from getting hit, but they sure do help. Cars, pedestrians, other cyclists... they all stop when I go by simply because they are looking at my lights because they look pretty fucking cool.

And while they are looking at you, they hit other cyclists and pedestrians. An arms race in distractions.

I think in Austria driving with headlights on 24h was made mandatory for a while. The outcome was a higher number of traffic deaths, so they backpedaled. But other legislations do not understand the message.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

The driver fleeing the scene is a pretty clear indication of whose fault the driver presumed the accident to be. Hint: not the cyclist's.

How do you figure that? "He got what he was asking for." is perfectly consistent with driving away.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, let me make sure I understand your point. You are saying you are a dipshit and a moron that can't parse simple English.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter pointing out that people out at night on the roads need to be as visible as possible is solid advice. It is just you retards that think that pointing out something obvious is "blaming the victim" Fuck you and your dead-brain.

Re:When you ride at night,

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't think you can blame the drivers entirely .. if you riders are going to share the road then everyone involved has a hand in making it safe for everyone. the drivers needs to pay more attention and the riders need to make it way easy to spot them e.g. lights and reflectives, etc. it is not solely on the drivers, it is also on the riders.

Re:When you ride at night,

[DuckDodgers]

I read your post out of context, then. I apologize.

This sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Tremendously. RIP, Seth. You will be missed.

Re:This sucks

[bill_mcgonigle]

Amen to that - he was a very sharp and gifted fellow.

I'm going to miss arguing with him about the yum patch I need to send in that adds sub-version support to .repo files. :(

Re:This sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, for pity's sake? Given that Subversion is tied to centrally managed development, has a poor security model due to writing passwords locally in clear text, and can't even expunge accidental commits from its repositories, why would you link *any* open source project to it except to migrate from it?

Or did you mean something else?

Very short history of yum

[Anonymous Coward]

here.

Re:Very short history of yum

[mrmeval]

A hit and run is NEVER an accident, quit spreading that filth. It's felony manslaughter at minimum.

Re:Very short history of yum

[Desler]

If the driver never notices that they even hit the person that seems like a perfectly valid accident. And it's easily likely that larger vehicles like a van or truck could hit a biker that is in the vehicle's blind spot and the driver not notice.

Probably a prank gone wrong.

[Antony T Curtis]

I have seen drivers of vehicles in the USA perform an act which looks like a deliberate "nudge" to a random cyclist before driving away at high speed.

If I had an always-on dash-mounted video camera, I would be tempted to post videos of people doing such nonsense.

So sad.

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[CanHasDIY]

I have seen drivers of vehicles in the USA perform an act which looks like a deliberate "nudge" to a random cyclist before driving away at high speed.

If I had an always-on dash-mounted video camera, I would be tempted to post videos of people doing such nonsense.

So sad.

You should - vehicular assault is a serious offence, and if your video can be used to prove malice, those sociopathic pricks will be confined to a cell where they belong.

I've been wanting a dash cam for the opposite reason - a lot of the cyclists around here are either stupid or have a deathwish, judging by how flagrantly they violate right-of-way laws.

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[Monkey-Man2000]

Holy shit! From the article:

Witnesses told police that the car, a late-1990s or early 2000s model, slowed quickly and swerved before hitting Vidal and continuing north on Hillandale Road.

It certainly sounds like a sad "prank" as you said. WTF? I've never heard of this but I know Americans (as I am one) hate bicyclists with a passion, but this phenomenon (if generally true like you suggest) is fucking crazy...

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[Hentes]

Sadly, this behaviour is not limited to America. Some people just get crazy once inside a car.

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[0xdeadbeef]

Tempted? You'd have a moral if not legal duty to provide copies of that evidence to police.

I, for one, am eagerly anticipating the so-called sousveillance future, which Google Glass and dash-cams are merely the beginning of.

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[CalRobert]

Yeah, Americans are assholes. I spent two years commuting by bicycle in Los Angeles and I hated, humanity and wished them all a horrible, slow death. Since leaving that country my outlook has improved immensely.

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[CanHasDIY]

Holy shit! From the article:

Witnesses told police that the car, a late-1990s or early 2000s model, slowed quickly and swerved before hitting Vidal and continuing north on Hillandale Road.

It certainly sounds like a sad "prank" as you said. WTF?

Depends; did they swerve towards or away from the cyclist? TFA seems to have missed that not-so-minor detail.

My guess is (assuming the driver swerved away) is that the driver didn't see him until it was too late, and tried to avoid by slamming on the binders and swerving.

IMO, That part makes sense, and is perfectly reasonable; The "Oh shit I think I hit that guy so I'm GONE" reaction is where the driver went from "human who made a mistake" to "worthless piece of shit that deserves hard time in fed-max."

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[Duhavid]

In my short, but ignominious career on a bicycle, I have had
    A couple drivers chase me all over the place, deliberately trying to hit me
    Several incidences where cars tried to nudge me around ( one I caught and explained things to ( no, really, rationally and all that ), response was "oh, I see" ), including one where the car ( a taxi, in this case ) actually hit the rear wheel of my bike with his fender. I am super lucky I didn't fall ( with the additional push from the car ) into a parked car. I called the taxi company about it, they hung up on me.
    Many "I didn't see you" moments, including it broad daylight ( which is why I don't buy the "wear white" thing, some of them *just* *don't* *look* ).
    I remember riding at night ( with lights and all ), and having a couple in a van pull up next to me and tell me that I shouldn't ride at night, because the driver of the van was legally blind..... No, really.
And that is just what I can remember from 30 years gone.

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[interval1066]

They do. I was cycling not very long, and going up the wrong side of the street as I had just left where I was at and getting on to the main road, and it was more convinient to peddle on the wrong side for a block. I don't know if that was the problem, but a guy in a car started yelling at me. Fortuneatly I was on the other side of a frontage road, so the guy couldn't get at me, and I really didn't understand what he said. But people in cars tend to feel empowered, I've felt it myself in my own car. In other words, its easy to get mad for stupid reasons in a machine that can kill people.

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[Duhavid]

"a lot of the cyclists around here are either stupid or have a deathwish, judging by how flagrantly they violate right-of-way laws"

Stupid, I think.... But I, as a former cyclist, have been seeing more of this around me, and I hate it.
Just remember all, not all cyclists are like that, as not all car drivers are like the ones who commit vehicular assault.

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

You were also living in the festering asshole of the US.
 
/L.A. native and will never live there again.

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[0100010001010011]

Which is why you carry one of those emergency hammers designed to shatter tempered glass. It gets their attention. And when asked how I hit them with the hammer I asked how they were within arms reach when the law states there is a minimum 3' passing distance.

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[Duhavid]

For a while, I was thinking of purchasing a gun and putting it in a holster so it would be visible to people coming up on me from behind.

I honestly believe that that would have been effective, the thought being "wow, he is more than just some squishy thing I can run over".

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[retchdog]

You should follow up with one of these in their face.

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[Duhavid]

If the order of events is correct in TFA, the driver slowed, then swerved.
Still could be swerving away, but if the driver slowed in reaction to seeing the cyclist, why was he/she/it close enough to need to swerve?

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[amorsen]

The "Oh shit I think I hit that guy so I'm GONE" reaction is where the driver went from "human who made a mistake" to "worthless piece of shit that deserves hard time in fed-max."

Driving away is a surprisingly common reaction, and in a lot of cases no link is found to being drunk or other "rational" reasons for doing so. I can understand why you advocate fed-max, but the fed-max prisons will be even more overcrowded if we somehow detect everyone who could do a hit-and-run and round them up.

Luckily most of us will never have to discover how we react in such a horrendous situation.

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[Greyfox]

They were probably distracted by your freakishly short arms.

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

For every one like you, there are 5 idiots swerving between lanes and sidewalk randomly, and ignoring all traffic laws.

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bikes might not be fast enough, but a good punishment for asshole drivers while on a motorcycle is to throw pellets or marbles at the ground. They'll bounce back up, and if they hit them going fast enough, and with a little luck, it might fuck up their radiator or their windshield. They probably won't learn anything (some truckers seem to be incredibly stupid and assholes), but it'll take their vehicle out of commission for a while. Teach those motherfuckers to try to tailgate me at 85MPH in something that takes 10 times longer to stop than my bike.

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they see the gun they can claim they were scared when they hit you.

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[fnj]

Then again (suggestion only), perhaps he yelled because YOU were violating the rules of the road ("going up the wrong side of the street")?

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[interval1066]

Point being, I guess murdering with his car me would have been the proper response, yeah?

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a far cry between yelling at you because you were violated the rules of the road and murdering you. There is no indication that he would have done you harm. Perhaps you should have walked along the pavement with your bike rather than cycling on the wrong side of the road.

Re:Probably a prank gone wrong.

[interval1066]

You are of course correct, I take it you drive a lot and are bothered by cyclists. How often does road rage dictate your actions?

Thank you

[ssam]

Thank you for all your hard work. You will be missed.

A true linux nerd to the core

[Anonymous Coward]

His only mistake: going outside

Re:A true linux nerd to the core

[Anonymous Coward]

He was biking. He probably was more of a hipster than a geek.

Re:A true linux nerd to the core

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if it was a fixie bike.

aptitude update

[Anonymous Coward]

Did yum have any features which made it preferable to apt(itude)? I've never understood why anyone who wants a Linux binary package management system doesn't choose Debian's.

And, yes, I know we can get all bawwish about the guy's death and pretend that it's a personal loss, but frankly it isn't. So, instead, I'd like to take the time to learn about yum. I haven't used RH since about 5.0.

Re:aptitude update

[Pozican]

Just because YOU never spoke to him personally doesn't mean the rest of us haven't.

Re: aptitude update

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah no kidding. Some of us even work with him.

And past that, the fact that seth's contributions to open source and our culture and community will not continue should be enough to make you baww.

Re:aptitude update

[armanox]

Delta RPMs for one.

Re:aptitude update

[AJodock]

'yum shell' has saved me a few times when things were hozed. i.e. a package that was half installed and another package is dependant on the old version of that package (reinstall/downgrade options may be able to do the same). Also works great if you want to replace a package with a different one that provides the same libraries, and the yum remove to get rid of the first one would uninstall all of the dependencies.
yum shell
> remove package-a
> install package-b
> run

'yum localinstall /path/to/package.rpm' is very handy. The easiest way I can find to do the same with apt is
dpkg -i /path/to/package.rpm
(fails due to dependencies missing)
apt-get -f install
(installs dependencies)
dpkg -i /path/to/package.rpm
(to make sure that the package is fully installed)

'yum provides' seems to be fairly superior to apt-file
yum provides */library.so

apt-file works fine, but a) it isn't normally installed and b) the file lists are generated separately from the normal repo, so not every repo owner generates it vs the rpm repos where it is a standard part of the repo.

This is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why we need separate bicycle paths and lanes separated from other traffic by barriers. Bicycling is better for the environment and better for public health, but I'll be damned if I'll ride my bike where I live or work (Maryland, USA) because drivers here treat bicycle riders horribly.

Re:This is why...

[scot4875]

If someone on a bike runs a red light or stop sign and they get hit, that's their bad and that's on them; they'll get no sympathy from me.

If you treat someone on a bike like shit because you saw a random biker run a red light or a stop sign once (or twice, or 1000 times, it doesn't matter), that makes you a dick, and that's on you.

--Jeremy

Re:This is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you treat someone on a bike like shit because you saw a random biker run a red light or a stop sign once (or twice, or 1000 times, it doesn't matter), that makes you a dick, and that's on you.

Bikers do the very thing in reverse that you claim I would be a dick for doing. My irony meter has asploded.

Re:This is why...

[lightBearer]

I've been practicing ways to make my fellow cyclists pay more attention to their dick behaviour.

My most recent attempt is to yell "confirmation bias" whenever I see one of us doing something like ignoring a stop sign or blowing a light. The idea is that, when they come back (and normally get aggressive thinking I was cussing them out) I explain that every dick move they make makes all of us look bad.

That leads me to you drivers: you see those of us who cut you off and blow the light. You see the ones who split the lane and haul ass to the light so they can be first out the gate when it changes. You don't see most of us who are being cautious because, in our caution, we're staying the fuck out of your way. Trust me: we exist.

I hope this driver is found and has to answer for what they did. I hope more of us cyclists start caring about how being killed in traffic affects us all.

Re:This is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 insightful. A number of my biker friends are the same way. It's extremely hard to change the attitudes of car drivers when you act in the stereotypical dick way that enrages people against us.

Re:This is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

who want their private bike streets paid for with my road and fuel taxes

To be fair, it might offset what you're paying in healthcare costs for out-of-shape potential cyclists and pollution from car exhaust. And increase area property values.

Re:This is why...

[Antibozo]

Yea, OK, so if you and your cyclists buddies want to get together and raise the money to pay for dedicated bike paths, I'll support using public land to build them.

However, if you're like many of the d-bags around these parts who want their private bike streets paid for with my road and fuel taxes... You can go piss up a rope.

You know that most cyclists have cars, and drive, too, so they're paying fuel taxes right alongside you, right? But when they're riding their bikes, they're using up a lot less space on the roads, reducing congestion and leaving more room for you to get around. Compared with cars, bikes contribute virtually no wear on roads, and areas paved for bike traffic cost a fraction of what regular rated roads cost, because of the dramatically reduced load requirements. When cyclists get where they're going, they will lock up to a bike rack that fits 20 vehicles in the area of a parking space, leaving more parking for you to put your car in. They're also reducing gasoline demand, which might slightly lower the price you pay at the pump. As a driver, you stand to gain in numerous ways from others' cycling.

And fuel taxes don't cover the cost of the roads, anyway, mainly because they've been essentially stagnant while the cost of fuel increased fivefold. Drivers' use of the roads is heavily subsidized now by general taxation, so you don't get to point at cyclists and say they're the freeloaders.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers-cover-just-51-percent-of-u-s-road-spending/
http://www.uspirg.org/reports/usp/do-roads-pay-themselves

Re:This is why...

[Antibozo]

If someone on a bike runs a red light or stop sign and they get hit, that's their bad and that's on them; they'll get no sympathy from me.

Go hang out at a stop sign one day and count the percentage of cars you see actually stop. Pot, kettle, black.

http://washcycle.typepad.com/home/2008/07/the-myth-of-the.html

Re:This is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

From your link:

And stop signs

The overall compliance rate for stop signs was 22.8 per 100 vehicles, ranging from 1.4 per 100 for bicycles to 46.2 per 100 for commuter vans. Compliance increased to 53 per 100 vehicles when pedestrians were present in the crosswalk. [WC: Okay, we're both guilty here, but the cars aren't even stopping half the time. More on this below.]

So bikers complied with stop signs at a rate nearly 1/20th of the average of all vehicles. And you were trying to disprove them about bikers consistently riding through stop signs?

Re:This is why...

[jgarry]

That's not enough: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/Jun/01/bicyclist-killed-was-a-poway-father-of-two/
(bicyclists on the train I commute with knew that guy)

My worst bicycling injury came from kids following grampa up a bike path, swinging out to take up the entire path, forcing me over the lip of the newly paved asphalt path, tearing off my sew-up (yeah, they were the racy thing in the olde days), sending me sliding on my side on the new asphalt, busting both rims, I went into immediate shock. Later, after I got out of the hospital, police laughed when I told them what happened. "Haha, be on the lookout for killer gramps and grandkids!"

And yes, I used to ride on the freeway (101 near Ventura, only way through, semi's blowing past you and sucking you into traffic lanes).

Re:This is why...

[Antibozo]

From your link:

So bikers complied with stop signs at a rate nearly 1/20th of the average of all vehicles. And you were trying to disprove them about bikers consistently riding through stop signs?

I don't think you read the essay very thoroughly. The point was not that cyclists do not run stop signs; it is that pretty much everyone runs stop signs. The difference is that, when a cyclist does it, it's very rarely dangerous to anyone, and when it is dangerous, the danger is usually to the cyclist. But a cyclist running a stop sign has a much better read on the situation because he can actually see and hear what is around him. Similarly, people jaywalk constantly but very rarely get killed, because they aren't encased in soundproof glass and metal when they do so.

Meanwhile, the "1/20" you cite is a rather absurd abstraction; the average compliance for all vehicles in the study you refer to was only 22.8%. So fewer than 1 in 4 people in general are stopping at stop signs, but you think cyclists are somehow the problem when they're only 1-5% of the road population?

The essay doesn't say that cyclists should run stop signs (although in Idaho, stop signs are relaxed to yield signs for cyclists). It points out that there's nothing unique about their doing so, and compliance with stop signs is not a logical prerequisite for extending sympathy or protection to any particular population of road users. The irrational way drivers tend to respond when they see cyclists break a minor law is, in most cases, deeply hypocritical. Drivers annually kill in excess of 30,000 people in the U.S. alone. Cyclists kill a couple. The risk profile is several orders of magnitude different, but drivers don't seem to recognize that when they get all pissy because they just saw a cyclist run a stop sign.

Re:This is why...

[afidel]

Why would you be mad? Each of those people commuting via bike is one less car on the road and anyone who's ever studied complex systems knows that traffic reacts very non-linearly so the removal of even a few percentage of the traffic can mean a significant reduction in the number, severity, and duration of traffic jams.

Re:This is why...

[Desler]

The point was not that cyclists do not run stop signs; it is that pretty much everyone runs stop signs.

Yes, at substantially lower rates than bikers do.

Re:This is why...

[H0p313ss]

However, if you're like many of the d-bags around these parts who want their private bike streets paid for with my road and fuel taxes... You can go piss up a rope.

And then you act all mystified when people get all pissy when you start talking politics....

Re:This is why...

[R3d M3rcury]

But a cyclist running a stop sign has a much better read on the situation because he can actually see and hear what is around him.

I always love this theory.

I drive a convertible with the top down, meaning I can see and hear what is around me. So do I get to run stop lights, too?

[...] drivers don't seem to recognize that when they get all pissy because they just saw a cyclist run a stop sign.

Frankly, what drivers get pissy about isn't so much bicyclists running stop signs or stop lights. What makes motorists pissy is bicyclists who run stop signs and stop lights, get injured, and the bicycling community cries out about how dangerous it is on the road because cars keep hitting them and how something needs to be done because bicyclists are so vulnerable.

In these cases, what needs to be done is for bicyclists to stop at stop signs and stop lights, like all other road users. If bicyclists are so vulnerable, why do they insist on tempting fate by running red lights and stop signs? Perhaps if they did more to protect themselves--maybe starting with not running red lights and stop signs--it would be helpful.

There are definitely "road rage" incidents with bicycles. There are definitely idiots out on the road who figure they're going to pick on a bicyclist for doing things that are perfectly legal (eg, taking the lane). There are drivers who don't pay adequate attention while driving--there was one recently where the driver "accidentally drifted into the bicycle lane while going around a turn" (ie, she was texting and not paying attention to the road). When I'm out on my bicycle, that's what I worry about, because I have no control over that and I'd love to see something done about that.

But idiots who run stop signs and get hit by cars? I have no pity for them. They could have saved their own life by following the law.

Re:This is why...

[Antibozo]

But a cyclist running a stop sign has a much better read on the situation because he can actually see and hear what is around him.

I always love this theory.

I drive a convertible with the top down, meaning I can see and hear what is around me. So do I get to run stop lights, too?

Get to? I don't think so—nobody "gets to". But it is substantially less dangerous when you do it than it is when someone in an SUV does it, yes, altho your engine noise, lower position, and limited movement still put you at a significant observational disadvantage compared to a cyclist or pedestrian.

But idiots who run stop signs and get hit by cars? I have no pity for them. They could have saved their own life by following the law.

You are mistaken if you think a cyclist stopped at a light is safe from being struck by a vehicle. In fact, one of the reasons some cyclists blow lights is to take advantage of the relatively car-free segment of the road that lies on the other side of the light.

I guess maybe you should read the essay again. There's no point in my trying to explain it; it's perfectly clear if you bother.

Re:This is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bicyclists are their own worst enemy.

There is a local trail, near my house, that runs perpendicular to some streets. At every intersection, the bicycle path has a STOP sign, and the streets do not. That doesn't stop these asshole cyclists from blowing the STOP signs, because it interrupts their 'ride.' I have watched an SUV lock up its brakes to avoid crushing one of these idiots that ran through one on a blind corner. The more logos the cyclist has on the jersey, the bigger an asshole the rider, especially when they get in large packs.

Of course, you will have people pipe in about how I am wrong, but here is the thing; go see for yourself. Check out any "shared" trail and watch skaters, walkers, runners, etc. be buzzed by the bicycle riders. They don't even extend the courtesy of warning the people they are passing. I could post a video, but why bother. It isn't like this is a one-time thing that I can't catch every day, even more on weekends.

Re:This is why...

[Razed By TV]

This is not a valid counterpoint. I've seen a a biker ride off the sidewalk, from behind a tree, in front of a car that had the right of way. Thank god the car stopped in time.
If he hadn't, even though the accident would be the biker's fault, it is still going to mess up the driver psychologically. You can tell me all you want that the biker has the right to be stupid because he is the one that pays the cost. However, you overlook that the driver pays as well.

Re:This is why...

[Ichijo]

This is why we need separate bicycle paths and lanes separated from other traffic by barriers

It's pretty expensive to fully grade-separate a bicycle path. Anything less than full grade separation is hardly an improvement in safety, especially for experienced bicyclists, because being hit from behind is relatively rare.

Re:This is why...

[fafaforza]

Why are drivers so butt-hurt over bikes running a red light? It is not much different than jaywalking, and we all agree that jaywalking shouldn't be a ticketable offense, barring really egregious offenses of people just strolling across, normal traffic be damned. Most bikes that ran lights that I've seen did so in preservation of their own life. IE: staying out of the way of cars.

Re:This is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

But a cyclist running a stop sign has a much better read on the situation because he can actually see and hear what is around him.

I always love this theory.

I drive a convertible with the top down, meaning I can see and hear what is around me. So do I get to run stop lights, too?

[...] drivers don't seem to recognize that when they get all pissy because they just saw a cyclist run a stop sign.

Frankly, what drivers get pissy about isn't so much bicyclists running stop signs or stop lights. What makes motorists pissy is bicyclists who run stop signs and stop lights, get injured, and the bicycling community cries out about how dangerous it is on the road because cars keep hitting them and how something needs to be done because bicyclists are so vulnerable.

In these cases, what needs to be done is for bicyclists to stop at stop signs and stop lights, like all other road users. If bicyclists are so vulnerable, why do they insist on tempting fate by running red lights and stop signs? Perhaps if they did more to protect themselves--maybe starting with not running red lights and stop signs--it would be helpful.

There are definitely "road rage" incidents with bicycles. There are definitely idiots out on the road who figure they're going to pick on a bicyclist for doing things that are perfectly legal (eg, taking the lane). There are drivers who don't pay adequate attention while driving--there was one recently where the driver "accidentally drifted into the bicycle lane while going around a turn" (ie, she was texting and not paying attention to the road). When I'm out on my bicycle, that's what I worry about, because I have no control over that and I'd love to see something done about that.

But idiots who run stop signs and get hit by cars? I have no pity for them. They could have saved their own life by following the law.

Talk about a display of ignorance. How many cyclists have you seen run stop signs and red lights? How many of them did you see get hit by a car because of that?

I bet it's zero, isn't it?

So why the hell do you conclude cyclists get hit because they and only they violate laws?

Never really ridden a bicycle on roads, have you? I guess that explains your complete ignorance.

The ten or so cyclists who I personally know that have been hit were all hit while just riding along the side of the road - either from behind or by a car pulling in front of them. Hell, one guy I know has been hit three times. He got a new $5000+ bike out of it every time - because the DRIVER was at fault. Each time.

Imagine that.

Drivers pull out in front of cyclists because the drivers are clueless - "It's gotta be slow. it's only a bike".

Drivers get impatient, pull past a cyclist then immediately turn right. Happens so often it has a name: "right hook".

Drivers open doors right in front of cyclists - happens so often it has a name, too: "doored". I bet your ignorant of that, too, right?

Please, quit displaying your ignorance.

And why should cyclists in general be subject to vehicular assault because humans are scofflaws? Would you as a driver attempt to run a random, innocent driver off the road simply because you saw another driver run a stop sign last week?

No?

THEN WHY THE FUCK DO YOU CONDONE SUCH BEHAVOIR TOWARDS CYCLISTS, YOU HYPOCRITICAL EVIL JACKASS?!?!!?

Re:This is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to cycle, and I used to run stop signs. Hear me out.

I could either act like a car clone, with an acceleration that would make the drivers really lose their temper, taking up my allocated lane as I accelerated to 25 MPH at a pitiful rate compared to a very old mis-tuned Volkswagen beetle on bad gas; or, when it's completely freaking obvious that I'm not going to be killed (which is the only time I'd dare venture against a traffic signal), I could cut through the intersection and be 1/2 way down the block, allowing more cars to actually make it through the intersection when the light did turn green.

The problem with cars running red lights isn't actually one of the color of the light. It's that when the car runs a red, odds are 90% that the driver isn't aware of it, and isn't fully aware of all the traffic on the road. That's why running a red in a car gets police attention like a magnet to iron.

I had a cop flag me down once after running a stop sign. He asked me why I did it, and I told him, I'm watching the cars, not the signs, it's the cars that will kill me. He let me go. Then again, there's the cops that yell at you over the loudspeakers to get on the sidewalk, even in my state, where the state supreme court has ruled that not permitting cyclists access to roads is taxation without representation. In short, with cops, you never know what you're getting.

Re:This is why...

[R3d M3rcury]

In fact, one of the reasons some cyclists blow lights is to take advantage of the relatively car-free segment of the road that lies on the other side of the light.

So I guess it's also okay that I like to follow ambulances because I can zoom through the red lights.

Because, let's face it--the whole world needs to be set up for my convenience.

Your argument is that you take the risk of going through the stop light for the added safety on the other side. The problem is, when you go through the red light and get hit, well it certainly isn't your fault. You were trying to be safe! It's that dirty rotten person in the car who rashly assumed that a bicyclist would obey traffic laws rather than following some bizarre theory that made him feel safer.

Traffic laws provide predictability. I can drive my car down the road and when I come to an intersection where the light facing me is green, I can be assured that I don't have to worry about pedestrians, cars, or anything else crossing in front of me. If the light facing me is red, other cars can count on the fact that I'm going to stop. And considering the number of cars on the road and the number of accidents, it works pretty well.

Your theory is that, as a bicyclist, these laws don't take into account your safety and there's various excuses for why it is allegedly "safer". Actually, here's another method which I did today. I was at a stoplight and noticed a bunch of cars behind me. The road was pretty crowded and these dozen or so cars would be stuck behind me, unable to pass, and they'd probably be tempted to come close to me to get past because, let's face it, they want to go home and don't want to be stuck driving 15 MPH. So when the light turned green, I rode across the intersection and waited at the opposite side until traffic cleared before continuing. In short, I let about a dozen cars pass me until the street was clear and I could bicycle safely and not annoy other road users. I didn't have to break any laws to do it, either.

I know. "Sharing the road." What a crazy idea. I shouldn't have to consider them--they should be considering me and working to make my ride pleasant!

That's why I think the whole, "It's ultimately safer if I do it" is rubbish. It's not about safety. It's about momentum. Trust me, there's nothing I hate more than red lights--especially red lights located at the bottom of a hill. I build up all this momentum and I have to sacrifice it. It truly sucks. I agree wholeheartedly. Hell, I like to lurk at the top of hills before red lights so that when the light goes green at the bottom of the hill, I can zoom down and not lose my momentum. It usually works. Sometimes it doesn't and I end up having to jam on my brakes. Heck, this past July 4th, I had to do it three times because the timing is different on Thursday then it is on Sunday when I usually ride this stretch.

Re:This is why...

[Antibozo]

In fact, one of the reasons some cyclists blow lights is to take advantage of the relatively car-free segment of the road that lies on the other side of the light.

So I guess it's also okay that I like to follow ambulances because I can zoom through the red lights.

Of course not. Nor is it okay to run red lights in an unsafe manner. But when there's actually no traffic coming in any direction, and it's plain as day to a person on a bicycle that there is no risk, it is, in fact, safe to run a red light. In some places, it's even legal. Idaho is one such place, and Virginia is another, if the cyclist has waited a full cycle of the light.

I would have to strain to understand how in your straw man scenario you could safely follow an ambulance. But it's so absurd and disingenuous, i won't bother.

Because, let's face it--the whole world needs to be set up for my convenience.

Your argument is that you take the risk of going through the stop light for the added safety on the other side. The problem is, when you go through the red light and get hit, well it certainly isn't your fault.

I think the problem is that you are mistaking some sort of distorted rattling in your head for my argument. Just go back and actually read the essay, and stop wasting my time.

There have been so many...

[Irick]

It's sobering just how many of these great contributors to oss and technology in general have passed away these past few years. Mortality is not something I often contemplate at twenty two but I find it constantly popping up in the legacy of this subculture.

I really do wonder if we are predisposed to see death as a problem that needs to be solved, because all I can think of are the tragic losses of minds and icons that could be prevented somehow and how valuable that would be to humanity as a whole.

Seth will be missed and hopefully his work will live on.

Re:There have been so many...

[sideslash]

It's worse than you realize. In fact, 100% of people who work on Open Source Software die.

Re:There have been so many...

[loufoque]

People die all the time in all sectors.

Re:There have been so many...

[Bradmont]

Don't go into politics...

Re:There have been so many...

[Anonymous Coward]

Old programmers don't fade away. They die. Usually screaming.

Re:There have been so many...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good God. Stop giving firepower to the pro close-source camp!

Re:There have been so many...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just within OSS (although when I first used Yum quite a few years ago, I thought "This is cool"), but within IT in general. Ignore Steve Jobs for a second and think about Edgar Dijkstra, or Dennis Ritchie, or W. Richard Stevens (Read the Unix Network Programming Book), or very recently Doug Englebart. These people contributed a lot. And likewise within the open source community. More specifically, this developer was young and could have contributed for many more years. He will be missed.

Re:There have been so many...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worse than you realize. In fact, 100% of people who work on Open Source Software die.

If you think that's bad, you should see the mortality rate of closed-source programmers.

Re:There have been so many...

[Rakarra]

People die all the time in all sectors.

What???

Re:There have been so many...

[loufoque]

Yes. There is no business sector where you can escape death.

Hit and Run driver turned himself in.

[Anonymous Coward]

They caught the guy who did this.

http://www.wral.com/man-charged-in-durham-hit-and-run-that-killed-bicyclist/12644209/

Re:Hit and Run driver turned himself in.

[dclozier]

Thanks for the update. Not that I think they should go lightly on him but he should be given some consideration for owning up to his mistake. Regardless of his punishment it wont bring Seth back.

Re:Hit and Run driver turned himself in.

[barc0001]

Dude was driving with a revoked license. He needs to go to jail since obviously just taking his license away doesn't seem to be all that effective in curbing his poor judgement.

Re:Hit and Run driver turned himself in.

[Antony T Curtis]

So... The guy was knowingly driving with a revoked license. They should throw the library at him.

Re:Hit and Run driver turned himself in.

[damicatz]

He already has a DWI.

http://www1.aoc.state.nc.us/www/calendars.Offense.do?submit=submit&case=3102012061874&court=CR

DWI laws in this state are a joke. And when they finally get banned from driving a car (after half a dozen convictions or so), they are still allowed to go and drive a moped on the road.

Re:Hit and Run driver turned himself in.

[Anonymous Coward]

Prison is kind of the concept behind felonies. If it's his first felony hit-and-run offense, he could get 8 months without considering other circumstances, such as driving without a license.

Re:Hit and Run driver turned himself in.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because jail is always a deterrent, and recidivism is at an all time low.

Re:Hit and Run driver turned himself in.

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't catch him, he turned himself in...

Re:Hit and Run driver turned himself in.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? Harder to kill someone else by hitting them with a moped.

North Carolina drivers are the worst in the US.

[Anonymous Coward]

While it is sad this guy died, his death could have been prevented by not
riding a bicycle on a road which was shared by cars and trucks.

The risk in North Carolina is simply too high. I have ridden thousands
of miles when I lived in other states in the US, but the severe lack of
competence on the part of North Carolina drivers means that my road
bike will gather dust until I leave North Carolina.

You can preach all you want about how a motorist was in the wrong, and
you will very probably be correct in North Carolina in the case of a bicycle
being hit by a motorized vehicle. But being in the right doesn't bring back
the dead. And that IS the bottom line, for those of us who choose risks
carefully.

Re:North Carolina drivers are the worst in the US.

[VAXcat]

Clearly you've never driven in Boston...I had a summer job there driving a patient transport van for the Boston State Hospital (a mental asylum), and I always felt like the lunatics I was driving around in the van weren't a patch on the maniacs driving the other cars.

Re:North Carolina drivers are the worst in the US.

[tepples]

So instead of a bicycle, what do you recommend for getting to parts of town not served by public transit or for getting around on days when public transit does not operate? If you recommend a car, how do you recommend that one obtain the state-mandated 50 hours of verifiable supervised driving practice?

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly how does calling someone a douche for making a joke about someone's death make that person clueless?

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, you loathsome, miserable excuse for a human being.

I can't believe even a poster on this site would try to make a joke in a comment on this kind of story.

You should be ashamed of yourself, and I wish I had a way to show everyone you know what you did here.

Thank you, and goodbye

[LatitudesAttitudes]

It saddens me to hear this. I use Scientific Linux and love yum. Thank you for your hard work, but you are in a better place now. You will be missed.

Re:Thank you, and goodbye

[Anonymous Coward]

whoo boy, here we go...

Hit and runs are NEVER "accidents".

[CalRobert]

If you hit somebody and leave them to spend their last gasping breath in a gutter, it is not an "accident". It is manslaughter, or if a prank as described above, cold-hearted murder. I hate, hate, hate the US' auto-centric point of view. Tens of thousands of people per year are killed because of it. It needs to end. I hope I can get permanent residency outside of that cesspool.

Re:Hit and runs are NEVER "accidents".

[wisnoskij]

That is false, it is entirely possible to accidentally perform a hit and run.

Re:Hit and runs are NEVER "accidents".

[Chryana]

Well, if you hit a cyclist and don't even notice it, which is why you "ran", maybe you should not be driving, accident or not.

Re:Hit and runs are NEVER "accidents".

[del_diablo]

"and run."
Note the last part, you hit a car, then run.

Re:Hit and runs are NEVER "accidents".

[wisnoskij]

And it is entirely possible to run by accident.

Re:Hit and runs are NEVER "accidents".

[Ichijo]

You bring up a good point. NYC is replacing the word "accident" with "collision" because "In the past, the term 'accident' has sometimes given the inaccurate impression or connotation that there is no fault or liability associated with a specific event."

We should all think twice before using the word "accident." Because driver negligence is the number one cause of crashes, more often than not the word "accident" when used in the context of automobile collisions is imprecise at best, and deceptive at worst. And isn't it just easier to say "crash"?

Re:Hit and runs are NEVER "accidents".

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope I can get permanent residency outside of that cesspool.

You've already said in another post that you wish many people a slow death, so why the fuck are you still here? Oh, I get it, you like our job market, but you don't like us.

Please, fuck off and in a fire.

Re:Hit and runs are NEVER "accidents".

[quantaman]

I've never been in an accident but once when I was in high school I saw some kids riding a quad in the ditch do an unintentional backflip. Even though it was the right thing to do I hesitated half a second before stopping just because I was worried I'd go out and have to deal with something real traumatic. Fortunately I did stop, more fortunately so did an off duty nurse, and most fortunately all the kids were fine.

Anyway I can kind of understand why the drivers keep going, they didn't hurt the person on purpose and pro-actively stopping the vehicle and taking responsibility is a hard thing to do. That being said it's still their responsibility to do that hard thing.

Re:Hit and runs are NEVER "accidents".

[Artifakt]

It is possible to accidentally perform the actual hit. To run afterwards means you either knew you hit the person and then had depraved indifference to the potential to stop and assist and just maybe save that person's life, or that you were so unaware of what you were doing that you had a legal obligation not to drive in that condition, and the depraved indifference enters automatically at that point even if it's before the collision even happened. That's how my state views a hit and run fatality - you can't do one accidentally, because at some point in the process you had to deliberately decide to do what you did even if it resulted in you killing somebody. That's manslaughter at minimum, usually with aggravating conditions. Try and claim to a judge that the whole thing was somehow accidental and see what happens - it's a good way to get the maximum sentence.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, lardy. I'm quaking in my boots at your Internet tough guy act. Unfortunately for you, the forklift that you use to get yourself out of mommy's and daddy's basement is broken. Need me to mail you a few more cases of Cheetos while you wait for it to be repaired?

:-( I

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I know who the Seth was that my programming friends were discussing on FB.

Driver turned himself in...

[MrKevvy]

http://www.wral.com/man-charged-in-durham-hit-and-run-that-killed-bicyclist/12644209/

additional advice:

[circletimessquare]

if you are walking or riding along the side of a road, choose to walk/ ride on the side that makes you face traffic

in some places this is actually against the law. i still advise the practice

because i would rather see the car/ truck that is about to kill me, and probably be able to leap at the last moment. you have no such opportunity at self-preservation when you walk/ ride with vehicular traffic coming at you from behind

some might say you are making life harder for other cyclists/ walkers obeying the law and walking/ riding with their backs to traffic. to which i say: i am sorry you are an idiot, who prioritizes the risk of a fine over the potential to save your life. you should start riding/ walking against traffic too

Re:additional advice:

[Anonymous Coward]

if you are walking or riding along the side of a road, choose to walk/ ride on the side that makes you face traffic

in some places this is actually against the law. i still advise the practice

because i would rather see the car/ truck that is about to kill me, and probably be able to leap at the last moment. you have no such opportunity at self-preservation when you walk/ ride with vehicular traffic coming at you from behind

some might say you are making life harder for other cyclists/ walkers obeying the law and walking/ riding with their backs to traffic. to which i say: i am sorry you are an idiot, who prioritizes the risk of a fine over the potential to save your life. you should start riding/ walking against traffic too

NO, YOU STUPID FUCKING BRAIN-DEAD SALMON!!!!!!!!!!

Never ride against traffic. Never mind the fact that cars pulling out of driveways and side streets won't even look for you, much less see you. You're a deadly danger to anyone who obeys the law.

You head-on with me because neither of us wants to go out into traffic and I will kick your fucking teeth out you total fucking MORON. And if you're still conscious after that, I'll probably lay you face down, stand on your upper arm, and bend your fucking elbow 180 degrees backwards.

YOU ARROGANT, SELFISH, ASININE, UTTER FUCKING IMBECILE. You endanger me and you will HURT, you

BTW, I used to play nose tackle in college football. I played against guys who played some in the NFL. Your candy ass doesn't scare me at all.

Re:additional advice:

[circletimessquare]

thanks for the level headed reply

i will be riding and walking against traffic out of self-preservation, and will continue to advise others to do the same

random murderous nutjobs like yourself notwithstanding

Re:additional advice:

[fahrbot-bot]

if you are walking or riding along the side of a road, choose to walk/ ride on the side that makes you face traffic
in some places this is actually against the law. i still advise the practice

As far as I know it illegal to ride your bicycle in the street against traffic most everywhere and - agreeing with the rabid A/C near-by - is incredibly, fucking stupid. In Virginia the rules are rather specific and one must ride within a certain distance of the right shoulder - except where there's a turn lane - etc...

Having once been clipped by a car while riding my bike, I'm very happy that I wasn't riding in opposition and was able to, subsequently, get mostly out of the way...

So. In the street, walk against traffic and ride with traffic.
[ Please don't bother arguing about this because you're simply wrong. ]

Re:additional advice:

[circletimessquare]

you are commenting under a story in which a guy died because he was obeying the law and your advice, and therefore did not have any warning as to the car that killed him

i will be riding and walking against traffic out of self-preservation, and will continue to advise others to do the same

Re:additional advice:

[afidel]

Agreed and I argued this point effectively with the police officer that taught our biking safety class, he admitted that way too many people are self absorbed idiots while driving and so you probably were safer being able to see them coming while having time to react.

Re: additional advice:

[Anonymous Coward]

What the reply is trying to point out is that by riding on the other (wrong) side of the street you make things more dangerous for yourself, for other cyclists, and for drivers at cross streets. I have seen cyclists come to blows over this and I have to side with the cyclists-should-follow-the-rules-of-the-road camp on this one. You are a selfish and ignorant rider if you do this.

Re:additional advice:

[fahrbot-bot]

i will be riding and walking against traffic out of self-preservation, and will continue to advise others to do the same

Sure, do whatever you want, but please don't advise others. What you're doing is dangerous and illegal. Here's what others say:

Is it safer for bicyclists to ride with traffic or to ride against traffic?

Bicyclists should ride with traffic. One of the keys to safe bicycling is to be as predictable and as conspicuous as possible so that motorists always know you are there and can predict what you are going to do. By riding against traffic -- especially on the sidewalk -- you make yourself almost invisible to motorists turning at intersections and driveways who may not be expecting or looking for road users coming from your direction. Indeed, as many as one in four bicycle/motor vehicle collisions involve a rider who is either riding against traffic and/or riding on the sidewalk.

In a lengthy article explaining why riding the wrong way against traffic is dangerous, author Ken Kifer explores the three principle dangers:

• Turning motorists are not looking where wrong-way riders are riding.
• The motorist and bicyclist have limited time and little space in which to react to each others' presence.
• The closing speed of a bicyclist and motorist riding head on into each other is higher than if the bicyclist and motorist were traveling in the same direction.

He also points out that riding with traffic decreases the number of vehicles passing you, and doesn't bring you into conflict with bicyclists who are riding the right way with traffic!

There are many, many others sites with similar information: http://www.capitalbikeshare.com/news/2012/02/24/never-ride-against-traffic or simply Google: bicycle ride "(with|against)" traffic

Re:additional advice:

[The Snowman]

if you are walking or riding along the side of a road, choose to walk/ ride on the side that makes you face traffic

Walk facing traffic, ride with traffic.

When on foot, you can much easier jump out of the way laterally, possibly over a barrier that may provide protection (which you should probably be behind anyway). On a bicycle, it is difficult to impossible to do this in the amount of time between "oh shit that car will hit me" and it hitting you. On a bicycle, you are better off going with traffic which will reduce the net velocity of you v. the car. For example, if the car is moving 35 MPH and you are riding 25 MPH, it is a 10 MPH hit to the rear tire v. a 60 MPH front-on collision. Guess which one is more survivable when you do not have 2,000 lbs of car surrounding you?

I would also advise having mirrors and lights on your bicycle to make yourself more visible and to make it easier to spot SUVs whose drivers are too busy yapping on the goddamn cell phone to pay attention to the road.

Re: additional advice:

[circletimessquare]

you are commenting under a story in which a guy died because he was obeying the law and your advice, and therefore did not have any warning as to the car that killed him

i will be riding and walking against traffic out of self-preservation, and will continue to advise others to do the same

if any other cyclists come to blows with me over that, i will go home with a black eye, and still alive, rather than in a body bag, like Seth Vidal

if the desire to preserve my life is selfish in the matter of road rules that as far as i understand make no sense whatsoever, then i shall be selfish, and i shall insist other cyclists conform to what i am advising, rather than the other way around, out of their own selfish sense of preservation as well

and then the laws, and bad advice like yours, should change as well

Re:additional advice:

[circletimessquare]

thank you

Re:additional advice:

[circletimessquare]

On a bicycle, it is difficult to impossible to do this in the amount of time between "oh shit that car will hit me" and it hitting you. On a bicycle, you are better off going with traffic which will reduce the net velocity of you v. the car. For example, if the car is moving 35 MPH and you are riding 25 MPH, it is a 10 MPH hit to the rear tire v. a 60 MPH front-on collision. Guess which one is more survivable when you do not have 2,000 lbs of car surrounding you?

yes, absolutely, the car coming at you at a very high rate of speed compounded with your speed in the opposite direction is a low possibility of survival

as opposed to a zero chance of survival from the idiot swiping you from behind because you cannot SEE him at all, and have NO chance of evasive maneuvers

and so i will continue to prefer a low chance of survival over a zero chance of survival, and continue to ride against traffic, and continue to advise others to do the same, and support that the laws will change to recognize this common sense

I would also advise having mirrors and lights on your bicycle to make yourself more visible and to make it easier to spot SUVs whose drivers are too busy yapping on the goddamn cell phone to pay attention to the road.

thank you for noting what the real problem is: not the behavior of cyclists, but of heavy cars and trucks, and why cyclists should behave defensively... and therefore ride on the side of the road against oncoming traffic

Re:additional advice:

[axlash]

You can't base advice on just one single incident. What if I could point out to you many *other* incidents where someone was killed *because* they were riding against traffic, and didn't have the time to react?

Re:additional advice:

[Anonymous Coward]

i will be riding and walking against traffic out of self-preservation, and will continue to advise others to do the same

You're part of the problem, then.
Bikes are vehicles and when used on the road are subject to pretty much all the same rules as any other vehicle. If you're driving, people on bikes represent a wild random factor. People like you, that is.
If I'm driving, and someone on a bike is actually obeying all the rules of the road, it's pretty easy to spot them. They signal turns and stops, don't run red lights, stay off sidewalks, and don't use the pedestrian crossings. They are just predictable as any driver in a motor vehicle, albeit less visible... but really not that much less visible than someone on a motorcycle.

Then there's you. You're the guy who is riding across someone's lawn, a parking lot, etc. who comes shooting out into 5 lanes of traffic with little or no warning. You break all the rules and claim it's so you are 'safer', but when a bunch of you are all in one area, now as a driver I'm effectively driving through a crowd of people making random motions. You're the one who has 30 people backed up behind you as you hog the lane, and then pull off and ride down the pedestrian paths and crossings, before rejoining traffic to cause congestion in a different spot. You're the guy who fails to yield to me at an intersection, because "hey i'm on a bike so fuck you".
Most people aren't dicks like you are, but there are enough that you give the rest of us a bad name.

A large part of the issue really boils down to poor design and planning. Mixed-use roads don't work very well- heavy truck simply don't mix with people riding bicycles or walking, ever. Regular vehicles can do ok in residential areas but don't mix with pedestrians in congested or high-speed situations.

But a lot of it is your fault. Yes, you. You might be perfectly OK with cruising along at a whopping 10mph in a 45mph zone, but guess what? I'm driving a car because I have somewhere to be, and I'm on the 45mph road so I can drive 45mph. If I had the time and inclination to jog or ride that distance instead, then that's what I'd be doing. Stop holding up traffic. Stop cheating the system. You're making things unsafe and pissing everybody off, which just makes it harder for the rest of us bikers to stay safe.

And finally- you shouldn't be walking in the road to start with, but if you must then yes, go against traffic so you can see what's coming.

Re:additional advice:

[circletimessquare]

yes, absolutely, the car coming at you at a very high rate of speed compounded with your speed in the opposite direction is a low possibility of survival

as opposed to a zero chance of survival from the idiot swiping you from behind because you cannot SEE him at all, and have NO chance of evasive maneuvers

and so i will continue to prefer a low chance of survival over a zero chance of survival, and continue to ride against traffic, and continue to advise others to do the same, and support that the laws will change to recognize this common sense

Re:additional advice:

[fahrbot-bot]

Obviously, you're a complete idiot (or a troll) and there's no arguing with "stupid". Sorry, but there's no other, kinder, gentler way to put it. I wish you well; (either way) please - please - don't breed.

If you do breed and when your child gets killed following your advise - like many of the others that already do, then what will your line of thinking be? Someone followed the rules and got killed, someone didn't follow the rules and got killed. The truth is that more people die riding against traffic than riding with. Have a good safe ride staring into those on-coming headlights, then, please - please - go into the light.

Re:additional advice:

[circletimessquare]

Then there's you. You're the guy who is riding across someone's lawn, a parking lot, etc.

i stopped reading there

straw man

i do not do this and you reacting to this other situation amounts to a change of subject, meaning you are not adding to the topic and have nothing useful or valid to say on the issue here

Re:additional advice:

[circletimessquare]

so i am not allowed to question stupid rules?

a car coming at you at a very high rate of speed compounded with your speed in the opposite direction is a low possibility of survival

as opposed to a zero chance of survival from the idiot swiping you from behind because you cannot SEE him at all, and have NO chance of evasive maneuvers

and so i will continue to prefer a low chance of survival over a zero chance of survival, and continue to ride against traffic, and continue to advise others to do the same, and support that the laws will change to recognize this common sense

Re:additional advice:

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks for the level headed reply

i will be riding and walking against traffic out of self-preservation, and will continue to advise others to do the same

random murderous nutjobs like yourself notwithstanding

Just a heads-up buddy, I ride a bicycle. I obey the traffic laws. If you're heading at me and I can safely avoid you, I will, and as we pass I'll knock your worthless piece of shit ass right off that bike onto the sidewalk. But if it's not safe for me to swerve out into traffic, guess what- there's a head-on collision coming which I guarantee you I'll come out the winner.

Re:additional advice:

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed and I argued this point effectively with the police officer that taught our biking safety class, he admitted that way too many people are self absorbed idiots while driving and so you probably were safer being able to see them coming while having time to react.

Ever heard of mirrors? Ya, fucking get some. But no. You're so fucking cool you can't have them, so instead you ride on the wrong side of the goddamn road. I ride a bike too- that's my lane you're in, asshole, GTFO.

Re:additional advice:

[circletimessquare]

if any other cyclists come to blows with me, i will go home with a black eye, and still alive, rather than in a body bag, like Seth Vidal

if the desire to preserve my life is selfish in the matter of road rules that as far as i understand make no sense whatsoever, then i shall be selfish, and i shall insist other cyclists conform to what i am advising, rather than the other way around, out of their own selfish sense of preservation as well

and then the laws, and bad advice like yours, should change

as for your desire to clothesline people you have a problem with, that has a way of taking care of itself, as no matter how bad ass you think you are, there's always someone out there with an even worse attitude, and you type of guys always seem to have a knack for meeting each other, someone with an worse response than even you can muster, and you probably won't be getting back up. so you're a self-solving problem, friend

Re:additional advice:

[styrotech]

Not only that, but at night I'd hate to think how a confused motorist could react when they see an oncoming headlight on their side of the road.

They would legitimately be expecting to pass by white lights on one side and red lights on the other.

If it isn't a well lit area and/or has little room off to the sides, an oncoming white light on the opposite site might cause them to subconsciously react as if they thought they were on the wrong side of the road and swerve across in front of you trying to recover from their 'mistake'.

And depending how many other oncoming white headlights there are it could get even more confusing or hard to spot you.

I'd feel much safer riding with the traffic wearing one or two bright red tail lights and reflectors on my ankles. It's debatable just how much warning you'd get and if you'd be able to get out of the way anyway heading into traffic.

Re:additional advice:

[terrab0t]

When I used to ride regularly, I had a rear-view mirror that attached to the end of my left handlebar.

Re:additional advice:

[LinuxFreakus]

It is all kinds of dangerous to ride on the wrong side unless you are going no faster than a walker/jogger. If you want to see what is going on behind you get mirrors on your bike and/or helmet. Problem solved.

Re:additional advice:

[LinuxFreakus]

The only way this might be true is if you are going really slow (i.e. walking/jogging speed). At 25 mph which most cyclists who are in decent physical condition are more than capable of riding, you won't be able to react as easily as you think. Far, far safer to ride with traffic the same as other vehicles and OBEY the traffic laws... it is unbelievable how many riders I see running stop signs and lights, making illegal turns, etc, etc... it is so dangerous. Just get mirrors to see behind you. Mount on handlebars and/or helmet.

Re: additional advice:

[Anonymous Coward]

Different AC here.

Just wanted to let you know that you are an asshole. As are all other cyclists who blatantly disregard the law.

Re:additional advice:

[fahrbot-bot]

Clearly, you're trolling because no one can realistically be as unbelievably stupid as you portray. But, I live in a tourist town and routinely see bicyclists riding against traffic, so uneducated people like you (pretend to be) are out there, so I'll bite one last time:

so i am not allowed to question stupid rules?

Sure, but this rule isn't actually stupid - fact..

a car coming at you at a very high rate of speed compounded with your speed in the opposite direction is a low possibility of survival

Very true, so don't ride against traffic.

as opposed to a zero chance of survival from the idiot swiping you from behind because you cannot SEE him at all, and have NO chance of evasive maneuvers

I was swiped by a car I did not see and lived, so this argument is invalid.

and so i will continue to prefer a low chance of survival over a zero chance of survival, and continue to ride against traffic, and continue to advise others to do the same, and support that the laws will change to recognize this common sense

You're obviously statistically challenged, and your "zero chance of survival" scenario is invalid, but please continue in your endeavor to be a Darwin Award winner as you have no common sense...

Again, please don't breed - ever. Cheers.

Re:additional advice:

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter which direction you ride if you ride on the sidewalk. That's probably illegal, too, and has its own tradeoffs. But on a busy street with little or no shoulder, that's what I do. On safer streets I ride on the street, with traffic.

Re:additional advice:

[ZenShadow]

as opposed to a zero chance of survival from the idiot swiping you from behind because you cannot SEE him at all, and have NO chance of evasive maneuvers

Repeating this fallacy doesn't make it any more valid than it was the first time.

Fact: you're riding on a road designed for cars. If you can't handle that, then don't do it.

Fact: all vehicles on that road (motorized or otherwise) are responsible for their own ability to drive safely and within the law. If you can't handle doing what every other driver and rider expects of you, then you have no business being on that road.

Fact: riding against traffic on a bicycle is no less stupid than riding against traffic on a motorcycle. There's no difference whatsoever. Well, except that the motorcycle is generally easier to see.

If you're having visibility problems, then you must be too cool for a rear-view mirror. They're five bucks at the local bike shop and solve that problem quite nicely. "Can't see the people behind me" isn't a valid excuse for endangering not only yourself, but everyone else on the road by doing something completely and idiotically unexpected, like driving head-on into traffic.

In short, you're the kind of guy that routinely fucks up my morning commute due to (a) an overinflated sense of entitlement to the use of a road intended for motorized vehicles, and (b) a complete and utter lack of common sense and self-preservation skills.

Re:additional advice:

[bws111]

Ever hear of a fancy new invention called a 'mirror'? I hear it lets you see what is behind you.

Re:additional advice:

[Anonymous Coward]

If riding a bike I usually LISTEN to the traffic coming up behind me.

Re:additional advice:

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the driver was playing it safe and driving on the wrong side of the road, as well.

Re:additional advice:

[Zontar The Mindless]

When I was in school, they specifically taught us to walk/ride against the flow of traffic for exactly the reasons given by Circle.

Also, I would really enjoy seeing you try to get all physical and stuff with some of my neighbours here in Stockholm who don't have jobs, yet drive expensive cars and have women who look like models. Strangely enough, all of these types seem to speak Russian...

Re: additional advice:

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're really so keen on preserving your life, why the fuck are you riding a bicycle in traffic?

You're just a fucking idiot that's all.

Re:additional advice:

[nosfucious]

This is why you have ** mirrors **. And you check them, regularly.

I ride both bikes. Both types. Mirrors are what tells what's behind you.

Do NOT ride against traffic. If it's against the law, and there is an accident, your insurance will desert you (You do have personal protection, or income insurance?)

FTFY.

Re:additional advice:

[TheRaven64]

Fact: you're riding on a road designed for cars. If you can't handle that, then don't do it.

Most of the time, I'm riding on a road designed for horses, with some modest concessions made to the fact that they might be pulling a cart. Both cars and bikes post-date the creation of most of the roads around here and they're sufficiently narrow that if you do the kind of idiocy that the grandparent suggests then an oncoming car will have the choice of hitting you or hitting a car that's on the correct side of the road. I wonder which they'd chose...

Re:additional advice:

[jittles]

i will be riding and walking against traffic out of self-preservation, and will continue to advise others to do the same

Sure, do whatever you want, but please don't advise others. What you're doing is dangerous and illegal.

Sure enough. When I was getting my bachelors degree I almost killed someone on a bicycle twice. Both times they were on the sidewalk, going against the flow of traffic. In one instance I looked left (and checked the sidewalk too) and it was clear. Looked right, it was clear, looked back left and started to go just as a bicyclist came flying around the corner at ~20MPH. I slammed on the brakes and he didn't even swerve because he did not expect me either. I missed him by about 6 inches.

The second time I was stopped at a red light, waiting to make a left turn. The light turned green, I looked left, saw it was clear, looked right and started to go. Not only did this bicyclist come flying up the wrong side of the street on the sidewalk, but he also ran a red light, and I could not see him until the last second because of a large van stopped next to me at the light. If you're going to be going the wrong way down the road, you had better be moving at pedestrian speeds or someone will eventually kill you and the law will likely indicate that the bicyclist is at least 50% at fault.

Re:additional advice:

[BranMan]

IIRC you are supposed to WALK against the traffic - i.e. facing it. But when you are riding you are considered a vehicle, so you must RIDE with the traffic.

Riding against the traffic is against all traffic laws that I know of. Walking I'm not sure - other than the pedestrian always has the right of way, period.

Riding with any kind of speed just makes the closing rate that much faster when riding against the traffic. That increases the risk of you getting hit frontally - at a lot higher speed - when coming around corners or other obstructed view areas. Also may cause more accidents when cars need to swerve because you're suddenly appearing in front of them, speeding towards them, on the wrong side of the road.

In short, I don't think that's a good idea.

Re:additional advice:

[Rakarra]

Seriously, what bws11 said. Get a damned mirror. You can mount it on the handlebar. You can mount some on your helmet. There are options for seeing behind you without biking the wrong way, putting yourself at more of a risk of collision than if you were riding normally.

a candle

[Kamien]

a candle in the wind [']

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe even a poster on this site would try to make a joke in a comment on this kind of story.

Greetings, and welcome to Slashdot.

meanwhile congress tries to cut bike path funds

[Anonymous Coward]

the human race has a very small chance of surviving its own stupidity.

Re:meanwhile congress tries to cut bike path funds

[Anonymous Coward]

Save the planet: nuke the humans.

Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[attemptedgoalie]

All the cars stopped. The people walking in the crosswalk were nearly drilled by some jerk on his bike. Just kept riding, then rode through the next red light.

They want full access to the roads, taking a whole lane? Fine. Then they need to meet all of the same rules we do.
- No rolling red lights.
- No cutting between cars in their lanes.
- Turn signals
- Etc.

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[armanox]

Actually you're not required to have turn signals. You are required to signal your intention though (hand signals work).

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[Duhavid]

Seen cars do that too. Yes, cyclists need to obey the rules of the road. Where I am , that is the law.

I would like to gently suggest you reconsider what appears to be prejudgment of cyclists as "bad".
Yes, there are bad cyclists, there are bad car drivers, there are bad manicurists, etc.
There are good ones also.

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[attemptedgoalie]

If a car blows through an intersection, and a cop sees it, it's ticket-time, and probably an arrest.

if a bike blows through an intersection, and a cop sees it, I doubt they'd expend the effort to track the bicyclist down.

I didn't say that all cyclists are bad. I said this one was.

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[H0p313ss]

All the cars stopped. The people walking in the crosswalk were nearly drilled by some jerk on his bike. Just kept riding, then rode through the next red light.

They want full access to the roads, taking a whole lane? Fine. Then they need to meet all of the same rules we do.
- No rolling red lights.
- No cutting between cars in their lanes.
- Turn signals
- Etc.

There are bad cyclists and bad drivers, and no excuses for either.

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[Shados]

Some areas definitely nudge a little more in one direction than another... I live in the boston area, and don't drive (I'm 30, I just never needed to), and im a heck of a lot more scared of cyclists than cars. When I moved here, within 2 weeks I witnessed 3 distinct accidents where the cyclist was clearly at fault, ramming in cars that were stopped at a red light, one going full speed in an eldery woman crossing the street in broad day light at a major intersection (if he hadnt hit the lady, he would have been snapped by a car), and the amount of times I almost got hit by one while crossing the street is just nuts.

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding your signature, for me it's the exact opposite.

--
My dad says I'm hot.

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[Duhavid]

Yeah, that would suck.

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[nitehawk214]

All the cars stopped. The people walking in the crosswalk were nearly drilled by some jerk on his bike. Just kept riding, then rode through the next red light.

They want full access to the roads, taking a whole lane? Fine. Then they need to meet all of the same rules we do.
- No rolling red lights.
- No cutting between cars in their lanes.
- Turn signals
- Etc.

Well that cyclist should be ticketed for running a light. (I do not recall ever seeing a cyclist being ticketed, and yet I see them running lights or failing to signal often.) However, that does NOT you the right to assault them with your vehicle. If I saw you trying to run a bicycle off the road, I would run you off the road. The worst that can happen to you is your car is ruined, the worst that would happen to a cyclist that you bulled is that they would be killed.

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[hey!]

So, I saw a *car* run a red light today. Strangely, that does not cause me to question the right of automobile drivers to use the roads.

I agree with most of your other points, although a turn signal isn't really practical. I use hand signals (although most drivers don't seem to understand them, so I signal a right turn with my right hand). I stop at the stop-line, I don't weave between cars, and in general obey all the rules that apply to slower moving vehicles. I do claim a lane when I travel in traffic, although I pull over regularly (when it is safe) to let trailing cars pass. That's not the law, it's just common courtesy.

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[fnj]

Actually you're not required to have turn signals. You are required to signal your intention though (hand signals work).

Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. A hand signal isn't going to be worth shit on a dark night, for example.

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[Crudely_Indecent]

Having taken several trips across car hoods, I'd say the same rules should apply to automobile drivers.

I spent several years riding my bicycle to and from work, as well as recreational riding and I can say with confidence that drivers are far more reckless than cyclists. There is a reason cyclists call them cagers, they are safely in their cage - oblivious to the fact that they're driving a deadly weapon.

On the other hand, I've seen people riding bicycles (as opposed to cyclists) who are oblivious to the dangers around them - swerving into the street, crossing roads without looking, horsing around....almost asking to get run over.

There are idiots on both sides of the windshield. How about we just say that everyone should act responsibly and follow the safety protocols in place.

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[Anonymous Coward]

>If a car blows through an intersection, and a cop sees it, it's ticket-time, and probably an arrest.

hahahahaha you funny

There's an intersection a few blocks from here with two octagonal stop signs (on the less-used street). I regularly see drivers go past it without slowing down; sometimes speeding up (whenever traffic isn't moving nearby on the major street). Whenever a cop is around, they've never done anything. I've seen cops do it.

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[TheRaven64]

if a bike blows through an intersection, and a cop sees it, I doubt they'd expend the effort to track the bicyclist down.

They won't track anyone down. They will, however, stop the vehicle. A few months ago I cycled up to some lights that changed to red just before I got there. Annoying to stop. So annoying that the cyclist about 10 seconds behind me decided not to. He got less than 50m down the road before being pulled over and fined. Now, perhaps the moral of this story is don't shoot the lights directly in front of the police station...

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[TheRaven64]

Last week, I pulled up to a red light and took a photograph of the car that had stopped with three of its wheels in the cycle lane (lights here often have a strip of cycle lane across the front so that bikes that are turning can get out of the way as soon as the lights change). The driver seemed to take exception to this, gesticulated and then drove off. Straight through the red light.

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[CanHasDIY]

the amount of times I almost got hit by [a cyclist] while crossing the street is just nuts.

Hmm, sounds like a great reason to start carrying a walking stick...

'Oh, did my cane get tangled up in your spokes? Guess you'll think of that next time you're about to illegally drive through a crowd, eh?'

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I use hand signals (although most drivers don't seem to understand them, so I signal a right turn with my right hand).

I don't know where you live, but around here, "right" means "right" and "left" means "left". If you tried to signal a right turn with your left hand, people would yell at you for being a suicidal idiot.

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[omnichad]

There's a standard way of signaling direction if you're on a bicycle or a vehicle with broken signal lights:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_signals

They're all done with the left arm.

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[K. S. Kyosuke]

They're all done with the left arm.

You're contradicting the page you've just linked yourself.

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[omnichad]

Not for the US. The one that conforms with the Uniform Vehicle Code uses the left arm for all. The ones with the left arm are the ones everyone is taught in driving class and when they teach bicycle safety. And of course all the pictures show the left arm as well.

Yes, you can also use your right arm for a right turn. But I didn't say it was exclusive.

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The funny thing is that if I'm correctly interpreting the page you've linked, the "arm to the right" rule works everywhere whereas "left arm up" is an alternative in the US in addition to "arm to the right". Your logic is "therefore all hand signals are left-handed", which seems to be a symptom of ignoring 95% of the planet.

Re:Had a bicyclist blow through a red-light today

[omnichad]

People in the US don't usually drive outside of the U.S. And it works between vehicles AND bicycles. It's not a matter of ignoring 95% of the planet, it's a matter of driving on the right side of the road from the left side of the vehicle. You really can't use your right arm to signal from inside a car. And there's also a signal for stop - so arm orientation already matters here.

You said you didn't know where I live, so I was explaining where I live and the logic we used to set up our rules. Really, right-arm out isn't exactly taught or mentioned here, but it's understood implicitly and used mostly by people who don't know hand signals. I'm surprised it was even mentioned as if it were common here.

Not the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that it's a coincidence, but Rob Levin (a founder of the Freenode IRC network and the Peer Directed Projects Center) was also killed due to a hit and run accident while riding his bicycle in 2006.

Re:Not the first time

[XanC]

It's not a coincidence? Just what are you proposing to be the link between the two incidents?

Re:Not the first time

[H0p313ss]

It's not a coincidence? Just what are you proposing to be the link between the two incidents?

Clearly the momentum. Damn those physicists!

Re:Not the first time

[H0p313ss]

It's not a coincidence? Just what are you proposing to be the link between the two incidents?

Clearly the momentum. Damn those physicists!

Perhaps quantum entanglement would have been funnier.

Not that there's anything funny about quantum entanglement... or having one's life prematurely ended by a Neanderthal with a revoked license.

Re:Not the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehe. It makes you feel better to assume the killer was a moron. Because intelligence is all you value. Because you think you have it.

Truth is that driver was probably pretty bright and just made a random bad decision like anyone could.

I lol'ed at this event and article :)

Re:Not the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, Seth used to be a sysadmin for the Duke University Physics Department. He will be sorely missed.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need idiots like you speaking up whenever someone makes the wrong joke at the wrong time. Humor is different for everyone, you might as well get used to it if you're going to live in this world any long.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

We're all so saddened by his loss and we feel for the family now that they must pay for an expensive funeral. Speaking of money, you know money doesn't grow on trees. And, Linux Advocates is growing. Naturally, we anticipate operating costs and hope to be able to meet them.

But, any amount you feel you are able to donate in support of our ongoing work will be most surely appreciated and put to very good use. Your contributions keep Linux Advocates growing.

Show your support by making a donation today.

Thank you.

Dieter T. Schmitz

Linux Advocates, Owner

http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html

Just me or lots of OSS/*nix people dying?

[Chas]

Just seems that there's been a rash of OSS/Free Software/*nix people dying in weird circumstances lately.

Re:Just me or lots of OSS/*nix people dying?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just seems that there's been a rash of OSS/Free Software/*nix people dying in weird circumstances lately.

NURV.

Re:Just me or lots of OSS/*nix people dying?

[cgt]

People always think a lot of people are dying "right now", but that's because they forget about all those people who died in the past. Lots of people die all the time.

The occulus engineer too...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Silicon Valley a few weeks back. I forget: Is the occulus design open source or no?

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! Money doesn't grow on trees. And, Linux Advocates is growing. Naturally, we anticipate operating costs and hope to be able to meet them.

But, any amount you feel you are able to donate in support of our ongoing work will be most surely appreciated and put to very good use. Your contributions keep Linux Advocates growing.

Show your support by making a donation today.

Thank you.

Dieter T. Schmitz

Linux Advocates, Owner

http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html

Or bright yellow with reflective strips

[aepervius]

I got a special vest just for that. It is very thin (does not protect against wind or heat or rain or anything whatsoever) so I can wear it above any clothing I got. It is very very bright yellow, with a lot of reflective strips before me, on the side, and behind me. Did you see worker on the road at night ? Same as this but on thhin material. You can also buy such a night worker best, they are rather expansive and protect from rain (I saw one at 250 euro) but they are thick and you can't wear over your clothing. The reflective bands are usually very wide and also overall. Going at night without those reflective bands, even with white clothing is not good enough, too many people "speed" and by the time they see you it is too late. Reflective bands make you see from much further away.

Re:Or bright yellow with reflective strips

[TheRaven64]

One of our former students is now starting a company that produces vests with built-in LEDs. They're bright glowing red from the back and white from the front. They, alone, are bright enough that you exceed the minimum legal requirements for bike lights at night even if you don't have any lights on the bike itself. Even better, they have flashing yellow lights in the arms that are activated when you lift the arm to the horizontal position. They're currently circulating some prototypes, but I'm looking forward to seeing them hit the market.

Re:Or bright yellow with reflective strips

[FireFury03]

One of our former students is now starting a company that produces vests with built-in LEDs. They're bright glowing red from the back and white from the front. They, alone, are bright enough that you exceed the minimum legal requirements for bike lights at night even if you don't have any lights on the bike itself. Even better, they have flashing yellow lights in the arms that are activated when you lift the arm to the horizontal position. They're currently circulating some prototypes, but I'm looking forward to seeing them hit the market.

Sounds excellent - is there a website?

Re:Or bright yellow with reflective strips

[TheRaven64]

I don't know - I saw the prototype over some beers a few weeks ago. I'll let you know when they're past the prototype stage. The version I saw had a small design flaw where the wires to the arm weren't quite robust enough, so after a few weeks of use the indicators started working. They need to fix that before a proper launch...

Article with more information

[Steve Blake]

The following article has more information, including the name and photo of the driver who turned himself in today.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/09/3020243/durham-mourns-cyclist-killed-in.html

As a bicyclist, I hate to say it...

[Anonymous Coward]

... but most bicycle-car collisions are caused by people riding stupidly, and thinking that just because the "law" says they have the "same rights" as cars, that will somehow stop a collision with a 4000lb killing machine going 50mph from killing them.

I ride nearly 10,000 miles/year and have found one thing to be universally true: the riders that ride like dickheads and go out of their way to annoy drivers are the ones who are always bragging about how many accidents they've been in.

In over 150,000 miles of road riding in my lifetime, I have been in precisely ZERO accidents. Why? Because I go out of my way to share the road and cooperate with traffic rather than get in the way "just because I can." I know guys who ride the center line because they think taking the whole lane for themselves will prevent cars trying to pass, making it safer. All it really accomplishes is to piss off drivers, get them aggravated, and cause them to make poor decisions as a result of it.

Riding aggressively is no different than driving aggressively. Eventually you're going to get in a wreck because of it.

Senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would anyone insist on riding a bicycle around large, heavy vehicles driven by imperfect humans?

yeah, the police get right on those cases

[SuperBanana]

You should - vehicular assault is a serious offence, and if your video can be used to prove malice, those sociopathic pricks will be confined to a cell where they belong.

BWHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA. I had someone sideswipe me and then intentionally "brake check" me (looked in his mirror right at me, glaring, and slammed on his brakes, with nothing in front of him, no intersection, etc.) I gave the cops a complete plate and description and they said there was nothing they could do, because I hadn't been injured - even though the driver, in side-swiping me, had caused a "collision" and by leaving, a hit-and-run - and by stopping in the middle of the road, driven recklessly.

I've been wanting a dash cam for the opposite reason - a lot of the cyclists around here are either stupid or have a deathwish, judging by how flagrantly they violate right-of-way laws.

No, "a lot" of cyclists don't have deathwishes nor are they stupid. You just think they do, because they're a minority outgroup - so you exaggerate negative attributes. The vast majority of cyclist crashes are caused by drivers operating recklessly or illegally. And what right-of-way laws would those be, by the way? Let me guess: you think that you have a right of way over someone on a bicycle, right? Yeah, you don't, actually.

Re:yeah, the police get right on those cases

[Common Joe]

No, "a lot" of cyclists don't have deathwishes nor are they stupid. You just think they do, because they're a minority outgroup - so you exaggerate negative attributes. The vast majority of cyclist crashes are caused by drivers operating recklessly or illegally.

As a frequent driver, bicyclist, and pedestrian, I think all three "classes" of people have significant amounts of stupidity, recklessness, and high-probability-danger in them. How many cars follow the two second rule? How many bicyclist run red lights? How many pedestrians actually dress well (bright colors at night) and are predictable to where they are going before stepping into a street? I would argue that in all three cases, about 75% of the people I typically encounter are not well trained to drive, bike, or even walk safely.

Re:yeah, the police get right on those cases

[TheRaven64]

Pedestrians around here have a habit of stepping out into the road without looking. Most often, I see women with pushchairs push their child out into the road without looking, which is inexcusable - I don't object to people doing things that will get them killed, only when it is likely to injure someone else. The level of stupidity I see from cyclists is generally higher than for car drivers, but most of it is just likely to get them killed, whereas most of the idiocy from car drivers is likely to at least injure someone else.

Re:yeah, the police get right on those cases

[FireFury03]

Pedestrians around here have a habit of stepping out into the road without looking. Most often, I see women with pushchairs push their child out into the road without looking, which is inexcusable

I frequently see pedestrians standing on the kerb where they usually would to cross, but with a push chair (off the kerb and in the road), watching traffic go by until its safe to cross. Some people just don't engage their brain at all.

Re:yeah, the police get right on those cases

[Cro Magnon]

I live very near a high school and go to work in the dark. It seems like most of the kids like dark clothes and cross in the middle of the street without warning. It makes me wonder how many of them actually survive to adulthood.

Re:yeah, the police get right on those cases

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? How about side by side bike riders in traffic. Riding in the middle of the road not on the side. Blowing through traffic lights and traffic circles. Switching back and forth sidewalk to street with no warning. I have seen a lot of bad apples. I know however that not every bike rider is reckless.

Re:yeah, the police get right on those cases

[CanHasDIY]

I presume, based on the anger and pre-judgement evident in your post, that I'm wasting time, but what the hell:

No, "a lot" of cyclists don't have deathwishes nor are they stupid.

Never said that; I said a lot of the cyclists around here are morons with a deathwish. [Insert smart-ass remark about Parent failing geography class here]

The vast majority of cyclist crashes are caused by drivers operating recklessly or illegally.

Yea, sure they are, that's why you provided stats to back your claim. Oh, wait, no you didn't, you're just engaging in the exact same biased presumptions that you accuse me of. Nice work, dude.

And what right-of-way laws would those be, by the way?

Uh, if you're operating a vehicle on a public street as you seem to be claiming you do, you should know them yourself...

But I'm trying to be the nice guy here, so I'll help out: the right of way laws that have existed since the first time 2 cars met on an intersecting street: use of turn signals, respecting stop lights and signs, not driving on the sidewalk, yielding to faster-moving traffic, etc. Otherwise, check your local and state ordinances, as these will vary (where I live, bicycles are legally considered motor vehicles, and thus subject to the same laws; YMMV).

If it makes you feel any better, I've seen motorists do all of those as well, however that does not excuse the cyclists I also see breaking the same laws.

Let me guess: you think that you have a right of way over someone on a bicycle, right? Yeah, you don't, actually.

Remember what I said earlier about biased presumptions? Perfect example right here.

FYI, do you think, as a cyclist, you have a right to block traffic by doing 10 MPH in a 45 MPH zone? Because you don't, any more than a motorist does.

Re:yeah, the police get right on those cases

[steelfood]

Yeah, you don't, actually.

That depends on the jurisdiction. In some places, bicycles are considered vehicles. So the right of way of a bicycle follows the right of way of any other vehicle.

So yes, cars do have the right of way over bicycles sometimes, in fact, in the same situations as if you were driving a car.

Let me reiterate once for good measure: bicycles are not pedestrians on wheels. And if you ride like that, then you will get hit. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when".

Re:yeah, the police get right on those cases

[Trogre]

That's horribly, horribly wrong. There's no way the driver of that vehicle should have gotten away with anything less than attempted murder.

you're victim-blaming as well.

[SuperBanana]

He's not "blaming the victim," he's pointing out a safety tip for those of you who don't understand the basic physics of how our eyes work, you Fuck.

Yes, actually, the poster (we don't know it's a "he"...) is perpetuating victim-blaming of cyclists for their injuries and deaths. It's rampant in the US.

1)The cause is unknown (ie, it's not known that visibility was the problem, so how he was dressed is moot) 2)The onus is not on cyclists to dress in a particular way, the onus is on people with the very nice headlights on the front of a very deadly machine to operate that machine properly and be able to avoid a 6 foot tall, 3 foot wide object in the road traveling in the same direction as them 3)In stories like these, people (especially those who don't cycle) take it as an opportunity to condescendingly lecture those of us who do, about how to ride our bicycles. Seth, for example, was apparently an avid cycling advocate, which means he was damn well aware of how to ride "safely", probably knew the laws better than most drivers, and almost certainly had lights, which means he was plenty "visible."

In almost every story about cyclist injuries and deaths, the comments are hateful, vile, and portray the problem as being everything from cyclists merely being present, to how they behave (despite the fact that drivers are at fault in the vast majority of crashes, as numerous studies have proven), to, yes, how they dress. We're apparently at fault if we're not dressed like psycho day-glo clowns.

Let's take a look at some of the comments on TFA, shall we?

• "they don't belong on the roads."
• "Riding a bicycle at 9pm on a major road is a statistic about to happen. How many people are going to have to die before laws are changed concerning cyclists?"
• "Did the bike have lights? Was the man in night riding "bright" clothes?"
• "If a bicyclist is going to be riding at nights - you need some kind of reflective wear so that the vehicles can better see them - I'm not taking sides, but I've driven on roads at night and have passed bicyclists and could barely see them"
• "the car driver might not have been in the wrong...a bike, at 9pm is close to invisible, especially with glare of oncoming headlights."
• "he should have been wearing reflective clothing too..I didn't see anything in the article about him wearing reflective clothing..."
• "I hate seeing cyclists on the road! roads are too dangerous for bikes, period."

Now do you understand why the comment wasn't appropriate? The comparison to rape victims is quite accurate; rape victims used to be blamed for going out at night, or not having a "friend" (male) with them, to not carrying self-defense devices, to being dressed "like that."

I was just struck by a driver recently. The ER doctor finished up his exam by instructing me to "ride defensively" and "bike carefully." I had been operating legally and prudently, and the driver in a split second cut me off and stopped - blocking the road. There was nothing I could do. I was a victim. And the ER doctor was lecturing me, implying it was my fault for not being "careful" enough.

Re:you're victim-blaming as well.

[datavirtue]

Allright frogger. More and more cars are put on the road every year. The roads are more dangerous now than they were ten years ago and they will be more dangerous next year than they are right now. I used to ride a motorcycle and I had my share of accidents and witnessed some bikers almost get killed numerous times. People get killed every day on motorcycles because someone in an automobile didn't see them. In my view it is just a matter of time after you get comfortable before someone maims or kills you on a motorcycle let alone a bicycle. I won't ride anymore for the reason that people in cars just really don't care. They don't know how to ride or what is involved with stopping and maneuvering a bike and they really have no incentive to care because they have insurance. Ooops, sorry I pulled out in front of you....oh, you're dead ("thank god I have insurance").

Re:you're victim-blaming as well.

[JakartaDean]

The comparison to rape victims is quite accurate; rape victims used to be blamed for going out at night, or not having a "friend" (male) with them, to not carrying self-defense devices, to being dressed "like that."

No it's really not. Your examples show how poorly some people can react to such accidents. They are condescending, and annoy you greatly. I sympathize with that. Blaming the victim in a rape is beyond condescending -- it's encouraging a group of potential rapists to go out and horribly violate innocent women. They are not anywhere near the same thing, and the comparison is not accurate.

I was just struck by a driver recently. The ER doctor finished up his exam by instructing me to "ride defensively" and "bike carefully." I had been operating legally and prudently, and the driver in a split second cut me off and stopped - blocking the road. There was nothing I could do. I was a victim. And the ER doctor was lecturing me, implying it was my fault for not being "careful" enough.

Again, I sympathize that he was condescending and you were annoyed. It's up to you whether you rage against that on /. or explain to him why you think he's out of line, or just let it be.

Re:you're victim-blaming as well.

[rtbraun]

Hillandale Road is narrow, straight 2 lane road that runs north-south; at its south end it runs into the Duke Hospital and it is one of the few roads that crosses I-85. During rush hour it can be hell. At other times it would not be surprising to see people run it at 50MPH (I believe it is posted 35MPH). Where the accident occurred it runs past a golf course and has a line of trees on the west side. By 9pm, it is definitely "near dark" this time of year, and the trees would make it darker. The 1700 block is where a residential neighborhood road crosses Hillandale; I believe Seth lived in that neighborhood, so he could easily have gotten to Hillandale without venturing onto other major roads. Hillandale would not be my idea of pleasant biking, due to a lack of shoulder. Most NC roads are paved no more than 6 inches past the line, and many roads have quite large ditches next to them. I have no idea where on these roads you are supposed to bike.

I met Seth shortly after he moved to the area, though I haven't spoken with in several years. It's a terrible waste, I hope the guy who did it gets what he deserves.

Re:you're victim-blaming as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of the time a cyclist got off his bike, ran halfway into the intersection, and jumped on right in front of me: he entered as a pedestrian, didn't have right-of-way, and yet blamed me.

The cyclist was at fault.

Or the time that I was overtaken on the side I was turning (and indicating to turn, which makes it more illegal in my country) by a father and two kids. They also cut off four oncoming cars, who had to stop in a hurry. (I could have got through in the time, they could not - and did not.)

The cyclists were at fault.

Then there's the time that a cyclist shot through a give way into my lane, missing me by about 30 centimetres. I ended up in the on-coming traffic lane, just to avoid him.

The cyclist was at fault.

Let's throw in motorbikes, too. There was the guy on the wrong side of the road, on a blind hill, without a helmet, who forced me off the road. I nearly went down a 4 metre bank, and he just rode off.

Not only was the motorcyclist at fault for being in the wrong lane, he also didn't stop to make sure that the occupants of my vehicle were OK. I'm fairly sure that's a criminal offense here. Unfortunately, the motorbike was a farm bike and not road licenced, which is also an offense, so I couldn't ring the cops and dob him in.

The (motor)cyclist was at fault.

How about the motorcyclist who was overtaking in a no-passing lane around a corner? I went off the road to avoid him, barely avoiding slamming my car into a cliff face at 50 miles an hour.

Yet again, the (motor)cyclist was at fault.

You self-righteous cyclist cunts piss me off. I see you guys run red lights all the time, and cut cars off. Ride on the road, ride on the footpath, you think you have the right-of-way, never mind the pedestrians you hit (i.e. me) when you cut corners at 35.

Next time one of you pieces of shit does that to me, I am taking you down. I will finish you off, too. I'll punch you in the face so fucking hard that the concussion from smacking your head on the ground will put you out cold.

Get i tthrough your head: Cyclists can be at fault just as easily as drivers. If you're breaking the law on a bike, you're still in the wrong. Doesn't matter in the slightest that you're on a bike, in the eyes of the law.

Re:you're victim-blaming as well.

[TheRaven64]

I ride a bike, and I've seen a lot of my fellow cyclists do stupid and dangerous things. Often, these are also illegal. I've also seen a lot of drivers do stupid and dangerous things, like the guy in the SUV a couple of days ago who decided that the best place to overtake me was on a bend in the road where it's barely wide enough for two cars and there was an oncoming bus - his only way of avoiding a head-on collision was to sharply turn in front of me when half way past, and my only way of avoiding a collision was an emergency stop (and that was only possible in time because I'd noted when he started overtaking on that part of the road that he was probably a dangerous idiot and started slowing down).

The difference is that most of the time a cyclist does something dangerous, the person most likely to suffer injury or death is the cyclist. When someone in a car does something dangerous, the person most likely to suffer injury or death is someone outside the car - like the friend of mine who was killed when someone pulled out of a car park without looking and crushed the side of his car, or a pedestrian or cyclist. When you are in charge of a ton of metal moving at high speed, you should expect to be held to higher standards.

Re:you're victim-blaming as well.

[dunkelfalke]

I hope you have given that bastard the finger.

Re:you're victim-blaming as well.

[rohan972]

There's a difference between victim blaming and risk assessment. My girls learn ju-jitsu. It's not because I blame girls who get raped (or otherwise attacked) for not knowing self defense, it's a risk mitigation strategy. Ideally nobody would commit rape and it is commendable to work towards that but it hasn't been achieved yet.

Now ju-jitsu will work even if you are wearing revealing clothing. If they get drunk to the point of passing out in the presence of untrusted people ju-jitsu won't help. It's nothing to do with "victim blaming" its about a pragmatic approach as opposed to a moral one. If the thing you're most interested in is finding the right person to blame then in each case you have to wait until after a crime is committed. That's a commendable approach when taken by the courts. Not so commendable when taken by a father who should be advising his daughters on a wise course of action "Of course getting drunk with a crowd of football players doesn't mean you deserve rape, go ahead and have a good time!" Girls who get drunk with crowds of young men don't deserve rape at all but they do increase the odds of it happening.

In the past I have written Job Safety Analyses and Safe Work Method Statements on industrial sites. I suggest you have a look at some material on how to manage risk. It's about prevention and would hopefully help you understand that not everything is about your rights or blame, sometimes it's best to take a pragmatic, preventative approach. Your ER doctor was giving you good advice. I'm sure he would have preferred to give it to you before the accident but you didn't turn up at ER and ask him then, so he gave it to you before your next accident which happened to be right after your last one.

Re:you're victim-blaming as well.

[FireFury03]

I ride a bike, and I've seen a lot of my fellow cyclists do stupid and dangerous things. Often, these are also illegal. I've also seen a lot of drivers do stupid and dangerous things, like the guy in the SUV a couple of days ago who decided that the best place to overtake me was on a bend in the road where it's barely wide enough for two cars and there was an oncoming bus - his only way of avoiding a head-on collision was to sharply turn in front of me when half way past, and my only way of avoiding a collision was an emergency stop (and that was only possible in time because I'd noted when he started overtaking on that part of the road that he was probably a dangerous idiot and started slowing down).

Both cyclists and drivers are at fault, which is why the people who advocate changing the law to assume the driver is at fault really worry me. The person who comes of worst is usually the cyclist though, and that makes me wonder why on earth some cyclists take stupid risks.

I should point out that I cycle too, although having been knocked off my bike a few too many times, I try to avoid cycling on busy roads these days (however, my fiancée cycles to work every day on busy roads).

I was driving in the centre of Manchester at around midnight a few weeks ago - I saw about 6 cyclists on the roads, and none of whome had any lights, I think all were wearing dark clothing too. I mean, WTF? How dense do you have to be to cycle at night without lights? And bright LED lights (which are often a good idea to have in the day to make yourself more visible) aren't exactly expensive.

A few years ago I almost knocked a cyclist off while I was driving - it was dark, I was at a junction trying to turn right out of a side road, there was a line of stationary traffic with their headlights on waiting on the more major road in the lane that I would have to cross to make the right turn. I looked down the line of traffic into the glare of headlights, started to pull out and at the last moment spotted a cyclist undertaking the stationary traffic with no lights on - he was completely invisible against the glare of the headlights until the last couple of metres and if I hadn't spotted him and slammed on the brakes he would've been straight into the wing of my car.

In fact, I see cyclists doing crazy stuff when I'm driving all the time.

But drivers are no better - frequently cutting way too close instead of using the full width of the road, trying to overtake cyclists while adjacent to a traffic island rather than waiting until they could pull over onto the oncoming lane, etc. And then we have the drivers who simply don't seem to care about anyone but themselves - one of my friends was cycling with a bus following him, hit some black ice and ended up on the ground; not the bus driver's fault, but you'd think he might stop and check he's ok... but no, the bus driver didn't even wait for my friend to get up, he just pulled out and drove around him and carried on along the road.

Re:you're victim-blaming as well.

[jittles]

I had been operating legally and prudently, and the driver in a split second cut me off and stopped - blocking the road. There was nothing I could do. I was a victim. And the ER doctor was lecturing me, implying it was my fault for not being "careful" enough.

I used to bike daily when I lived in California. Now I live in a much more "rural" type city and its too far to bike anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. I ride my motorcycle everywhere now. I assume that every bastard on the road is trying to run me over, all at once. I've had quite a few incidents where I thought for sure I was going to crash and only a well planned out swerve or a quick application of the brakes saved me. I also, while on a bicycle, had a school bus driver pass me on the left and then proceed to make a right turn that almost caused his back end to run me over while I was in the bike lane. Again a quick application of the brakes followed by a hard swerve saved me. I understand that none of those incidents were my fault, and I was very pissed off when they occurred. However, if I had not been hyper-vigilant at those times, I would have likely been killed. In a court of law, I would have never placed any blame on myself in those situations. In the real world, I would have absolutely blamed myself had I been hurt in any of those incidents. I should have expected it. Thankfully I have not yet encountered a situation I could not get out of.

Re:you're victim-blaming as well.

[X0563511]

"I hate seeing cyclists on the road! roads are too dangerous for bikes, period."

That one doesn't seem to fit - he's pointing out that riding a bike on a road is dangerous, not assigning blame. I totally agree, it is dangerous. Please do not try to tell me that riding two wheels connected by 40lb of metal sticks at 20mph on the same path used by multi-ton vehicles going 50mph is not dangerous.

Re:you're victim-blaming as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

...and be able to avoid a 6 foot tall, 3 foot wide object in the road traveling in the same direction as them

I know the US is full of fat-asses, but I didn't think those fat-asses rode bicycles. The handlebars on my bicycle are only 2 foot wide and are wider than I am.

Re:you're victim-blaming as well.

[CanHasDIY]

Shit, operating 2 tons of explosive-powered steel on a public street is dangerous, evidenced by the fact that motorists die in crashes every single day.

Re:you're victim-blaming as well.

[Blackknight]

Motorcyclists go through the same crap but it's simply a matter of physics. A 3 ton car vs. a 50 lb. bike will always result in the bike losing. Ride like everybody is out to kill you because a lot of them are too busy texting, changing the radio station, etc. and aren't paying attention to the road.

Re:you're victim-blaming as well.

[Trogre]

No it's really not. Your examples show how poorly some people can react to such accidents. They are condescending, and annoy you greatly. I sympathize with that. Blaming the victim in a rape is beyond condescending -- it's encouraging a group of potential rapists to go out and horribly violate innocent women. They are not anywhere near the same thing, and the comparison is not accurate.

I'm not sure if you're trying to make the case that rape is worse than what happened here. In this case the victim was killed.

tragedy

[Anonymous Coward]

While it is a terrible tragedy that he died and I don't want to make light of it, Yum sucks.

be more visible to people NOT LOOKING....?

[SuperBanana]

White does not always help. If you ride at night, use bright headlights and taillaights. I commute by bicycle and have lights on regardless of time of day. Too many drivers just do not pay sufficient attention.

Bright headlights and taillights do not always help. If you ride at night, use dayglo clothing, flags, strobe lights, and pyrotechnics. Too many drivers just do not pay sufficient attention.

If they're "not paying attention" (aka not looking at the road), please explain to me how "being more visible" will help....

I've been hit in the middle of the day, I've been doored despite having a very bright headlight, and I've been cut off ("right hooked") by someone who just passed me, again in the day. Visibility has nothing to do with it. It's about drivers thinking they have the right of way over us universally, and it's about drivers not looking.

In most studies, the number of crashes vs time has little to do with daylight, and everything to do with rush hour - ie people driving aggressively, and traffic density.

Re:be more visible to people NOT LOOKING....?

[Anonymous Coward]

Visibility has nothing to do with it. It's about drivers thinking they have the right of way over us universally, and it's about drivers not looking.

That's not the whole story. It's not uncommon that drivers look at you, see you, and then proceed to cut you off, braking in panic and surprise when you swerve and yell at them.

Their pattern matching just does not register cyclists as traffic but as static scenery. They hopefully won't run directly over you while looking, but they don't take into account the possibility of you moving either.

most cyclist crashes are the fault of the driver

[SuperBanana]

If someone on a bike runs a red light or stop sign and they get hit, that's their bad and that's on them; they'll get no sympathy from me.

Thank goodness, then, that most cyclist crashes are not from the cyclist running a red light or stop sign, but instead the fault of the motorist who hits them. Try googling "study cyclists fault crashes", and note how in almost every country and city, it's the same story.

about those taxes

[SuperBanana]

Dear Richard Allen Black,

"my road and fuel taxes"

There's no such thing as a road tax, and fuel taxes don't pay for roads. Not even close, because they haven't been adjusted for fuel efficiency nor for inflation since before you were born. In almost every country, roads are paid for by property and income taxes.

Second, your car (especially if you drive an SUV or pickup) causes wear and tear on the road. My bicycle does not. Your state has one of the highest highway death rates in the country, so while my bicycle doesn't cause property damage, injury and death...your car sure as hell does, and at great cost to others and the state.

Third, you live in Montana, which is in the top ten in terms of states which take the most in federal taxes relative to what the federal government spends on you. You're leeches, by a ratio of 2:1; you pay $4k in taxes and the federal government spends $8k on your stupid, ignorant ass. Those roads you drive on? You didn't pay for them, hick.

Where's my rebate check from you and your road-damaging, federal-tax-leeching "d-bags"?

Re:about those taxes

[CanHasDIY]

Dear Richard Allen Black,

Hey, look, someone knows how to look at a profile!

FYI, Captain Assumption, I am in fact not Mr. Black, though I do work for the man. Strike 1.

There's no such thing as a road tax

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_tax -

Road tax, known by various names around the world, is a tax which has to be paid on a motor vehicle before using it on a public road.

Strike 2.

Second, your car (especially if you drive an SUV or pickup) causes wear and tear on the road. My bicycle does not.

http://www.williams.edu/feature-stories/elementary-physics/

Your bicycle has mass, and where the tires meet the road there is friction; while your bike does not cause as much damage to the roads as larger vehicles, to say that it causes no damage is intellectually dishonest at best, and yet another example of your ignorance.

Three strikes already? Damn, and there's so much bigoted, ignorant shit left to point out!

Third, you live in Montana

Yea, no I don't. Geolocation fail.

Your state...

Is not Montana, so whatever you were going to say means precisely dick to me.\

bicycle doesn't cause property damage, injury and death...your car sure as hell does,

Yea, no it doesn't. My truck has never once caused "property damage, injury [or] death," but if you disagree you're welcome to file charges with the local sheriff. Just be prepared for me to sue your ass into oblivion for defamation, oh and spend a little time in prison for filing a false report.

What you probably meant was that my truck has the potential to cause damage where your bicycle cannot, which is obvious bullshit. Bikes hurt/kill people too, when their operators are fucktards (and, judging by your nonsensical and very, very angry posts, you belong in that category).

hick.

Yea, real reasonable, adult response there. You sure you don't want to make a crack about my mother while you're at it, you bigoted fuck?

Re:about those taxes

[SuperBanana]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=road+taxes+cyclists

You don't pay a "road tax" in the United States. You pay registration fees, which do not even begin to cover the cost of the roads - they merely cover the cost of handling the paperwork related to your vehicle and license. Property taxes and income taxes pay roads in virtually the entire world over.

My bicycle does not weigh enough or generate enough force to cause any wear on a road surface. I ride on bike paths that haven't been paved in 20-30 years and look brand new.

  Your vehicle, especially since you're overcompensating for your small dick by having a big truck, causes enormous road wear. The wear you cause is a fourth-power function of weight.

Dumb hick.

Re:about those taxes

[CanHasDIY]

You know, I was about to agree with your first 2 paragraphs. Then I saw your third; What are you, 10 years old? Can't have a disagreement with another person without going off the fucking deep end and making personal attacks? That's pathetic, dude.

Go fuck yourself, bigot. I will be ignoring you from this point forward, as anyone half-assed reasonable should.

Brilliant deployment of bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Yum has, after many years of hard work and wasted bandwidth and disk due to the incredibly versided "reposync" style package indexes, only begun to reach the capabilities that the "apt" tool had a decade ago. Any tool too stupid to put out its format of package/version/release/source and that has no way to *stop* deliberately mixing architecture with package, to fail to filter out GPG keys for package reporting, and to semi-randomly insert badly formatted line breaks with no option to turn off the line breaks, nor to turn off the noisy commentary at the beginning of its output in order to produce machine parseable output should have been discarded a decade ago.

To waste this many years producing table-like output *without producing an actual table* is a sin against programming. Yum has evolved like NASA has evolved. Top heavy and an incredible waste of resources on upkeep of some poor original ideas instead of shifting to far more efficient technologies.

Thanks Seth, you were terrific

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just awful awful news, I can't believe we lost someone who made such an impact. My heart goes out to Seths family, and all his friends.

I can't possibly say anything to his loved ones that could possibly make a difference here, Seth made a huge impact on me and so many other people that I know. I work with what you made every day Seth, your work has helped so many.

Scott R. Shinn
Maintainer of the Atomic Yum Repository (10 years)

Please remember Seth

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish more of these comments would touch on Seth's contributions to Fedora, Linux, and the Open Source Community. From 1999 to 2007, he served in various capacities as a system administrator and information technology specialist at Duke University. He made enormous contributions to Linux computing here as an open source champion and evangelist. Even in a community with tremendous expertise, his knowledge and passion for Linux really stood out. Not only did he seem to know more about system administration than anyone else, he also seemed to know the most arcane details about making individual user applications work. His energy and omnipresence in student and scientific computing were truly remarkable. All the more remarkable because as far as I know, he was largely self educated. Though he could be terse, ferocious, and even unsparing in his written comments on various user lists, he was incredibly gentle, humble, and always generous in personal encounters. This is an enormous loss.not only for Seth's family and friends but for our entire Open Source Community.

North Carolina Drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've never driven in NC, know this - in general the people in NC are horrible drivers (even worse than Ohio)!

I didn't know Seth Vidal

[Anonymous Coward]

but a tragedy non the less.

But I will miss YUM.

Yum

[Trogre]

A very useful tool, and indispensable to users of Fedora, CentOS, Scientific Linux. Yum did for rpm what apt-get did for dpkg.

Thank you, Seth.

roflmao

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I just be the first to say "lol" at this?

People die all the time.

This death just happens to have the hilarious bonus of brightening my even while perusing Slashdot articles :)

As usual

[cute_orc]

Good people always suffer from the hands careless lowlife jerks.

Silver Lining

[freeshoes]

Maybe now Fedora will switch to apt-get. Wait... was the guy driving working for ubuntu by any chance?

As a sysadmin who cares for lots of RHEL/CentOS..

[Mysticalfruit]

My job would be a lot harder if it wasn't for yum. Thanks Seth. My condolences to your family.

Yum's Bus Factor

[balajeerc]

We'll have a fair idea of it now... in an unfortunately literalistic sense.

This is why I don't ride a bike

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the environment, I'm not a hippie who will stick his neck out to avoid the mechanical farts of a combustion engine. I prefer to drive the suit of armor called a "car," and the safest I can afford.

q_q

[Anonymous Coward]

I poured some bits off for the fallen comrade
$ yes > /dev/null

DUI kills more people than intentional homicide

[SuperBanana]

18,000 people died in 2006 from DUI crashes.

That's 4,000 more than homicides. So yes, it's pretty "heinous" and should get "insane" punishment. The problem is the punishments aren't insane enough; they sound "insane", but the criminals just get right back in their cars and kill/main more people.

Every time you get behind the wheel and you're drunk/high, you're loading a handgun with a bullet, spinning the chamber, and pointing it at innocent people on the road, and pulling the trigger.

The difference is that you're very often driving to a store where they happily sell you that gun and bullet knowing full well you're going to get into your car and play roulette with it.

No gun store in the country would sell you a gun knowing you'd do that, yet millions of bars serve patrons who drove to their establishments, knowing full well they're going to get back into their cars, drunk.

Re:DUI kills more people than intentional homicide

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't lump high people into it. Just people it's a drug that people take for fun doesn't mean that it makes you dangerous behind the wheel. There is plenty of evidence that drivers under the influence of Cannabis are not any more unsafe than sober drivers and for experienced users they may be more safe.

Re:DUI kills more people than intentional homicide

[Anonymous Coward]

Follow the money.

My hometown tried to start a program that would give drunk people rides home (both free and non-free) from local bars after a specific time because the busses were useless and people were getting killed. The local police force went bonkers and killed it well before most people even knew it existed.

They WANT you to play roulette with your vehicle, because when you smash into something/someone they can come and fine you. Those fines are easy as heck to make stick, and cost next to nothing to put out. They're making money, and they dont want something like 'public safty' to get in the way of it.

Fear the stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do I always get the feeling that the stupid of the earth are a threat to the smart? The guy's license had already been revoked! Arrrrgghhhh!

Sad

[Nov8tr]

Sorry to hear this. I hope they catch the person responsible. Yes lights would be a good idea for all bike riders but it still doesn't stop hit and run drivers. And I've use this man's work over the years. I dual boot Linux and Windows. I've even run CentOS so I'm familiar with his work. Thank you for all your hard work.

F=ma

[rwa2]

... but E = 1/2 mv^2

You don't hit someone with force, you hit them with kinetic energy.

My sympathies, but Yum still sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

It's truly a tragedy that he met his end this way. It does not change the fact that I dislike Yum as a package management system enormously. It sent me back to Debian and the sensibleness of the apt-get world.

not notable @ wikipedia? Srsly?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you care enough about him, please stop the attempt to delete his page on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Vidal

Someone said he is, "Not notable." as a reason:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Vidal

"Not notable, BLP1E at about the loosest definition of 1E available (developing a utility for an operating system). Google hits seem to indicate nobody heard of him until his death (three obits and his personal Google+ page in the first page of hits, and all his professional information is sourced from the subject's own resume, which, while hopefully not fake, likely runs afoul of RS."

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he was cycling as fast as yum handles software updates.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone connected with the Debian project is a dip-shit that loves to produce shitty shit.

FTFY