REVscene Automotive Forum - The Official No Need To Start a New Thread, Thread

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)

- Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)

- - The Official No Need To Start a New Thread, Thread (https://www.revscene.net/forums/653341-official-no-need-start-new-thread-thread.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armind (Post 8631184)

Where to sell used clothes. I don't have time to deal with craigslist and meeting people etc.

Suggestions?

Consignment stores

Any particular one you guys would suggests?

Vancouver driver found partly to blame for collision with cyclist who went through stop sign | Metro

Quote:

A Vancouver driver has been found 35 percent to blame for an accident involving a cyclist who went through a stop sign.

The cyclist, Rachel Matkin, was not wearing reflective clothing, a helmet and did not have a light on her bike when it collided with the vehicle at 8:45 p.m., just as it was getting dark on Sept. 2, 2011.

Peter Hogg, who was driving a Volkswagen Jetta, started to make a left-hand turn at the intersection of Blanca and Drummond Drive in Vancouver when his vehicle hit Matkin, then 17, who came from behind and veered left to avoid running into the back of Hogg’s vehicle.

“Ms. Matkin’s conduct was careless and perhaps even reckless,” the judge found. “She should have noticed and obeyed the stop sign. She should have in any event slowed down and paid better attention to the Hogg vehicle once she saw it. She should have had an illuminated headlight on her bicycle and it would also have been prudent for her to wear reflective clothing. Had she done even just some of these steps she would have been seen by Mr. Hogg, she would not have entered the intersection beside him, and the accident would not have occurred.”

Matkin recalled she was coming down the hill and saw the car slowly pull onto the road in front of her and then stop. She felt if she jammed her brakes she would be thrown over the handlebars, so decided to veer left to avoid running into the car.

She claimed Hogg hit her front wheel as his car turned left, launching her into air and onto the ground. She said she never saw the stop sign because she was focused on trying to avoid hitting the car.

At the time, Matkin was riding home from Wreck Beach, where she admitted consuming a “few sips” of alcohol and a couple of “tokes” with a friend but denied she was impaired.

Hogg recalled the accident happened at “advanced dusk.” He had just finished going for a run and getting into his car. He could not remember whether he activated his left-hand turn signal at the stop sign before he began making a U-turn.

After the accident, he recalled getting out of his car, giving Matkin some water and making sure she was okay. Matkin had a cyclist friend with her. After a few minutes, Hogg asked her if it was okay for him to leave.

Matkin granted permission, adding “I am not going to sue you.” Hogg then went on his way, thinking the accident was the fault of Matkin, who later filed a civil lawsuit, claiming she suffered a brain injury.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Nigel Kent recently ruled that Matkin was 65 per cent at fault for the accident and Hogg was 35 per cent to blame for being carelessness in not seeing Matkin in his mirrors before the collision and not activating his left-hand turn signal.

The judge noted that Hogg’s liability could be further reduced, because of Matkin’s failure to wear a helmet, when the trial moves into the second phase to determine damages for Matkin’s injuries.

Hogg is a Vancouver novelist and a criminal prosecutor who previously worked in Ottawa in the 1990s for the War Crimes Unit.

Coles note:
Impaired cyclist driving behind car. Car stopped at stop sign, then proceeded to make left turn (without signalling). Cyclist ran through stop sign, passed car on left. Car hits cyclists. Judge rule car 35% at fault

I wonder how different will the judgement be if the bike was a car rather than bike.

Quote:

claiming she suffered a brain injury

Looking at the event, I would say that's a pre-existing condition, and she shouldn't be allowed to sue :P

Quote:

Hogg was 35 per cent to blame for being carelessness in not seeing Matkin in his mirrors before the collision and not activating his left-hand turn signal

Quote:

The cyclist, Rachel Matkin, was not wearing reflective clothing, a helmet and did not have a light on her bike

Driver should be 5% at fault, at most, for possibly not signaling.

surprised he admitted to not having a signal, or not being certain that is

Him admitting that he may not have signaled sounds pretty honest, after something like that I doubt I would remember either. Her side of the story I can't think of a scenario where she wasn't completely fucking up and 100% at fault, realistically she got off lucky as if she didn't see that stop sign she was going to blow through it either way and if there's cross traffic then GG.

Honestly though, who the fuck expects someone to check their left mirror when making a left turn? What kind of stupid logic is that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by underscore (Post 8632178)

I know it seems stupid, but you are suppose to check your left mirror and shoulder check before taking a left turn just incase you might hit a cyclist.

You will get marked demerits on your drivers test and it says so in the ICBC book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by meowjinboo (Post 8632236)

Is that recent?

At a controlled intersection with lights, yeah definitely shoulder check and look for speeding cyclists trying to beat the timer.

But at residential stop sign, that's crazy man.

I think the Judge does have a point though. The guy should have signaled, because any impaired person would see that signal and not pass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by meowjinboo (Post 8632236)

Where does it say that? I don't recall that at all, and that's a place a cyclist should never be IMO.

Cyclist should be held accountable for being a dumbass - pure and simple.

Should you have to shoulder check left on a left turn, in case there's a cyclist there?
FUCK NO. If someone's dumb enough to be in that spot, they deserve to get smoked.

How bout some common fucking sense from all people on the road?

This could set a really bad precedent for cyclist vs motor vehicle for the future.

Cyclist was impaired, with no safety equipment, and still could get money from the car, even though cyclist is 100% at fault?

PS. Agree with ICE_BOI, just for the fact that, WHY WOULD U TRY TO PASS ON THE LEFT IN AN INTERSECTION?!?!

Yes it was honest of him to admit, but that's kind of my point, him being a lawyer he should've known that would be a stickler, so I'm surprised he admitted to it instead of taking the stance of saying it was on unequivocally

Quote:

Originally Posted by underscore (Post 8632245)

Where does it say that? I don't recall that at all, and that's a place a cyclist should never be IMO.

Was taught to shoulder check on a left as well as there could be a motorcycle/cyclist/nutjob in oncoming

May the 4th be with you:

Gotta love cyclists and their fucked up logic. If "bicycle" was replaced with "car", not only would the driver of the Jetta be at near-zero fault, but the "cyclist" would also be charged with a DUI. Really getting tired of cyclists (I live on a bike route) acting like they're above the traffic law because they're so caught up in the eco-smugness of feeling like they're making a difference.

If you want to be a vehicle, follow the rules of the road. If you want to be a pedestrian, follow the rules of the sidewalk. You can't just flip-flop between the two whenever it suits you.

that was so satisfying and shitty at the same time

i'd probably punch someone in the face if they smashed one of my sw sets...and they're nowhere near the size of that star destroyer set

Quote:

Originally Posted by meowjinboo (Post 8632236)

It's the right turn where you generally shoulder check for bikers since bike lanes are usually to the right.

Quote:

Vancouver’s taking another step online with Telus announcing on Tuesday that all 350 Yellow Cabs in the city will be equipped with complementary WiFi.

Telus says this would be the first time WiFi is offered for free in taxis anywhere in the country.

According to Telus, it’s expected to take about six weeks for all the vehicles to be equipped.

WiFi coming to Vancouver Yellow Cabs | Vancouver 24 hrs

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunkyColdMedina (Post 8632906)

Gotta love cyclists and their fucked up logic. If "bicycle" was replaced with "car", not only would the driver of the Jetta be at near-zero fault, but the "cyclist" would also be charged with a DUI. Really getting tired of cyclists (I live on a bike route) acting like they're above the traffic law because they're so caught up in the eco-smugness of feeling like they're making a difference.

If you want to be a vehicle, follow the rules of the road. If you want to be a pedestrian, follow the rules of the sidewalk. You can't just flip-flop between the two whenever it suits you.

INB4 you go off the deep end, and set up spike strips when you see cyclists riding down the road. :troll:

Quote:

Originally Posted by melloman (Post 8633301)

INB4 you go off the deep end, and set up spike strips when you see cyclists riding down the road. :troll:

I was driving my parents to the airport today, and ironically my mom was ranting about the same thing... her exact words were "no wonder that old white lady in North Vancouver set up traps on bike paths". My dad then piped up saying he would "love to do it and pretend I have dementia".

Just when I think old people are more mature than young people :P

P.S. I would stop them from doing it.... maybe...

Quote:

Originally Posted by iHeat (Post 8632937)

............. you generally shoulder check for bikers since bike lanes are usually to the right.

You always check your shoulder and the fact that a car has the force of 1000 bikes... the driver is at fault.
If the street was dark and it was raining, there maybe an excuse... but it shouldnt take this long for the system to run the cars black box to further put the driver at fault for not signaling which I think is what happened.

85% fault at the driver and 15% for the biker for not slowing down to the stalled car and stop sign in the intersection.

edit
I was skimming through the first time around.. I missed the part about it being a left turn... this changes everything... I think its all the bikers fault... they should always keep to the right of the road where should checks are expected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlesInCharge (Post 8633363)

There was a member here who was driving under the speed limit looking for his buddies house to turn left on, when the person behind him went to over take him he turned left into the person trying to pass him and didn't realize he was there. I'm pretty sure the person who turned left lost the battle. It was posted somewhere in this forum.

The guy overtaking sounds to be at full fault.
I wouldnt be surprised if ICBC blamed both drivers to leech off the people as usual. There's no true accountability or justice in this country.