You’re asserting your view based on an ambiguity. The picture and story could easily depict the ambulance overtaking and turning into the cyclist. You seem dead set on making this the cyclist’s fault when that assertion is just not supported by the facts given in the article.
Most of the people in here are dead set on assuming it’s not the biker. So what are the odds that the ambulance was just passing the biker and cutting him off at the turn? I’d call it less than 50/50.
But move past that and keep going. If the biker was just cut off right before getting to the intersection, then that also means the biker didn’t stop at the intersection.
That means that at best the biker was partially at fault.
That means that at best the biker was partially at fault.
I disagree. I think a likely scenario is that the cyclist was riding close to the right curb, and was being passed by the ambulance that then makes a sudden right turn, turning into the cyclist, as the article states. How would that be any fault of the cyclist?
It’s very unlikely that the ambulance would drive by and turn right in front of the bicyclist (which would still show that the bicyclist didn’t stop at the intersection) and the article didn’t state that at all.
The article doesn’t state much, but you’re willing to make a lot of assertions about the situation anyway. In your last comment you said there was no way the cyclist wasn’t at least partially at fault. I replied with a possible scenario where the cyclist was not at fault. The bicycle doesn’t have to stop at the intersection if there’s no stop sign. I don’t see one in the pictures in the article. If the ambulance didn’t see or otherwise ignored the cyclist, a right hand turn directly into the cyclist is a very real possibility. That happens far too often.
All I’m saying is that there is not enough information in the article to ascertain what actually happened, and yet you’re very eager to blame the cyclist. You have a clear bias, and your conclusion, while possible, is not the only one that can be drawn from the limited information in the article.
No stop sign. The cyclist did not have to stop. Why do you think it’s more likely that the cyclist was attempting to overtake the ambulance rather than the ambulance overtaking the cyclist?
You’re asserting your view based on an ambiguity. The picture and story could easily depict the ambulance overtaking and turning into the cyclist. You seem dead set on making this the cyclist’s fault when that assertion is just not supported by the facts given in the article.
Most of the people in here are dead set on assuming it’s not the biker. So what are the odds that the ambulance was just passing the biker and cutting him off at the turn? I’d call it less than 50/50.
But move past that and keep going. If the biker was just cut off right before getting to the intersection, then that also means the biker didn’t stop at the intersection.
That means that at best the biker was partially at fault.
I disagree. I think a likely scenario is that the cyclist was riding close to the right curb, and was being passed by the ambulance that then makes a sudden right turn, turning into the cyclist, as the article states. How would that be any fault of the cyclist?
It’s very unlikely that the ambulance would drive by and turn right in front of the bicyclist (which would still show that the bicyclist didn’t stop at the intersection) and the article didn’t state that at all.
The article doesn’t state much, but you’re willing to make a lot of assertions about the situation anyway. In your last comment you said there was no way the cyclist wasn’t at least partially at fault. I replied with a possible scenario where the cyclist was not at fault. The bicycle doesn’t have to stop at the intersection if there’s no stop sign. I don’t see one in the pictures in the article. If the ambulance didn’t see or otherwise ignored the cyclist, a right hand turn directly into the cyclist is a very real possibility. That happens far too often.
All I’m saying is that there is not enough information in the article to ascertain what actually happened, and yet you’re very eager to blame the cyclist. You have a clear bias, and your conclusion, while possible, is not the only one that can be drawn from the limited information in the article.
What you replied with was something that couldn’t really have happened, and nothing in the article even eludes to being a possibility.
It is at least as plausible as the scenario you made up. And the word you want is “alludes”
You’ve driven me to this, you monster…
Here’s the intersection:
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.0886107,-122.9375641,3a,75y,109.46h,92.58t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sga-xf00iCI9pRFG2PXNeiw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-2.5791953070314975%26panoid%3Dga-xf00iCI9pRFG2PXNeiw%26yaw%3D109.45653970185134!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTEwNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
No stop sign. The cyclist did not have to stop. Why do you think it’s more likely that the cyclist was attempting to overtake the ambulance rather than the ambulance overtaking the cyclist?