Was the OP breaking a traffic law?
By all accounts, yes, the OP was breaking a traffic law. NY limits when it is permissible to pass on the right and the circumstances when it is legal do not appear to have been in place here.
Was the OP breaking a traffic law?
By all accounts, yes, the OP was breaking a traffic law. NY limits when it is permissible to pass on the right and the circumstances when it is legal do not appear to have been in place here.
Are you saying that bicycles are not allowed to ride on the street in NY? Wow, that's good for the motorists because that means they can just run them down, kill them and legally leave them for dead.
I always find it interesting to watch you reinterpret what happened to me...as though I am not capable of understanding what I witnessed.
I have no hard feeling against you because you are a real nice guy, but I am very aware of your capabilities and those of your colleagues. Just watching how you rephrase my experience gives me a huge indication of how you would/could discredit the crap out of me in front of jury...no matter what I did. And to me that makes you very dangerous.
No, I didn't say that or anything like that. You really do have trouble with reading comprehension, don't you?
I just think that since you had a stake in the outcome it affected your perception of what you witnessed. That's a very common human reaction and I have no reason to think you are different from anyone else in that regard.
I think you are seeing things that are not there. You seem to want to think that others are deliberately trying put you at a disadvantage or look bad. That is certainly not my goal in responding to you on these boards.
It is not only because I had a stake in the case, it is because I knew every single small, detailed fact of the case. So I knew every fact as it was misrepresented to the jury. It was a highly sophisticated spin job. I also spent nearly five hours telling the defense attorney exactly what happened and why it happened. Then I watched him boldface lie to the jury by twisting what I said. I also saw the witnesses and expert witnesses lie. It was such a gross injustice that I assume it goes on all the time. Additionally, I watch a lot of case reenactments on Dateline and such where the same injustices take place with the same cavalier attitude.
As for being too close to the case, I think the lawyers were too removed from the case. It was my observation that the lawyers were too far from the case to see exactly what was happening...nor did they really care what was taking place. It was business as usual for them. You could just see it...and I am surprised you never have. It was not a display of facts, it was a misrepresentation of facts solely perpetrated by two evil lawyers. A capability that I will always remember.
As you should have gathered by now, I am not easily insulted or dissuaded here and you don't put me at a disadvantage or make me look bad. Those are things that are very hard to do on a board because we do not know each other. Nor do I seek recognition here.I think you are seeing things that are not there. You seem to want to think that others are deliberately trying put you at a disadvantage or look bad. That is certainly not my goal in responding to you on these boards.
Not directed at you, but what many lawyers do it just rape people. And for you to say that I am too close to the 'rape' to know what happened is, to me, a silly statement. So I ask, who can better describe the actual incident and true effects of a rape - the raper or the rapist?
But I will say that you are a professional, instinctual and effective rationalizer which is a highly tuned lawyer-tool.
And you have trouble hiding your obvious inferences.
If the OP broke a biking law, what was it? Riding next to a car's right rear quarter panel? Not slowing to 5mph when the car next to you slows down? Not being psychic? Not having in the reaction time of Kobe Bryant?
Those are done for entertainment and don't always reflect how things really went. Television and movies in general do a poor job of accurately portraying real trials. Most real trials are not very exciting to watch; entertainment shows spice them up to make them interesting to viewers.
No, it's not and you know it. Rape is an act of sexual violation. And what you experienced at trial was nothing like what an actual rape victim experiences. For you to equate the two is an insult to rape victims and IMO is shameful. Moreover, that kind of hyperbole significantly undercuts the strength of your argument. It simply makes it appear that you hate lawyers so much you can't possibly be objective.
Riding next to a car's right rear quarter panel?
Bullseye. He had no business being to the right of the car. He was in a single lane attempting to pass on the right. NY does not allow passing on the right unless very specific circumstances are in place, which according to his description were not.
Maybe you are not watching the same re-investigations that I watch. Those shows talk to the actual players in the case such as the actual investigators, DA's, victims, perps, witnesses, townspeople, family members of perps and victims, along with new and old evidence, etc. Also, I am not sure what kind of shows you watch but there are few paid actors doing re-enactments. There is also often original video of the trial. But one thing is very common at the close of these shows, the DA's and cops who locked up the wrong person show little to no remorse. They just parrot the same crap line: "We followed all the evidence" (and too bad for that SOB).
I apologize that you got confused with the word I used. I didn't mean to infer that my accident or the injustice I received was a sexual assault. You are probably confusing me with the many times you've witnessed attorneys bending the opposition over the witness stand in front of the jury. No that did not happen to me and I apologize to all the sexual assault victims that I offended. Geez!No, it's not and you know it. Rape is an act of sexual violation. And what you experienced at trial was nothing like what an actual rape victim experiences. For you to equate the two is an insult to rape victims and IMO is shameful. Moreover, that kind of hyperbole significantly undercuts the strength of your argument. It simply makes it appear that you hate lawyers so much you can't possibly be objective.
With all that I said, you responded to very little, which is very telling. But there is one thing you cannot deny, that both sides (lawyers), devoid of conscience, lie their asses off, confuse and mislead the jury the best they can all for one goal. They also discredit (roast) the opposition far beyond what is reasonable just looking for a stupid juror they can convince. And you wonder why lawyers get a bad reputation. Really?
When is the last time you rode a bike?
The internet cannot made you a cyclist no matter how much you think it will. ...So you think all vehicular traffic laws apply to bicycles and you think a bike cannot go faster than the slowest car on his left? Save it for that idiot the common lawyer is looking for.
I used to bike 9 miles each way to work on a combination of roads (including some with 55 MPH speed limits). I can tell you, that I would never pass a car on the right unless I was 100 percent certain he was either completely stopped and would remain so, or he was turning left. Even if he was stopped, there's not much point in passing cars on the right because they'll just have to pass you again (which can be dangerous for you).
Yeah, I would sneak past someone if I was making a right turn and they weren't, but that wouldn't have caused the posters problem even though it was illegal.