Posts Tagged ‘collision’

Freeway vs. Highway – Libel vs. Slander – Shotgun vs. Rifle – Accident vs. Collision – Blog vs. Post – Jumbo Jet vs. Regular – Gas vs. Fuel

Monday, August 7th, 2017

We’re in Cali, right? So you know what a freeway is. So don’t call a freeway a “highway.” In California, a highway is any old street. For example:

CVC 21201 (d) A bicycle operated during darkness upon a highway…”

This use of highway in this context means any public street. I guarantee it. (But you can ride your bike on many sections of California freeway – see below.) So you can’t say that Frisco only has two highways (but if you do, people will know you mean freeway through context, I guess.)

What I’m saying is that you use highways to get to a freeway, how’s that?

Libel and slander don’t necessarily mean what you think they mean 100%, sry. Your rule of thumb will keep you out of trouble almost all of the time, but things can get tricky when you get down into the weeds. So yes, you’ve got the dictionary definition right, but there can be exceptions, the same way the duck-billed platypus is an egg-laying species but also a mammal. The solution is defamation and defamatory. 

Let’s try it out. “Dear Sir, your words are defamatory. I shall contact my solicitor to begin an action for defamation.” That works, baby. (Or, you can call yourself an “editor” of an online entity what’s called “Beyond Chron” and then threaten to sue the real Chronicle. Like you’ll say “I’ll consider my options” of suing the real Chronicle for defamation, something like that. And then people will chuckle because they know you’ve already decided not to sue our local paper of record.)

And really, this difference doesn’t really matter. It’s like what’s a fruit and what’s a vegetable. There’s no reason to get into the distinction most of the time.

(But feel free to mock those who confuse these terms, or use the term “liable,” – I won’t take that away from you.



Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference betwixt a shotgun and a rifle, especially from far away. So the term you use is long gun. Easy peasy. I saw the use of this term exactly once in our local Paper of Record, and I thought, wow, that’s how you do it. But then the hed was changed an hour later, presumably because readers were confused. Or maybe the issue had been cleared up by then, IDK.

Another thing is that a rifle can kill you from 500+ yards away and a shotgun can’t.

An accident is something what occurs not on purpose and a collision is when two or more things hit each other, more or less. (And let’s not get into allision.) But you see, they’re not really substitutes for each other. Sometimes collisions are accidental and sometimes accidents involve collisions. Most accidents involving cars are the result of negligence and some are the result of recklessness. Most bike accidents are the result of pilot error, you know, just falling down, but some involve hitting or getting hit by a car and that may or may not be the bicycle rider’s error. You need to look at each case to find fault.

Now if a tennis pro who’s into crystals starts running people over on purpose in the Mission, well, that’s not an accident, but later on you might say that you have a trick knee now due to a traffic accident even though this guy targeted you, that’d be OK. If you have reason to believe that some car crash was committed on purpose, you can say, “That was no accident.” And then it could be attempted homicide or vehicular manslaughter or battery – it could be a lot of things, but not an accident. Anyway, if a collision was the result of negligence or recklessness, then it quite rightly can be called an accident. (And of course, I’m more of a San Francisco bike rider and more of a San Francisco pedestrian, measured any way you would like, by miles, hours, years, decades on these streets of San Francisco, than anybody who harps on you about the difference between accident and collision. Think on that.)

A blog is a weB LOG – it’s the whole enchilada. A single entry into a blog is called a post. I am astounded at the number of people who don’t get this, even after a quick mansplaining. So, the post is the tree and the blog is the forest that the tree is in.

Now one time some lady who got rich off the Chron, through marriage I guess, paid some lawyer to send me a long-winded letter about how I was going to get sued for slander libel, ah defamation, that’s that ticket. Now he was only writing me concerning one post, but his demand was for me to take down my blog, you know, which at that time was made up of thousands and thousands of posts. You see, he was confused. (And then he said I wasn’t allowed to tell anybody about this matter, so of course I posted his letter on my blog the next day. (In poker terms, this is called going over the top.) Good times. And I kept the offending post up, ’cause it was all good. And of course I never got sued IRL. You gotta know how to handle Trump-like individuals, know how to call their bluffs.)

A jumbo jet is a Boeing 747, mostly. You can also throw in the Airbus A380 – now some call it a superjumbo, but you can also call it a jumbo. Both of those aircraft are also widebodies, with twin aisles. And narrowbodies have just one aisle, typically with five or six seats per row. Moving down, you’ve got your regional jets and your corporate jets and then your general aviation jets. That’s it.

Oh, there are some widebodies that aren’t jumbos, like the Boeing 777, that can carry more passengers than a smaller jumbo, like the comical-looking 747SP. Certainly this stubby jet is huge, it’s just so short that it went obsolete pretty quickly. So then along came larger and larger twinjets with only a single deck, but they end up having more capacity than a “jumbo.” Oh well. I didn’t make the rules, I just ‘splain them on my blog.

And if you aren’t sure, never say gas, say fuel. This will keep you out of trouble.

So a military tank might run on gas, but most likely not. The same thing with vessels. And some cars run on diesel of course, Usually, there’s no reason to be specific.

FIN

And here are some of your bikes operating legally on freeway areas, one in San Mateo County and the other in Marin:

7J7C6620-copy

go8f1555-copy

Rec and Park’s New “Wayfinding” Signs in the Panhandle Have Amazing Anti-Graffiti Capability

Thursday, August 3rd, 2017

I don’t know if the capability is new, but the signs are new.

So here was when they first got tagged and here is after cleaning:

7J7C7105 copy

It seems like they’re coated with Teflon, like a nonstick surface you’d cook eggs on.

7J7C7106 copy

Touché, RPD. Touche.

Brand-New “Wayfinding” Signs in the Panhandle Tagged Already: Anti Bike Graffiti – Plus, NoPA is OUT and DivCo is IN

Wednesday, August 2nd, 2017

So let’s see, first the good news. RPD moved the placement of their signs just like I asked them to. Amazing. One of the old signs, which actually were pretty new, totally blocked the view of peds trying to get across the Golden Gate Park Panhandle bicycle freeway, otherwise known as the Panhandle Path. So you’d be looking to the west, where riders are coming downhill, and then RPD’s sign would be in the way. So that’s great.

Now, the new signs still have the SEVEN NO’s listing RPD’s rules, but they also have “wayfinding” up top. (Which is prolly why they moved the signs – the addition of the arrows telling tourists which way to go. You know, our RPD isn’t really all that big on safety, despite what it might tell you.) See?

IMG_7646 copy

The sign is pointing you right to NOPA, but it’s all “Divisidero Corridor?” I thought that was already a failed place name? Mmmm. Haight-Ashbury is fine of course, but what’s this, “North Panhandle” points straight north of the Panhandle. This is another dis on NoPA, non? I’ll tell you, some neighborhood NIMBY/homeowner’s group calls the North Panhandle WEST NOPA, which translates as the area west of the area that’s north of the area that’s east of the Golden Gate Park Panhandle. I’m srsly. Here’s your reverse angle, looking west:

IMG_7700 copy

So RPD left some room for taggers, as you can see in the first photo, and of course in the above photo, some pedestrian lined out the bike rider symbol with the international sign for GTFO.

(I know a lady who lives on Shrader who got hit by a bike rider going about 20 MPH, which is easy to do when you’re heading east since it’s downhill.* It doesn’t take much effort to get her to bring up the subject, as this accident is still on her mind. IDK, RPD refuses to widen this multi use path next to Fell. And RPD refuses to post a speed limit. Anyway, there’s a strong contingent of peds in the area who Don’t Like Bikes.)

So that’s it, enjoy your new signs, Frisco.

*You know, you don’t even need to pedal to go from Stanyan to the DMV on Baker eight blocks away, right? I can start from 0 MPH and make it to the DMV going at 16.3 MPH with big, wide, knobby tires, so that means that roadies with tiny tires, some of them pumping away with their heads down or even with their butts out of the saddle, well, maybe some of them are going too fast.

It’s Inevitable that People Will Crash Into Whales on Kite Boards, Sail Boards and Boats – There’s No Whale Vision Zero

Thursday, July 13th, 2017

As seen from the Golden Gate Bridge:

7J7C6296 copy

So here’s the deal – you’ve got sail boarders going back and forth from Crissy Field to Horseshoe Cove at the same time you have humpback whales going up and down getting sardines.

This person knows that whales are in this area these days. If you see a whale going down, you can guess that it will pop up again in about the same area in about two minutes.

7J7C6147 copy

So if there’s a collision, this isn’t necessarily running into whales on purpose, which seems to what’s worrying some in Frisco these days.

7J7C6254 copy

Same thing for kite boarders

7J7C6063 copy

This here is from Fort Point on a foggy evening:

7J7C5584 copy

These sail boaters are more or less hanging out with the whales, going back and forth in a small area between Alcatraz and the GGB:

7J7C5551 copy

They’re on their own whale watching tour:

7J7C5558 copy

But I didn’t see any whale strikes on this day.

Now, back up to the bridge, this was the last time I was up there. This 40 foot sailboat had just tacked going upwind and then up comes a whale. The boat hit the whale but it was more of a glancing blow. The boaters weren’t aiming for the whale as they couldn’t even see it until after they hit it – it’s just something that happens.

7J7C6191 copy

VisionZero is a governmental promise that nobody will ever get injured / killed in transportation accidents in San Francisco from 2024 to eternity. IMO it’s shameful to promote the idea that there’s any kind of chance of this actually occurring IRL – somehow the politics of the situation has people doing this, oh well.

But what about whales? If you want to live in a world without whales getting hit by watercraft, you’d need to ban watercraft from transiting the Golden Gate when the whales are around. That would be Vision Zer whale strikes, I don’t think that’s practical.

The whale above did fine. It floated about for a while and then went back to fishing.

So I don’t know. Let’s be careful out there, but these types of incidents are inevitable when you have so many whales about in the summertime…

Frisco Boats vs. Frisco Whales – How Close is Too Close? – “iSailboat” Bears Down on Diving Humpback

Thursday, July 6th, 2017

IDK the answer to this question.

This is prolly the closest I saw the past week or so. A large Beneteau 40 sailboat (named iSailboat, worth what, a couple hundred thou?) east of the Golden Gate Bridge was just seconds away from having its hull or keel hitting this humpback:

7J7C5584 copy

You know, IMO.

Other recent examples:

7J7C5551 copy

Not real sailing here, just puttering around with the whales for a while.

7J7C5558 copy

Anyway, just saying.

Boat-Damaged Humpback Whale, Golden Gate

Monday, July 3rd, 2017

As seen from the Golden Gate Bridge.

None of the others looked like this, AFAICS.

The lines running from lower left to upper right:

7J7C5352 copy

Boat vs. whale has been in the news lately…

The Last Person in Frisco to Call a Pedestrian Accident a “Pedestrian Accident”

Tuesday, March 7th, 2017

The preferred word these days is “collision.” Or maybe crash. But collision is #1. So much so that you can read the word four times in three sentences when some reporters report on traffic accidents:

7J7C8147 copy

Now let’s hear from a junior SFMTA spokesperson (Total Cost Of Employment = five figures per month) on the topic of traffic accidents:

“When describing traffic collisions, most of us have grown up using the word “accident.” But traffic “accidents” are preventable, which is why we at the SFMTA refer to them as collisions or crashes.”

Let’s see here, if you crash into something, either you did it on purpose or it was an accident, right? Preventability doesn’t enter into the equation. At all. And if we’re searching for a term for a preventable accident, why not use “preventable accident?”

Moving on:

The words we use can have a powerful influence on the way we view traffic injuries, and calling them “accidents” implies that nothing can be done to stop them.

I’ll disagree again here. Calling an accident an accident does not in any way imply that that nothing can be done to stop them. In fact, studying accidents, like “airplane accidents” for instance, is a really excellent way to determine who was at fault and what can be done differently in future.

Accident vs. Collision vs. Crash: The “VisionZero” 2024 Crowd Attempts to Shame Journalists from Calling an Accident an … Accident

Monday, October 5th, 2015

Sometimes, the Vision Zero people show their work, they show how they came to their faulty conclusions, hence this posting.

So here’s the

When a plane crashes, we don’t call it an “accident.”

Uh, yes we do:

Capturekikfjjj copy

All the time, as a matter of fact. Oh well.

Let’s try again:

“Another reason is that “accident” is not neutral. It implies a lack of guilt.”

No. It, at the very least, implies a lack of intent, actually.

Oh well again.

It’s hard to find much against the new-ish term Vision Zero, but here’s a stab at it:

“Chasing infinity rather than incremental improvements looks even dumber.”

Yep, pretty much…

Another Hum-Drum Injury Car Accident on Masonic – Airbags Everywhere, Cars Totalled – Autobots Sacrifice Selves to Save Owners

Monday, September 14th, 2015

An accident* on Masonic yesterday at Hayes, with CCSF’s John Adams Campus (the former Lowell High School, 1913-1962):

7J7C4872 copy

(My money’s on the VW’s driver being at fault, but who knows.)

Now how many airbags exploded during this fender bender, like a dozen? You could see all matter of them from a distance. How much would it cost to replace a single side curtain bag, for instance, one wonders. The upshot is that the people inside these rides get injured less than they would have a generation ago, but the cars get damaged more.

So it’s off to the scrapheap they go.

Seems fair enough.

*’Cause it wasn’t on purpose. Now if it were, then we’d call this collision attempted homicide or something. But if you’re an “urbanist” or whatnot, feel free to call it a collision if you want – that word would also apply. TY, drive through.

In the next world war
In a jackknifed juggernaut
I am born again.

In the neon sign
Scrolling up and down
I am born again

In an interstellar burst
I am back to save the universe

In a deep, deep sleep
Of the innocent
I am born again

In a fast German car
I’m amazed that I survived
An airbag saved my life

Bicycle Fatality on the I-80 at University in Berkeley Raises the Question: Can You Ride a Bike on a Freeway?

Saturday, June 1st, 2013

Consider this morning’s news:

Katie Utehs ‏@katieutehs2h – All lanes of eastbound 80 blocked for bicycle vs. collision at University. @ktvupic.twitter.com/iIHtmZJ8bw

Is it legal to ride a bike on the freeways  of California?

No, not on the very urbanized part in Berkeley I don’t think.

But bike riding is legal on other certain stretches of freeway.

The details:

“We’re not talking about temporarily closing down a freeway to cars on Father’s Day like they did in Pasadena a while back, to the horror of Rob Anderson.

And we’re not talking about an illegal bicycle romp in traffic the way the Crimanimalz do it on the 405.

We’re talking about you legally riding your bike on the right side of some of California’s 4000 miles of freeway.

Well, according to the California Department of Transportation, maker of melty orange and blue cupcakes, sí, se puede. Yes, you can ride your bike on about 1000 miles of California freeway.

Click to expand

For proof, check out this white sign in Marin County on the 101 South. You see? It says “BICYCLES MUST EXIT” so that means, assuming you didn’t ignore any “Bicycles Prohibited” sign, it’s all good for you to be on this stretch of freeway. Q.E.D. Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Here’s the CalTrans version:

Of the more than 4,000 miles of freeways in California, about 1,000 miles are open to bicyclists. These open sections are usually in rural areas where there is no alternate route. California Vehicle Code Section 21960 says Caltrans and local agencies may prohibit bicyclists from traveling on freeways under their jurisdiction and that they must erect signs stating the prohibition. There are no signs permitting bicyclists on freeways. When a bicyclist is legally traveling on a freeway, he/she may be directed off the freeway at the next off-ramp by a sign that says “Bicycles Must Exit.” The freeway will be posted at the next on-ramp with a sign that says “Bicycles Prohibited.”

And here’s the Vehicle Code:

21960.  (a) The Department of Transportation and local authorities,
by order, ordinance, or resolution, with respect to freeways,
expressways, or designated portions thereof under their respective
jurisdictions, to which vehicle access is completely or partially
controlled, may prohibit or restrict the use of the freeways,
expressways, or any portion thereof by pedestrians, bicycles or other
nonmotorized traffic or by any person operating a motor-driven
cycle, motorized bicycle, or motorized scooter.  A prohibition or
restriction pertaining to bicycles, motor-driven cycles, or motorized
scooters shall be deemed to include motorized bicycles; and no
person may operate a motorized bicycle wherever that prohibition or
restriction is in force.  Notwithstanding any provisions of any
order, ordinance, or resolution to the contrary, the driver or
passengers of a disabled vehicle stopped on a freeway or expressway
may walk to the nearest exit, in either direction, on that side of
the freeway or expressway upon which the vehicle is disabled, from
which telephone or motor vehicle repair services are available.
(b) The prohibitory regulation authorized by subdivision (a) shall
be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are
erected upon any freeway or expressway and the approaches thereto.
If any portion of a county freeway or expressway is contained within
the limits of a city within the county, the county may erect signs on
that portion as required under this subdivision if the ordinance has
been approved by the city pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section
1730 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(c) No ordinance or resolution of local authorities shall apply to
any state highway until the proposed ordinance or resolution has
been presented to, and approved in writing by, the Department of
Transportation.
(d) An ordinance or resolution adopted under this section on or
after January 1, 2005, to prohibit pedestrian access to a county
freeway or expressway shall not be effective unless it is supported
by a finding by the local authority that the freeway or expressway
does not have pedestrian facilities and pedestrian use would pose a
safety risk to the pedestrian.