I mentioned this briefly in a previous post, but, on reflection, found the phrase so incredible that I think it deserves another look.
From a story in the Fort Scott Tribune (Local bicycle accident shows safety equipment necessary, effective):
At 10:03 a.m. on Monday, July 14, an area resident, whose name has not been released, exited her driveway on her bicycle. Although the bicyclist took every precaution recommended, she could not stop the tragedy that was about to befall her. However, her willingness to follow the suggested safety rules may have saved her life, according to information provided by Fort Scott police.
As the rider made her way up Margrave Street, a vehicle coming from behind her, blinded by a slight curve in the road, hit the cyclist knocking her to the ground, According to the FSPD. The rider was flown to the hospital by helicopter, but partially due to the protective helmet she was wearing, was released the same day.
How in the world can a driver be “blinded by a slight curve in the road”? Could the driver’s view of the roadway be obstructed? Sure, but is he “blinded”?
Perhaps by “blinded”, the writer of the story meant that the driver couldn’t stop within the distance he could see. In other words, could the driver have been going too fast for the conditions — otherwise known as “reckless driving”? Sounds like it.
But was the driver called out for his carelessness? No, he’s never even mentioned again in the article, not even to say whether he was cited for a traffic violation.
No, the remainder of the article lectures bicyclists as to their responsibilities under the law.
The cyclist was the one taking “every precaution”, and (apparently) riding correctly, safely, and legally. The driver was one the one who was at fault here, hitting the cyclist even through she was in the right. Yet cyclists are the one being chided about the rules of the road?
In what sort of crazy bass-ackwards world does this make any sense?