Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Print Edition
Classifieds
Stories
Events
Contests
Music
Movies
Theater
Food
Life Events
Cannabis
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
February 7, 2024
January 31, 2024
January 24, 2024
January 17, 2024
January 10, 2024
Close
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
February 7, 2024
January 31, 2024
January 24, 2024
January 17, 2024
January 10, 2024
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
February 7, 2024
January 31, 2024
January 24, 2024
January 17, 2024
January 10, 2024
Close
Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Stupid Chick's Lucky
All I can say is "See you in court!!"— February 7, 2011 4:03 p.m.
Stupid Chick's Lucky
But they are potentially legal documents, in spite of what they were "meant" to be.— February 7, 2011 3:49 p.m.
Stupid Chick's Lucky
Actually, police reports are not admissible as evidence. The cops still have to come to court to verify what was testified to in the field. And with that, I will bow out. But I will be curious as to if there is a follow up to this. I doubt it. Welcome to 2000+ journalism. Again, I think her editor failed her,— February 7, 2011 3:21 p.m.
Stupid Chick's Lucky
Ms Grant- You ignored my first post on this thread. And I realize you are an apologist for all things Barbarella. There is no threat here. All I am saying is that Barb should have had some other feedback before she posted this column, specifically from an editor. You can blindly defend this piece all you want, but the the column (and the video) is what it is. I mean,, she could have chosen to write about ANYTHING else , buy she picked this. So who is really responsible?— February 7, 2011 2:55 p.m.
Stupid Chick's Lucky
I looked at the video a few times. From what I can tell, and by Barb's own admission, she never looked back to the right after the other driver had signaled to her to proceed, and before she entered the intersection/crosswalk. She says this not once, but twice in the video. Specifically , at :06 in the video, in describing the intersection she employs the phrase “Kinda blind” acknowledging that she perceives there are problems identifying cross traffic (for both cyclists and cars.) At 0:16 she states “They waved me forward, I began to go.” Nowhere does she indicate she looked back to the right one last time to check for traffic, pedestrians, or cyclists. At 0:39 she states “We waved to them and then we went.” Again, at no time does she indicate she looked back to the right one last time to check for traffic, pedestrians, or cyclists. They don't even have to ask her about this at the deposition. All they have to do is subpoena the video, which she herself shot, wrote, and posted with the article. Again, if I were her editor,I would have advised against running this column. But it is too late now.— February 7, 2011 2:19 p.m.
Stupid Chick's Lucky
Well said, Surfpup Both Barb and David appear to have acted honorably during the whole incident. And the woman may have broken every cycling law in the book. And I'm saying that all that won't matter one whit if lawyers and insurance companies get their hooks into it. THAT'S why, as an editor, I wouldn't have run the column. The reason would have been to protect a reporter/columnist who is probably a little too close to the story.— February 7, 2011 12:23 p.m.
Stupid Chick's Lucky
Um, all I am saying is that this whole column is an ill-advised attempt at self-justification, and here is why. There was an injury accident between a car and a bike that occurred. A police report was taken. Even though all laws appear to have been followed regarding reporting the accident, and the police report appears to offer exoneration, anyone who has ever involved in an insurance settlement will tell you that does not matter. What does matter is that the column is now a matter of public record. While it doesn't carry anywhere near the official weight of a deposition, it's still pretty significant. Any reasonable person can tell that there was no intent to injure. Sometimes bad things happen to good people, because life is not fair. But calling the other person involved in the accident "Stupid" in print, even though you didn't identify her by name, falls under the heading of "What goes around, comes around" in my book. All I'm saying is that if I had been your editor (assuming you have one), I would have asked you "Are you sure you really want to run this column?" And then I would have laid out a few scenarios for you illustrating why running this piece as written here is maybe not such a good idea. And I would have reminded you that once it is posted and run, you can't take it back.— February 7, 2011 7 a.m.
Stupid Chick's Lucky
Here's a thought. The woman may be riding a bike because she cannot afford a car. And she may not be able to afford a helmet (Forty bucks at Dick's sporting goods.) Barb,for some people,$40 bucks is a week's worth of groceries. I know that is had to fathom for some people, especially if they spend that much on a bottle of wine, but it is true.— February 6, 2011 6 p.m.
Stupid Chick's Lucky
Wasn't going to comment anymore, but this is unique. First off, glad that apparently no one one was seriously injured. Second, I question the wisdom of publishing this piece, the reason being that just because a police report appears to absolve a person of responsibility, it doesn't mean it will hold up in court. I have seen attorneys rip a police report to shreds in court. No one wants to feel like they accidentally caused injury to another person - the natural thing is to say "It's not my fault". Most collisions are usually a mixture of responsibility - say 80/20 or 50/50. Rarely is it 100/0. I would bet that is the case here, but the only way to know for sure is if the thing goes to court. That's what insurance investigators are paid to determine. And despite what the police report says, it's still an open question. Third - I find the use of the term "Stupid chick" incredibly condescending, elitist, and generally just a really lousy way to refer to this person. Using that term just implies that Barb is very angry that this person had the unbelievably bad manners to collide with Barb's car. Accidents happen. It how we deal with them that gives people clues to who we really are. I'm not sure using a weekly column to berate someone else that was involved with you in an accident is the wisest use of your voice. But as we all know, and as you keep reminding us, it is "YOUR" voice.— February 6, 2011 12:34 p.m.
Itty-Bitty Committee
Actually Trapin, I have taken your advice and I have stopped reading her column. In the words of Gertrude Stein (now THERE was a woman who could write): "There is no there there."— December 29, 2010 2:48 p.m.