| |
Main
Date: 06 Jul 2007 20:51:48
From: Veloise
Subject: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/070507whasmjdTopBicycle.475b9e1a.html
So much for the "bicycle friendly city" designation.
--Karen D.
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2007 00:32:39
From:
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 14, 7:23 pm, Bob <hunr...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Jul 12, 9:48 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote in part:
>
> > As a crude analogy, it's like we locked two enemies in adjoining
> > cells, gave one of them a gun, and later found the other one with a
> > bullet in his heart. The gun-toter says "It was an accident! I was
> > only doing target practice, and he stepped in the way!"
>
> Unless you happen to believe that motorists and non-motorists are
> deadly enemies bent on killing one another this analogy is more than
> merely crude, it is nonsensical.
It's a purposely exaggerated analogy, of course - the most important
difference being the lack of premeditation. But I have no doubt that
motorists have purposely killed using cars, and that many, many more
motorists have driven with gross irresponsibility and thus caused
deaths "accidentally." This thread's case is probably one of those.
FWIW, my only really bad experience on the bike was being deliberately
hit by a motorist - oddly enough, just 1/4 mile before a Highway
Patrol post. He blared his horn as he approached from behind, then
grazed me with his car. Nobody else was in sight, and there was tons
of room for him to pass.
My injury was trivial. I didn't even fall, although it was close.
But if he'd been a foot further right, if my injuries were fatal, and
if the Patrol had caught him, what do you think he'd have said? And
what would have been his punishment?
Answer #1: "He weaved right out in front of me. I couldn't avoid
him."
Answer #2: No punishment at all.
> > Oh, I'm not proposing any re-test at all! Sorry, but I think killing
> > a human being is horrible enough that you don't deserve a second
> > chance!
>
> I presume then that you favor the death penalty for murderers or at
> least a sentence of life without parole to be served in solitary
> confinement for anyone convicted of killing someone. Gee, I always
> thought you were more of a "liberal" than that! ;-)
Well, I'm actually against the death penalty. But I'd like to see it
replaced by "legal death," in which those proven guilty in the usual
way would be kept in prison and treated as dead. They'd be prohibited
from mounting appeals or challenging their sentence unless new,
overwhelming exonerating evidence were presented from outside -
something akin to DNA evidence, or confession to the crime by another
person who would take his place.
Yes, I know that's very unlikely to happen, too.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jul 2007 19:58:58
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> ...
> Well, I'm actually against the death penalty. But I'd like to see it
> replaced by "legal death," in which those proven guilty in the usual
> way would be kept in prison and treated as dead. They'd be prohibited
> from mounting appeals or challenging their sentence unless new,
> overwhelming exonerating evidence were presented from outside -
> something akin to DNA evidence, or confession to the crime by another
> person who would take his place....
This would be very convenient for the authorities who wish to railroad
the innocent, for political, racial or other reasons.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2007 00:11:16
From:
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 14, 7:00 pm, Bob <hunr...@aol.com > wrote:
>
>
> Your belief in the rarity of "suicide by motorist" is totally
> disconnected from the reality I've experienced. Just off the top of my
> head I can recall investigating three such cases in recent years all
> of which were proven beyond a shadow of doubt (multiple witnesses in
> one case, video in another, a suicide note in the third, and recent
> depression/erratic behavior by the decedent in all three) to be
> suicides and I'm just one cop. Cases like those of course would be
> easy enough for the unlucky motorist to prove he/she shouldn't be held
> liable but those three weren't the only three fatalities I suspected
> were suicides, only the ones I could *prove* were.
Well, I'll bow to your experience, then. But my (several) cop friends
have never mentioned such a thing to me, and I don't recall ever
hearing of it elsewhere. That's including in the Netherlands, which
supposedly never lets a driver _completelly_ off the hook, even in
cases where American courts would find him faultless.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 14 Jul 2007 16:23:43
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 12, 9:48 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote in part:
>
> The current system - like the current infrastructure - is far too
> biased in favor of the driver. By definition, the most important
> opposing witness in such a fatality is unable to testify, and a verbal
> "I didn't see him" is taken as proof of innocence. That's ludicrous.
>
> As a crude analogy, it's like we locked two enemies in adjoining
> cells, gave one of them a gun, and later found the other one with a
> bullet in his heart. The gun-toter says "It was an accident! I was
> only doing target practice, and he stepped in the way!"
Unless you happen to believe that motorists and non-motorists are
deadly enemies bent on killing one another this analogy is more than
merely crude, it is nonsensical.
> Oh, I'm not proposing any re-test at all! Sorry, but I think killing
> a human being is horrible enough that you don't deserve a second
> chance!
I presume then that you favor the death penalty for murderers or at
least a sentence of life without parole to be served in solitary
confinement for anyone convicted of killing someone. Gee, I always
thought you were more of a "liberal" than that! ;-)
Regards,
Bob Hunt
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jul 2007 18:29:47
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
Officer Bob Hunt wrote:
> On Jul 12, 9:48 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote in part:
>> The current system - like the current infrastructure - is far too
>> biased in favor of the driver. By definition, the most important
>> opposing witness in such a fatality is unable to testify, and a verbal
>> "I didn't see him" is taken as proof of innocence. That's ludicrous.
>>
>> As a crude analogy, it's like we locked two enemies in adjoining
>> cells, gave one of them a gun, and later found the other one with a
>> bullet in his heart. The gun-toter says "It was an accident! I was
>> only doing target practice, and he stepped in the way!"
>
> Unless you happen to believe that motorists and non-motorists are
> deadly enemies bent on killing one another this analogy is more than
> merely crude, it is nonsensical.
>
>> Oh, I'm not proposing any re-test at all! Sorry, but I think killing
>> a human being is horrible enough that you don't deserve a second
>> chance!
>
> I presume then that you favor the death penalty for murderers or at
> least a sentence of life without parole to be served in solitary
> confinement for anyone convicted of killing someone. Gee, I always
> thought you were more of a "liberal" than that! ;-)
I never realized before now that presumption of guilt was a liberal value!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 14 Jul 2007 16:00:23
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 12, 9:53 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 12, 12:39 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So someone who is the hapless driver in a "suicide by motorist" should
> > loose his license because he can not prove the person suddenly stepped
> > out in front of him?
>
> Well, he should _lose_ his license, not "loose" it. And again, that
> would be only until he could prove it was absolutely not his fault.
> If he could.
>
> I believe "suicide by motorist" is only a little more common than
> suicide by meteorite. I may be wrong - but if you can come up with a
> dozen proven American cases in the past ten years, I'll be
> surprised. (A proven case would have to have a witness besides the
> killer, of course.) In fact, I'll be surprised if you can come up
> with one proven case per year worldwide!
>
> Remember, there are countries that have such laws. I've certainly
> never heard of any tremendous problems there. Admittedly, I haven't
> looked - but all I've heard is good reports. I've been told by people
> who have bicycled in the Netherlands, for example, that motorists are
> courteous in the extreme, amazingly so. Now wouldn't that be nice to
> see?
>
> If you were really, really afraid someone would suicide and put your
> precious license at risk, I imagine a digital videocam on the dash
> wouldn't be difficult to arrange. In fact, such a camera designed to
> loop continuously, retaining (say) the last ten minutes of video while
> the car moved, might be a profitable thing to market. It would prove
> your innocence easily.
>
> Personally, I think if such devices became standard equipment in
> response to such a law, they would be found to "malfunction" ONLY
> during a supposed "suicide."
>
> "Honest, officer, it always worked perfectly before! It just somehow
> deleted that bicyclist zooming way to the left just before I hit him."
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Your belief in the rarity of "suicide by motorist" is totally
disconnected from the reality I've experienced. Just off the top of my
head I can recall investigating three such cases in recent years all
of which were proven beyond a shadow of doubt (multiple witnesses in
one case, video in another, a suicide note in the third, and recent
depression/erratic behavior by the decedent in all three) to be
suicides and I'm just one cop. Cases like those of course would be
easy enough for the unlucky motorist to prove he/she shouldn't be held
liable but those three weren't the only three fatalities I suspected
were suicides, only the ones I could *prove* were.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
|
| |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 12:50:28
From:
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 13, 1:02 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jul 12, 9:53 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I believe "suicide by motorist" is only a little more common than
> > suicide by meteorite. I may be wrong - but if you can come up with a
> > dozen proven American cases in the past ten years, I'll be
> > surprised.
>
> I know that there was one year when there were 16 suicides by commuter
> train in just one American city (Boston).
Sorry, but trains and cars are different devices, and operate by
different principles under different rules.
> Since motor vehicles are far more accessible than commuter trains, it
> stands to reason that there are significantly more suicides by
> motorist. Proven? No, but far more likely than you are suggesting.
> And that is a single city of 700,000 people.
If it's so likely that people suicide by jumping in front of
automobiles, there should be _some_ proven cases you can point to.
Reasons it may not be likely: First, it's an uncertain way of doing
yourself in. You might just end up scarred and in pain for life,and
the typical suicider probably doesn't want that at all. Also,
fatalities from ped-car collisions are much less likely at low speeds,
much more likely at high speeds, and it's harder to get pedestrian
access to high speed cars.
I may be wrong, of course. But if you've got, say, proof of one per
year, I'd like to see it.
And anyway, if it really were a problem, the dashcam I mentioned would
provide adequate defense. (I note they're not popular now. )
> > If you were really, really afraid someone would suicide and put your
> > precious license at risk, I imagine a digital videocam on the dash
> > wouldn't be difficult to arrange.
>
> Why? Because you want to tear up my right to avoid self
> incrimination? BTW, I'm not afraid of someone suiciding on me; I'm
> afraind of them suiciding on *anyone*.
:-) Well, we differ. I'm not afraid of it, because AFAIK it doesn't
happen. We could, I suppose, monitor the news from the Netherlands
and see if suicide-by-car is causing tremendous social injustice
there. But if so, it's certainly not making worldwide headlines!
What _should_ be making headlines is the number of "I didn't see him"
defenses that work all too well - like the one that started this
thread.
The world is far too convenient for motorists, to the point that they
routinely cause the death of others with no consequences at all. It's
very likely that many of those incidents are at least manslaughter, if
not murder. Yet you defend the current system, which relegates most
non-motorized road users to a terrified underclass, and imagine
horrors that have not appeared under a different system.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 10:02:26
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 12, 9:53 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 12, 12:39 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So someone who is the hapless driver in a "suicide by motorist" should
> > loose his license because he can not prove the person suddenly stepped
> > out in front of him?
>
> Well, he should _lose_ his license, not "loose" it. And again, that
> would be only until he could prove it was absolutely not his fault.
> If he could.
>
> I believe "suicide by motorist" is only a little more common than
> suicide by meteorite. I may be wrong - but if you can come up with a
> dozen proven American cases in the past ten years, I'll be
> surprised.
I know that there was one year when there were 16 suicides by commuter
train in just one American city (Boston). These are cases taken very
seriously, and are investigated by a number of government bodies. The
engineer is placed on a status that does not have him operating trains
until the investigation is complete. Either there is a massive
coverup for reckless train operation (keep in mind that trains have
"black boxes"), or they really are suicides.
Since motor vehicles are far more accessible than commuter trains, it
stands to reason that there are significantly more suicides by
motorist. Proven? No, but far more likely than you are suggesting.
And that is a single city of 700,000 people.
> (A proven case would have to have a witness besides the
> killer, of course.) In fact, I'll be surprised if you can come up
> with one proven case per year worldwide!
>
> Remember, there are countries that have such laws. I've certainly
> never heard of any tremendous problems there. Admittedly, I haven't
> looked - but all I've heard is good reports. I've been told by people
> who have bicycled in the Netherlands, for example, that motorists are
> courteous in the extreme, amazingly so. Now wouldn't that be nice to
> see?
No. I *have* seen problems (including one pedestrian accident) caused
by over-courteous drivers.
A pedestrian was patiently waiting for a "Walk" signal, when a right-
turning driver who had a green light signaled them to cross
(effectively asking the pedestrian to violate the law). The
pedestrian, an elderly person, was hit (but not seriously injured) by
a motorist who had a reasonable expectation of a clear intersection,
struck a pedestrian that would not have been there if it weren't for
someone's "courtesy to the extreme." The "courteous" vehicle fled the
scene.
> If you were really, really afraid someone would suicide and put your
> precious license at risk, I imagine a digital videocam on the dash
> wouldn't be difficult to arrange.
Why? Because you want to tear up my right to avoid self
incrimination? BTW, I'm not afraid of someone suiciding on me; I'm
afraind of them suiciding on *anyone*.
> In fact, such a camera designed to
> loop continuously, retaining (say) the last ten minutes of video while
> the car moved, might be a profitable thing to market. It would prove
> your innocence easily.
I'm in the U.S. Here, nobody ever has to prove their innocence. It
is the responsibility of government to prove guilt. And I am prepared
to fight to the death (as many of my blood ancestors have done) to
defend that right.
Oh, and you don't know what proof is. It would be *evidence*, not
*proof*. In the U.S., only judges and juries can decide what proof
is. In the meantime, lawyers get to argue about the video frame by
frame, making it into whatever they want it to be. It would only
serve to protect the lawyers.
Austin
|
| |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 03:00:32
From:
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 12, 5:17 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> AustinMN wrote:
> >
>
> > So someone who is the hapless driver in a "suicide by motorist" should
> > loose his license because he can not prove the person suddenly stepped
> > out in front of him?
>
> > What a total crock.
>
> Or some stupid child standing in front of truck blocking the view dashes
> out into the street? (This happened to me, and I had to replace the fork
> on my bicycle after the collision).
Sorry about your fork. But the point is, "stupid children" WILL do
things like dart out from in front of trucks. Drivers' Training
classes attempt to impress that point on teenagers, and make them
understand it's their responsibility as drivers to account for such
behavior and not kill kids.
Unfortunately, about a month after they get their license, most kids
adopt the attitude that they're king of the road, and that nobody'd
better get in their way. And many keep that attitude way past the
time when failing eyesight, reflexes and thought processes make them
hazards to everyone else.
And it's interesting to me that by saying you couldn't handle such a
law, you're effectively saying you're not competent to drive in the
Netherlands.
Slow down. Save your forks. Save a life. What's your hurry?
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 22:24:50
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Jul 12, 5:17 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> AustinMN wrote:
>>> So someone who is the hapless driver in a "suicide by motorist" should
>>> loose his license because he can not prove the person suddenly stepped
>>> out in front of him?
>>> What a total crock.
>> Or some stupid child standing in front of truck blocking the view dashes
>> out into the street? (This happened to me, and I had to replace the fork
>> on my bicycle after the collision).
>
> Sorry about your fork. But the point is, "stupid children" WILL do
> things like dart out from in front of trucks. Drivers' Training
> classes attempt to impress that point on teenagers, and make them
> understand it's their responsibility as drivers to account for such
> behavior and not kill kids.
It is the parents' responsibility to supervise their children until they
are old enough to act responsibly. If that can not happen, we should
accept some "thinning of the herd" (after all, the world's population is
already 3 times the maximum it can support with a decent quality of life
for everyone.
To avoid all accidents involving the irresponsible, we would have to
slow traffic to below 10-mph (try riding a MUP if you do not believe
this). If your goal is to ban all motor vehicles, just come out and say
so. Otherwise, you are making a crap-shoot lottery official policy.
In the history of hominids, there has NEVER been a good zero-tolerance
policy, as there are ALWAYS exceptions.
> Unfortunately, about a month after they get their license, most kids
> adopt the attitude that they're king of the road, and that nobody'd
> better get in their way. And many keep that attitude way past the
> time when failing eyesight, reflexes and thought processes make them
> hazards to everyone else.
There are other ways of addressing that, but no one (in particular the
police) seems interested. How often do citations get issued for
deliberately aggressive behavior, such as tailgating?
> And it's interesting to me that by saying you couldn't handle such a
> law, you're effectively saying you're not competent to drive in the
> Netherlands.
Do you endorse crap-shoot lotteries as government policies across the
board, or are you morally inconsistent? Have you never seen a person on
a bicycle ride with total disregard for the rules of the road that have
been consistently in place for centuries?
> Slow down. Save your forks. Save a life. What's your hurry?
So I should never ride a bicycle faster than 10-mph? Should I get off
and walk whenever there is a pedestrian on the sidewalk that could
possibly enter the street?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 02:53:47
From:
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 12, 12:39 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
>
> So someone who is the hapless driver in a "suicide by motorist" should
> loose his license because he can not prove the person suddenly stepped
> out in front of him?
Well, he should _lose_ his license, not "loose" it. And again, that
would be only until he could prove it was absolutely not his fault.
If he could.
I believe "suicide by motorist" is only a little more common than
suicide by meteorite. I may be wrong - but if you can come up with a
dozen proven American cases in the past ten years, I'll be
surprised. (A proven case would have to have a witness besides the
killer, of course.) In fact, I'll be surprised if you can come up
with one proven case per year worldwide!
Remember, there are countries that have such laws. I've certainly
never heard of any tremendous problems there. Admittedly, I haven't
looked - but all I've heard is good reports. I've been told by people
who have bicycled in the Netherlands, for example, that motorists are
courteous in the extreme, amazingly so. Now wouldn't that be nice to
see?
If you were really, really afraid someone would suicide and put your
precious license at risk, I imagine a digital videocam on the dash
wouldn't be difficult to arrange. In fact, such a camera designed to
loop continuously, retaining (say) the last ten minutes of video while
the car moved, might be a profitable thing to market. It would prove
your innocence easily.
Personally, I think if such devices became standard equipment in
response to such a law, they would be found to "malfunction" ONLY
during a supposed "suicide."
"Honest, officer, it always worked perfectly before! It just somehow
deleted that bicyclist zooming way to the left just before I hit him."
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 09:39:02
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 12, 9:48 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 12, 12:08 am, Bob <hunr...@aol.com> wrote:
<snip >
>
> > ... or, 2) tell the driver that struck and killed
> > the cyclist in this instance "Enjoy your license while you have it
> > Buster because when it expires in X number of years, we aren't going
> > to renew it so there!".
>
> Nope. I think the revocation should be immediate. Of course, given
> our legal system, there would be appeals and challenges, I'm sure.
> But again, the burden of proof would be on the motorist, and the
> penalty should be imposed until they successfully prove innocence.
So someone who is the hapless driver in a "suicide by motorist" should
loose his license because he can not prove the person suddenly stepped
out in front of him?
What a total crock.
Austin
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 16:17:46
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
AustinMN wrote:
> On Jul 12, 9:48 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 12:08 am, Bob <hunr...@aol.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>>> ... or, 2) tell the driver that struck and killed
>>> the cyclist in this instance "Enjoy your license while you have it
>>> Buster because when it expires in X number of years, we aren't going
>>> to renew it so there!".
>> Nope. I think the revocation should be immediate. Of course, given
>> our legal system, there would be appeals and challenges, I'm sure.
>> But again, the burden of proof would be on the motorist, and the
>> penalty should be imposed until they successfully prove innocence.
>
> So someone who is the hapless driver in a "suicide by motorist" should
> loose his license because he can not prove the person suddenly stepped
> out in front of him?
>
> What a total crock.
Or some stupid child standing in front of truck blocking the view dashes
out into the street? (This happened to me, and I had to replace the fork
on my bicycle after the collision).
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 14:48:10
From:
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 12, 12:08 am, Bob <hunr...@aol.com > wrote:
>
>
> I actually agree with you that driving is a revocable *privilege* and
> so does the existing law.
It's nice when we agree! ;-)
> Where you and I seemingly disagree is in the
> application of the law. I'd be content if each case were judged
> individually while placing the burden of proof where it rightfully
> belongs- on the government that is trying to restrict an individual's
> freedom.
Well, keep in mind there is no "freedom" (i.e. "right") to drive.
It's supposed to be a controlled privilege.
> You seem to want the law to assume that every traffic
> fatality is a result of the surviving driver's incompetence and place
> the entire burden on them to (I believe I'm paraphrasing you fairly)
> prove with ironclad evidence that they are competent to drive.
That's pretty much what I have in mind, yes. Given our legal system,
it would be more complicated, but I do think the burden of proof
should be reversed.
The current system - like the current infrastructure - is far too
biased in favor of the driver. By definition, the most important
opposing witness in such a fatality is unable to testify, and a verbal
"I didn't see him" is taken as proof of innocence. That's ludicrous.
As a crude analogy, it's like we locked two enemies in adjoining
cells, gave one of them a gun, and later found the other one with a
bullet in his heart. The gun-toter says "It was an accident! I was
only doing target practice, and he stepped in the way!"
> BTW, the re-testing you mention differs from what you're proposing in
> two very important ways. First, to be found unfit to drive those
> drivers have to fail certain standardized physical tests. If a driver
> fails those tests- eyesight for example- their license application is
> denied and the license expires. They still have the opportunity to
> have the condition corrected, retake and pass the test, and get their
> driver's license renewed. What "retest" do you propose for the
> surviving driver in a traffic crash?
Oh, I'm not proposing any re-test at all! Sorry, but I think killing
a human being is horrible enough that you don't deserve a second
chance!
Seriously, why do some DOTs test old folks? Because they are afraid
that they will harm others by their driving, and they want to remove
the unfit from the wheel. If someone has _already_ harmed someone in
the worst possible way, what more proof do we need that the person is
unfit to drive?
> If you really want to use
> that testing as an example of how things should be done you'll have to
> either: 1) change existing law so anyone over a certain age (good luck
> with the AARP and ACLU) or under certain disabilities has to retest
> after any traffic crash...
Yes, I know. And, BTW, I'm no big fan of either organization, at
least on issues like this. But understand, I'm _not_ proposing any
"retest." I'm proposing a permanent license revocation for those
causing death of a vulnerable roadway user (that is, anyone non-
motorized).
> ... or, 2) tell the driver that struck and killed
> the cyclist in this instance "Enjoy your license while you have it
> Buster because when it expires in X number of years, we aren't going
> to renew it so there!".
Nope. I think the revocation should be immediate. Of course, given
our legal system, there would be appeals and challenges, I'm sure.
But again, the burden of proof would be on the motorist, and the
penalty should be imposed until they successfully prove innocence.
The "no driving" penalty is not so severe! They have to walk, bike,
take a bus or cab, ride with a friend? Sorry, that's a mere
inconvenience for most. And if someone is a person who's life would
be ruined by that minor penalty - they should drive very, very
carefully.
Very seriously: If this were implemented, those whose livelihoods
depended on their ability to driver - say, truckers - would
immediately invest in dash cameras. If a cyclist or ped really did
"jump out in front of them" they'd have it recorded. And _all_
truckers would be less aggressive.
> That doesn't sound like a very effective deterrent to carelessness to me.
It's my understanding that in those countries where the burden of
proof is as I describe it, the deterrent is very effective. Again, in
Zurich, Switzerland recently, I was told that driver behavior changed
suddenly when pedestrians were given absolute right-of-way in marked
crosswalks. Until the change in law, crossing a street was a much
scarier experience.
And, BTW, it didn't seem like that law gridlocked the city. In
particular, motorists still got to where they were going with plenty
of convenience.
Also related: I think such a change in law would do much to promote
more walking and cycling. Just two days ago, one of the most
environmentally "green" people I know (far more so than me) was
telling me it's unreasonable to use anything but a car to access our
biggest shopping area "because it's so dangerous."
I believe a change in this law would cause a change in driver
behavior, and that would cause a change in safety perceptions. And we
could get fewer people driving their car 1/2 mile for a loaf of bread
because of the supposed "danger."
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 12:01:25
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Yes, I know. And, BTW, I'm no big fan of either organization, at
> least on issues like this. But understand, I'm _not_ proposing any
> "retest." I'm proposing a permanent license revocation for those
> causing death of a vulnerable roadway user (that is, anyone non-
> motorized).
Why should us "vulnerables" be the only ones so protected?
I think anyone who causes the death of anyone should loose their
license. Run a red light and T-bone some motorist causing death: no
license for you!
Wayne
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 21:30:02
From: Dave Vandervies
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
In article <46965055$0$30599$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote:
>frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Yes, I know. And, BTW, I'm no big fan of either organization, at
>> least on issues like this. But understand, I'm _not_ proposing any
>> "retest." I'm proposing a permanent license revocation for those
>> causing death of a vulnerable roadway user (that is, anyone non-
>> motorized).
>
>Why should us "vulnerables" be the only ones so protected?
>I think anyone who causes the death of anyone should loose their
>license. Run a red light and T-bone some motorist causing death: no
>license for you!
I would take this one even farther, though I'd also raise the standards
of proof to go along with that:
If negligence, violation of the law, or gross incompetence on the part
of somebody in control of a motor vehicle causes a death, it should be
prosecuted as a murder. Being in control of a member of the most prolific
class of killing devices known to man brings with it the responsibility
to use it with caution, and failure to exercise that caution should be
treated as a conscious and deliberate act.
Though if there's not enough evidence to get a conviction on that, I
think permanent revocation of a drivers license is going a little bit
too far. I'd settle for re-issuing of a license being made conditional
on a few dozen hours of driver training and a few thousand kilometers
of non-motorized road use. (If the incident leading to the suspension
didn't involve a vulnerable road user, I'd even consider waiving the
non-motorized road use requirement.)
dave
--
Dave Vandervies dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
BNC was Real Technology, every connector and tee a finely-machined piece of
precision equipment. RJ45 connectors are cheap massproduced plastic shite,
which is why they won in the marketplace. --Anthony de Boer in the SDM
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 21:08:51
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 10, 8:51 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 10, 12:46 am, Bob <hunr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 10:47 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 9, 10:46 pm, Veloise <galena3...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Photos of the Clark Memorial Bridge.
>
> > > >http://www.speakeasy.org/~morse/07-06-2007-clark-mem-bridge/
>
> > > > --Karen D.
>
> > > Judging from the photos, it just does not look plausible that the
> > > driver couldn't see the cyclist. Unless, perhaps, he was busy reading
> > > a newspaper or playing a video game as he drove.
>
> > > The driver should NOT be let off the hook!
>
> > > - Frank Krygowski
>
> > Whether the photos accurately depict the conditions of the roadway at
> > the time of the crash or not is immaterial. No one has suggested the
> > driver be "let off the hook". What the news report said was that,
> > absent any witnesses to the crash or the driver failing chemical tests
> > for drug/alcohol tests, no *criminal* charges are expected. Charging
> > people with committing a crime without a reasonable belief that: 1)
> > they committed the crime and 2) the charge can be proven wouldn't be
> > police work. It would be show business.
>
> I understand that very well.
>
> But as I tried to express earlier, I think the privilege of driving
> after involvement in a death should be subject to a different standard
> than the one used when prosecuting murder, manslaughter, etc. The
> latter use the presumption of innocence. Without solid proof (or
> sometimes even with solid proof) a murderer can go free. That same
> presumption should not apply to the privilege of driving.
>
> I think it's reasonable to tell this driver "Visibility was excellent,
> yet you killed someone and claim you 'didn't see him.' We don't feel
> we can get a criminal conviction. However, you've shown yourself
> incompetent to ever drive again. Your privilege of driving is
> permanently revoked. Go buy a bicycle."
>
> IIRC, certain states require periodic re-testing of elderly drivers.
> Those with sufficiently feeble eyesight, or reaction times, or thought
> processes, have the privilege of driving revoked. Why should it not
> be the same for someone who kills a vulnerable road user?
>
> - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I actually agree with you that driving is a revocable *privilege* and
so does the existing law. Where you and I seemingly disagree is in the
application of the law. I'd be content if each case were judged
individually while placing the burden of proof where it rightfully
belongs- on the government that is trying to restrict an individual's
freedom. You seem to want the law to assume that every traffic
fatality is a result of the surviving driver's incompetence and place
the entire burden on them to (I believe I'm paraphrasing you fairly)
prove with ironclad evidence that they are competent to drive.
BTW, the re-testing you mention differs from what you're proposing in
two very important ways. First, to be found unfit to drive those
drivers have to fail certain standardized physical tests. If a driver
fails those tests- eyesight for example- their license application is
denied and the license expires. They still have the opportunity to
have the condition corrected, retake and pass the test, and get their
driver's license renewed. What "retest" do you propose for the
surviving driver in a traffic crash? That they drive from Point A to
Point B without killing anyone? Second, those tests are given when it
is time to renew a soon-to-expire license. If you really want to use
that testing as an example of how things should be done you'll have to
either: 1) change existing law so anyone over a certain age (good luck
with the AARP and ACLU) or under certain disabilities has to retest
after any traffic crash or, 2) tell the driver that struck and killed
the cyclist in this instance "Enjoy your license while you have it
Buster because when it expires in X number of years, we aren't going
to renew it so there!". That doesn't sound like a very effective
deterrent to carelessness to me.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
|
| |
Date: 10 Jul 2007 19:06:53
From: Veloise
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
Frank wrote:
...
> I think it's reasonable to tell this driver "Visibility was excellent,
> yet you killed someone and claim you 'didn't see him.' We don't feel
> we can get a criminal conviction. However, you've shown yourself
> incompetent to ever drive again. Your privilege of driving is
> permanently revoked. Go buy a bicycle."
"And here is a bridge abutment-grey shirt to wear when you ride. Good
luck!"
> IIRC, certain states require periodic re-testing of elderly drivers.
> Those with sufficiently feeble eyesight, or reaction times, or thought
> processes, have the privilege of driving revoked. Why should it not
> be the same for someone who kills a vulnerable road user?
Worth re-mentioning here (already shared with the cycling instructor
list):
couple years back we lost a cyclist here in Grand Rapids. Labor Day, 2
pm, clear bright dry, no sunshine issues. Four-lane road with light
traffic. The 80++ year-old driver was not charged, but the family
quietly suggested that his license be revoked, and it was.
HTH
--Karen D.
|
| |
Date: 10 Jul 2007 13:51:51
From:
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 10, 12:46 am, Bob <hunr...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Jul 9, 10:47 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 10:46 pm, Veloise <galena3...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
> > > Photos of the Clark Memorial Bridge.
>
> > >http://www.speakeasy.org/~morse/07-06-2007-clark-mem-bridge/
>
> > > --Karen D.
>
> > Judging from the photos, it just does not look plausible that the
> > driver couldn't see the cyclist. Unless, perhaps, he was busy reading
> > a newspaper or playing a video game as he drove.
>
> > The driver should NOT be let off the hook!
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> Whether the photos accurately depict the conditions of the roadway at
> the time of the crash or not is immaterial. No one has suggested the
> driver be "let off the hook". What the news report said was that,
> absent any witnesses to the crash or the driver failing chemical tests
> for drug/alcohol tests, no *criminal* charges are expected. Charging
> people with committing a crime without a reasonable belief that: 1)
> they committed the crime and 2) the charge can be proven wouldn't be
> police work. It would be show business.
I understand that very well.
But as I tried to express earlier, I think the privilege of driving
after involvement in a death should be subject to a different standard
than the one used when prosecuting murder, manslaughter, etc. The
latter use the presumption of innocence. Without solid proof (or
sometimes even with solid proof) a murderer can go free. That same
presumption should not apply to the privilege of driving.
I think it's reasonable to tell this driver "Visibility was excellent,
yet you killed someone and claim you 'didn't see him.' We don't feel
we can get a criminal conviction. However, you've shown yourself
incompetent to ever drive again. Your privilege of driving is
permanently revoked. Go buy a bicycle."
IIRC, certain states require periodic re-testing of elderly drivers.
Those with sufficiently feeble eyesight, or reaction times, or thought
processes, have the privilege of driving revoked. Why should it not
be the same for someone who kills a vulnerable road user?
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 21:46:45
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 9, 10:47 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 9, 10:46 pm, Veloise <galena3...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
> > Photos of the Clark Memorial Bridge.
>
> >http://www.speakeasy.org/~morse/07-06-2007-clark-mem-bridge/
>
> > --Karen D.
>
> Judging from the photos, it just does not look plausible that the
> driver couldn't see the cyclist. Unless, perhaps, he was busy reading
> a newspaper or playing a video game as he drove.
>
> The driver should NOT be let off the hook!
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Whether the photos accurately depict the conditions of the roadway at
the time of the crash or not is immaterial. No one has suggested the
driver be "let off the hook". What the news report said was that,
absent any witnesses to the crash or the driver failing chemical tests
for drug/alcohol tests, no *criminal* charges are expected. Charging
people with committing a crime without a reasonable belief that: 1)
they committed the crime and 2) the charge can be proven wouldn't be
police work. It would be show business.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
|
| |
Date: 10 Jul 2007 03:47:53
From:
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 9, 10:46 pm, Veloise <galena3...@mypacks.net > wrote:
> Photos of the Clark Memorial Bridge.
>
> http://www.speakeasy.org/~morse/07-06-2007-clark-mem-bridge/
>
> --Karen D.
Judging from the photos, it just does not look plausible that the
driver couldn't see the cyclist. Unless, perhaps, he was busy reading
a newspaper or playing a video game as he drove.
The driver should NOT be let off the hook!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 19:46:08
From: Veloise
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
Photos of the Clark Memorial Bridge.
http://www.speakeasy.org/~morse/07-06-2007-clark-mem-bridge/
--Karen D.
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 15:20:50
From:
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 8, 9:59 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Bryan Scholtes wrote:
> >> My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist who
> >> hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault. That
> >> sounds reasonable to me.
>
> > Wait until someone moves quite unreasonably in front of your car.
>
> > There is no justice in absolutes.
I've had someone move quite unreasonably in front of my car. One
specific incident: driving into a fairgrounds to help with a bike
safety event, the narrow fairground road had cars parked all along it,
making visibility difficult. I realized I'd better go _very_ slow
because of the kids in attendance - and within ten seconds, a little
girl popped out from between two parked cars, riding her bike wrong-
way toward my car's grille. Of course, I easily stopped in time - but
another motorist traveling at the speed limit probably would have hit
her.
Their excuse would have been "I didn't see her in time" and "I wasn't
speeding" and "NO, I haven't been drinking!" and the cops and
newspapers would have said it was her fault. But when I'm driving a
car, I think I have the obligation to let non-motorists live.
> This is especially true where children are involved, since until they
> reach a certain level of development; they are incapable of following
> the principles of right-of-way.
Precisely. They should not be subject to a death penalty for
perfectly natural inattention. When I pass kids or other pedestrians,
I do so on high alert and at slow speed. The motorist behind me
already has too many advantages; he can just wait.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 18:55:18
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Jul 8, 9:59 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Bryan Scholtes wrote:
>>>> My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist who
>>>> hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault. That
>>>> sounds reasonable to me.
>>> Wait until someone moves quite unreasonably in front of your car.
>>> There is no justice in absolutes.
>
> I've had someone move quite unreasonably in front of my car. One
> specific incident: driving into a fairgrounds to help with a bike
> safety event, the narrow fairground road had cars parked all along it,
> making visibility difficult. I realized I'd better go _very_ slow
> because of the kids in attendance - and within ten seconds, a little
> girl popped out from between two parked cars, riding her bike wrong-
> way toward my car's grille. Of course, I easily stopped in time - but
> another motorist traveling at the speed limit probably would have hit
> her.
>
> Their excuse would have been "I didn't see her in time" and "I wasn't
> speeding" and "NO, I haven't been drinking!" and the cops and
> newspapers would have said it was her fault. But when I'm driving a
> car, I think I have the obligation to let non-motorists live.
>
>> This is especially true where children are involved, since until they
>> reach a certain level of development; they are incapable of following
>> the principles of right-of-way.
>
> Precisely. They should not be subject to a death penalty for
> perfectly natural inattention. When I pass kids or other pedestrians,
> I do so on high alert and at slow speed. The motorist behind me
> already has too many advantages; he can just wait.
Where I often drive, if one slows and moves to the left to pass a
cyclist while driving, the following vehicle may pass to the right,
thereby running over the cyclist. It is not uncommon to be passed on the
right by a vehicle traveling in the bicycle and bus/parking lanes that
is going 20 to 30 mph over the speed limits (typically 30 to 40 mph).
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 07:59:28
From:
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 9, 2:59 am, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Bryan Scholtes wrote:
> >> My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist who
> >> hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault. That
> >> sounds reasonable to me.
>
> > Wait until someone moves quite unreasonably in front of your car.
>
> > There is no justice in absolutes.
>
> This is especially true where children are involved, since until they
> reach a certain level of development; they are incapable of following
> the principles of right-of-way. While this does not physically endanger
> motorists, it does endanger adult cyclists (and to a lesser extent,
> adult pedestrians).
Doesn't this entirely predictable characteristic of children make it
reasonable to impose a duty of care on vehicle operators rather than
absolve them of responsibility?
best wishes
james
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 18:50:14
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
James ? wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2:59 am, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Bryan Scholtes wrote:
>>>> My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist who
>>>> hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault. That
>>>> sounds reasonable to me.
>>> Wait until someone moves quite unreasonably in front of your car.
>>> There is no justice in absolutes.
>> This is especially true where children are involved, since until they
>> reach a certain level of development; they are incapable of following
>> the principles of right-of-way. While this does not physically endanger
>> motorists, it does endanger adult cyclists (and to a lesser extent,
>> adult pedestrians).
>
> Doesn't this entirely predictable characteristic of children make it
> reasonable to impose a duty of care on vehicle operators rather than
> absolve them of responsibility?
No, it imposes a duty on the parents of the children if they wish their
brood to survive to adolescence.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 01:11:19
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 8, 8:41 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 8, 1:19 am, Bob <hunr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 7, 4:14 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 7, 4:40 pm, Bob <hunr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 6, 10:51 pm, Veloise <galena3...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/070507whasmjdTopBicycle.475b...
>
> > > > > So much for the "bicycle friendly city" designation.
>
> > > > > --Karen D.
>
> > > > Direct quote from the linked article-
> > > > "There is no way of knowing what really happened Tuesday afternoon on
> > > > the Second Street Bridge. Metro Police say that without personally
> > > > witnessing the accident or having another witness at the scene, they
> > > > are not charging the motorist with a crime.
> > > > But it's not because it was a car vs. cyclist. Police spokesperson
> > > > Alicia Smiley told me it would be the same whether it was a car vs.
> > > > motorcycle or car vs. car."
> > > > and a little further into the article-
> > > > "Police told us that in this case, they only way they would file any
> > > > charges is if the blood alcohol tests taken on the van's driver came
> > > > back positive."
> > > > With no evidence of a crime (blood tests, etc) and no witness to say
> > > > what occurred what *should* happen?
>
> > > Ideally? What _should_ happen is that driving should be considered a
> > > privilege, not a right; and that privilege should be revoked for a
> > > period of time if you injury anyone else with your vehicle. That
> > > privilege should be permanently revoked if you kill someone else with
> > > your vehicle. Not your fault? The burden of proof is upon you -
> > > provide bulletproof evidence, and we'll let you drive again.
>
> > > My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist who
> > > hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault. That
> > > sounds reasonable to me. It would completely transform the experience
> > > of riding on roads, or even walking across or near them. (Our new
> > > friends in Switzerland told us that such a law, even applied only to
> > > legal crosswalks, made a world of difference there.)
>
> > > We've made the world excessively convenient for motorists, and
> > > extremely inconvenient for everyone else. Taking away their presumed
> > > innocence would be a good first step.
>
> > > - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Driving privileges aren't granted by the police or- except in certain
> > circumstances- by the courts. They are granted by the individual
> > State's SOS, DMV, or whatever that State decides to name that
> > particular Executive Branch agency. If you'd read the licensing laws
> > you'd learn that no new laws are required to do exactly what you
> > suggest. That it hasn't already happened is a measure of just how
> > little support such measures have with the general public. If you
> > don't like it your choices are pretty restricted. You can either try
> > to change the majority attitude (good luck trying to convince people
> > that erasing the presumption of innocence is a good thing), move to
> > one of those European countries you mention, or accept that life isn't
> > always fair.
>
> Yep. By making that post, I was working on tactic number one,
> changing attitudes. Thanks.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you're seriously trying to change what appears to be the majority
attitude, you might consider two things. First, the regulars here
aren't likely to need much persuasion. Second, if your posts seem to
suggest as this one did that we should do away with the presumption of
innocence you're likely to come off to the non-regulars that may just
visit here as a nutjob. No, I'm not calling you a nutjob. <g >
Regards,
Bob Hunt
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 08:40:49
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
Bob wrote:
> On Jul 8, 8:41 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 1:19 am, Bob <hunr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> Direct quote from the linked article-
>>>>> "There is no way of knowing what really happened Tuesday
>>>>> afternoon on the Second Street Bridge. Metro Police say that
>>>>> without personally witnessing the accident or having another
>>>>> witness at the scene, they are not charging the motorist with a
>>>>> crime.
>>>>> But it's not because it was a car vs. cyclist. Police spokesperson
>>>>> Alicia Smiley told me it would be the same whether it was a car
>>>>> vs. motorcycle or car vs. car."
>>>>> and a little further into the article-
>>>>> "Police told us that in this case, they only way they would file
>>>>> any charges is if the blood alcohol tests taken on the van's
>>>>> driver came back positive."
>>>>> With no evidence of a crime (blood tests, etc) and no witness to
>>>>> say what occurred what *should* happen?
>>>> Ideally? What _should_ happen is that driving should be
>>>> considered a privilege, not a right; and that privilege should be
>>>> revoked for a period of time if you injury anyone else with your
>>>> vehicle. That privilege should be permanently revoked if you kill
>>>> someone else with your vehicle. Not your fault? The burden of
>>>> proof is upon you - provide bulletproof evidence, and we'll let
>>>> you drive again.
>>
>>>> My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist
>>>> who hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault.
>>>> That sounds reasonable to me. It would completely transform the
>>>> experience of riding on roads, or even walking across or near
>>>> them. (Our new friends in Switzerland told us that such a law,
>>>> even applied only to legal crosswalks, made a world of difference
>>>> there.)
>>
>>>> We've made the world excessively convenient for motorists, and
>>>> extremely inconvenient for everyone else. Taking away their
>>>> presumed innocence would be a good first step.
>>> Driving privileges aren't granted by the police or- except in
>>> certain circumstances- by the courts. They are granted by the
>>> individual State's SOS, DMV, or whatever that State decides to name
>>> that particular Executive Branch agency. If you'd read the
>>> licensing laws you'd learn that no new laws are required to do
>>> exactly what you suggest. That it hasn't already happened is a
>>> measure of just how little support such measures have with the
>>> general public. If you don't like it your choices are pretty
>>> restricted. You can either try to change the majority attitude
>>> (good luck trying to convince people that erasing the presumption
>>> of innocence is a good thing), move to one of those European
>>> countries you mention, or accept that life isn't always fair.
>> Yep. By making that post, I was working on tactic number one,
>> changing attitudes. Thanks.- Hide quoted text -
> If you're seriously trying to change what appears to be the majority
> attitude, you might consider two things. First, the regulars here
> aren't likely to need much persuasion. Second, if your posts seem to
> suggest as this one did that we should do away with the presumption of
> innocence you're likely to come off to the non-regulars that may just
> visit here as a nutjob. No, I'm not calling you a nutjob. <g>
I don't think that most of the "regulars" here would do away with the
presumption of innocence, either. Being both drivers and cyclists, it's not
hard to see how each can be horribly stupid and wrong in any given incident.
(A few will blame the driver -- "cager", "scud jockey" -- no matter what the
facts suggest, but most know better.)
BS
|
| |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 18:53:22
From:
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
> My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist who
> hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault. That
> sounds reasonable to me.
Wait until someone moves quite unreasonably in front of your car.
There is no justice in absolutes.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 20:59:37
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
Bryan Scholtes wrote:
>> My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist who
>> hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault. That
>> sounds reasonable to me.
>
> Wait until someone moves quite unreasonably in front of your car.
>
> There is no justice in absolutes.
This is especially true where children are involved, since until they
reach a certain level of development; they are incapable of following
the principles of right-of-way. While this does not physically endanger
motorists, it does endanger adult cyclists (and to a lesser extent,
adult pedestrians).
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 01:46:18
From:
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 7, 9:07 pm, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
>
>
> That's the same story the driver who hit me gave. "The car in front of me
> swerved to get around the guy on the bike, and by the time I saw him it was
> too late.". At least HE got a ticket, albeit a minor one for "Improper
> pass". I had to go to court because he fought the ticket, and he actually
> used "I tried not to hit him, Your Honor", as an excuse. Would have been
> nice if he'd been cited for more, like failure to maintain control or
> following too closely, or something. Heck, if he'd lost his license for a
> while(which was possible since I was injured) it might have sent a message.
> But, instead, the judge said "I wouldn't ride MY bike on any main road in
> this county.". Bogus.
FWIW: I've long been saying that the "Bicycling is dangerous!"
nonsense hurts cyclists. This is a perfect example. At the very
least, we cyclists need to start rebutting that idea. Too many of us
willingly contribute to spreading it.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 16:22:36
From: Luigi de Guzman
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 09:07:30 -0700, Neil Brooks wrote:
> Time to start checking the grilles of some of these (cars and) SUV's
> for bike head badges.....
They still make bikes with real head badges?
--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com
|
| | |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 14:23:36
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
Luigi de Guzman <luigi12081@cox.net > wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 09:07:30 -0700, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>> Time to start checking the grilles of some of these (cars and) SUV's
>> for bike head badges.....
>
> They still make bikes with real head badges?
My Surly has a real metal 'badge' not a sticker. I'm not sure if that
matches your qualification or not. It's not a shield...
--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to
see it tried on him personally.
-- Abraham Lincoln
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 14:37:30
From: mark
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
Rivendell does.
mark
(apologies for the thread drift here)
Luigi de Guzman wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 09:07:30 -0700, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>> Time to start checking the grilles of some of these (cars and) SUV's
>> for bike head badges.....
>
> They still make bikes with real head badges?
>
|
| |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 13:41:42
From:
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 8, 1:19 am, Bob <hunr...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Jul 7, 4:14 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 7, 4:40 pm, Bob <hunr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 6, 10:51 pm, Veloise <galena3...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/070507whasmjdTopBicycle.475b...
>
> > > > So much for the "bicycle friendly city" designation.
>
> > > > --Karen D.
>
> > > Direct quote from the linked article-
> > > "There is no way of knowing what really happened Tuesday afternoon on
> > > the Second Street Bridge. Metro Police say that without personally
> > > witnessing the accident or having another witness at the scene, they
> > > are not charging the motorist with a crime.
> > > But it's not because it was a car vs. cyclist. Police spokesperson
> > > Alicia Smiley told me it would be the same whether it was a car vs.
> > > motorcycle or car vs. car."
> > > and a little further into the article-
> > > "Police told us that in this case, they only way they would file any
> > > charges is if the blood alcohol tests taken on the van's driver came
> > > back positive."
> > > With no evidence of a crime (blood tests, etc) and no witness to say
> > > what occurred what *should* happen?
>
> > Ideally? What _should_ happen is that driving should be considered a
> > privilege, not a right; and that privilege should be revoked for a
> > period of time if you injury anyone else with your vehicle. That
> > privilege should be permanently revoked if you kill someone else with
> > your vehicle. Not your fault? The burden of proof is upon you -
> > provide bulletproof evidence, and we'll let you drive again.
>
> > My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist who
> > hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault. That
> > sounds reasonable to me. It would completely transform the experience
> > of riding on roads, or even walking across or near them. (Our new
> > friends in Switzerland told us that such a law, even applied only to
> > legal crosswalks, made a world of difference there.)
>
> > We've made the world excessively convenient for motorists, and
> > extremely inconvenient for everyone else. Taking away their presumed
> > innocence would be a good first step.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Driving privileges aren't granted by the police or- except in certain
> circumstances- by the courts. They are granted by the individual
> State's SOS, DMV, or whatever that State decides to name that
> particular Executive Branch agency. If you'd read the licensing laws
> you'd learn that no new laws are required to do exactly what you
> suggest. That it hasn't already happened is a measure of just how
> little support such measures have with the general public. If you
> don't like it your choices are pretty restricted. You can either try
> to change the majority attitude (good luck trying to convince people
> that erasing the presumption of innocence is a good thing), move to
> one of those European countries you mention, or accept that life isn't
> always fair.
>
Yep. By making that post, I was working on tactic number one,
changing attitudes. Thanks.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jul 2007 17:58:26
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
In article <4699001c$0$16311$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >,
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes:
> If you don't give a damn about the principle of innocent until proven
> guilty, go ahead and lobby for this.
It would seem the most direct, viable and immediately
implementable compromise solution to both your and
Frank's positions would be more vigourous investigation
and prosecution of fatal driver/non-driver traffic
incidents, with more weight of consideration given to
the duty of care incumbent on operators of dangerous
machinery.
Of course, actually achieving that is up to each of
your state & territorial legislatures. In Canada,
that would be up to each of our provincial and
territorial legislatures.
The "presumption of innocence" thing is a good idea,
but I think it's a little trickily misunderstanable.
If all suspects were "presumed innocent", nobody would
be remanded to custody pending hearing or trial, because
all of them would be so far "innocent". But that's not
how it works, thank Goodness. AIUI, Presumption of
Innocence is for trials, when evidence is being considered.
I might be wrong, though. IANAL. I just like Justice.
Mercy, when called-for, is good too.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jul 2007 14:25:08
From:
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 13, 8:22 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > On Jul 12, 11:24 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
> > <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> It is the parents' responsibility to supervise their children until they
> >> are old enough to act responsibly.
>
> > You sound like you've never had kids.
>
> For which great fortune I give thanks daily.
Ah well. Not much I can say about that, except that you've missed an
experience that's brought me tremendous joy ...
... and that you're not experienced enough to judge what parents
should do!
>
> > Children have a certain amount
> > of randomness built into their behavior, and no amount of parenting
> > can prevent it from showing up from time to time. The rest of society
> > should be watching for kids, too - and ditto for old folks, and
> > bicyclists, and pedestrians.
>
> Why should we base our behavior on accommodating the least common
> denominator?
I've got to call you on your elitist attitude. What makes kids, old
folks, bicyclists and pedestrians the "least" common denominator?
That's insulting, at best.
People of all ages make mistakes. People traveling by all different
modes make mistakes. But without the presence of a motor vehicle,
most ordinary mistakes do not cause deaths, nor even serious
injuries.
By any rational standard, the motorists should be bearing
responsibility for this, at least to the degree that they should have
to be "cleared" before they're allowed to drive again. That is, they
should have to prove their innocence.
After all, what happens to a cop who kills someone, even if that
person was trying to harm or kill the cop? He's normally taken off
duty until the incident is investigated. What happens to an
industrial crane operator or fork lift operator? Same thing, except
he's less likely to be allowed to do that job. A fatality is treated
seriously.
Why should the essentially untrained source of 40,000 fatalities per
year in the US be treated differently? Again, it does NOT mean
traffic would run at 10 mph. It does NOT mean people will suicide in
front of your car. It will NOT cause widespread social injustice. We
know this because there are places that have rules like I'm
describing, and their transportation systems work well.
In fact, they work better than ours, because people have the
confidence that they can walk or bicycle in reasonable safety. Partly
as a consequence, there is MUCH more walking and cycling, and better
public health.
Of course, this is America, where nothing can be allowed to interfere
with the sacred act of driving. Not phone calls, not eating Big Macs,
not rampant obesity, not the destruction of neighborhoods, not even
killing or permanently maiming another human being! We've got our
priority, and it's DRIVING!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Jul 2007 12:47:48
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Jul 13, 8:22 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> frkry...@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 12, 11:24 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
>>> <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> It is the parents' responsibility to supervise their children until they
>>>> are old enough to act responsibly.
>>> You sound like you've never had kids.
>> For which great fortune I give thanks daily.
>
> Ah well. Not much I can say about that, except that you've missed an
> experience that's brought me tremendous joy ...
... and the understanding why some animals eat their young!
> ... and that you're not experienced enough to judge what parents
> should do!
I have way too much experience in how the children of others' create not
only problems for their parents, but innocent bystanders.
>>> Children have a certain amount
>>> of randomness built into their behavior, and no amount of parenting
>>> can prevent it from showing up from time to time. The rest of society
>>> should be watching for kids, too - and ditto for old folks, and
>>> bicyclists, and pedestrians.
>> Why should we base our behavior on accommodating the least common
>> denominator?
>
> I've got to call you on your elitist attitude. What makes kids, old
> folks, bicyclists and pedestrians the "least" common denominator?
> That's insulting, at best.
Sorry, but people need to restrict their activities to their abilities,
or accept the consequences. For example, many of us can ride relatively
safely in urban traffic using vehicular cycling practices, but for those
who lack the ability to do so, should not. [1]
> People of all ages make mistakes. People traveling by all different
> modes make mistakes. But without the presence of a motor vehicle,
> most ordinary mistakes do not cause deaths, nor even serious
> injuries.
See above.
> By any rational standard, the motorists should be bearing
> responsibility for this, at least to the degree that they should have
> to be "cleared" before they're allowed to drive again. That is, they
> should have to prove their innocence.
Male bovine excrement! This is the dream of the authoritarian, letting
the camel's nose in the tent. Once this is established, many of us will
end up in concentration camps in a long line following Jose Padilla and
Yasir Esam Hamdi.
> After all, what happens to a cop who kills someone, even if that
> person was trying to harm or kill the cop? He's normally taken off
> duty until the incident is investigated. What happens to an
> industrial crane operator or fork lift operator? Same thing, except
> he's less likely to be allowed to do that job. A fatality is treated
> seriously.
Cops are taken off duty with pay or assigned to administrative duty at
the same pay (around here they are paid after conviction while appeals
are heard, even if they have been terminated). The equivalent of paid
vacation or working at the same pay is hardly a punishment. And a cop
gets every benefit of the doubt (and often more) when culpability is
being determined. Not at all the "guilty until proven innocent" that
Krygowski et al are proposing.
> Why should the essentially untrained source of 40,000 fatalities per
> year in the US be treated differently? Again, it does NOT mean
> traffic would run at 10 mph. It does NOT mean people will suicide in
> front of your car. It will NOT cause widespread social injustice. We
> know this because there are places that have rules like I'm
> describing, and their transportation systems work well.
>
> In fact, they work better than ours, because people have the
> confidence that they can walk or bicycle in reasonable safety. Partly
> as a consequence, there is MUCH more walking and cycling, and better
> public health.
>
> Of course, this is America, where nothing can be allowed to interfere
> with the sacred act of driving. Not phone calls, not eating Big Macs,
> not rampant obesity, not the destruction of neighborhoods, not even
> killing or permanently maiming another human being! We've got our
> priority, and it's DRIVING!
If you don't give a damn about the principle of innocent until proven
guilty, go ahead and lobby for this.
[1] If this is a problem, the solution is to restrict motor vehicle
traffic from certain areas to improve the lot of cyclists and
pedestrians, not to establish a lottery that punishes motorists for the
mistakes of the incompetent. I am not at all adverse to this idea, not
to mention higher fuel taxes, vehicles taxes based on weight, funding
for proper light and high speed rail, etc. Anything that reduces motor
vehicles traffic in suburban and urban areas would be a good thing in my
opinion.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 22:19:15
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 7, 4:14 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 7, 4:40 pm, Bob <hunr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 10:51 pm, Veloise <galena3...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/070507whasmjdTopBicycle.475b...
>
> > > So much for the "bicycle friendly city" designation.
>
> > > --Karen D.
>
> > Direct quote from the linked article-
> > "There is no way of knowing what really happened Tuesday afternoon on
> > the Second Street Bridge. Metro Police say that without personally
> > witnessing the accident or having another witness at the scene, they
> > are not charging the motorist with a crime.
> > But it's not because it was a car vs. cyclist. Police spokesperson
> > Alicia Smiley told me it would be the same whether it was a car vs.
> > motorcycle or car vs. car."
> > and a little further into the article-
> > "Police told us that in this case, they only way they would file any
> > charges is if the blood alcohol tests taken on the van's driver came
> > back positive."
> > With no evidence of a crime (blood tests, etc) and no witness to say
> > what occurred what *should* happen?
>
> Ideally? What _should_ happen is that driving should be considered a
> privilege, not a right; and that privilege should be revoked for a
> period of time if you injury anyone else with your vehicle. That
> privilege should be permanently revoked if you kill someone else with
> your vehicle. Not your fault? The burden of proof is upon you -
> provide bulletproof evidence, and we'll let you drive again.
>
> My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist who
> hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault. That
> sounds reasonable to me. It would completely transform the experience
> of riding on roads, or even walking across or near them. (Our new
> friends in Switzerland told us that such a law, even applied only to
> legal crosswalks, made a world of difference there.)
>
> We've made the world excessively convenient for motorists, and
> extremely inconvenient for everyone else. Taking away their presumed
> innocence would be a good first step.
>
> - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Driving privileges aren't granted by the police or- except in certain
circumstances- by the courts. They are granted by the individual
State's SOS, DMV, or whatever that State decides to name that
particular Executive Branch agency. If you'd read the licensing laws
you'd learn that no new laws are required to do exactly what you
suggest. That it hasn't already happened is a measure of just how
little support such measures have with the general public. If you
don't like it your choices are pretty restricted. You can either try
to change the majority attitude (good luck trying to convince people
that erasing the presumption of innocence is a good thing), move to
one of those European countries you mention, or accept that life isn't
always fair.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
|
| |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 21:07:34
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
"Veloise" <galena3066@mypacks.net > wrote in message
news:1183780308.831593.310910@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/070507whasmjdTopBicycle.475b9e1a.html
>
> So much for the "bicycle friendly city" designation.
>
> --Karen D.
That's the same story the driver who hit me gave. "The car in front of me
swerved to get around the guy on the bike, and by the time I saw him it was
too late.". At least HE got a ticket, albeit a minor one for "Improper
pass". I had to go to court because he fought the ticket, and he actually
used "I tried not to hit him, Your Honor", as an excuse. Would have been
nice if he'd been cited for more, like failure to maintain control or
following too closely, or something. Heck, if he'd lost his license for a
while(which was possible since I was injured) it might have sent a message.
But, instead, the judge said "I wouldn't ride MY bike on any main road in
this county.". Bogus.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 15:34:24
From: Claire Petersky
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
"Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote in message
news:469038a7$0$30677$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> But, instead, the judge said "I wouldn't ride MY bike on any main road in
> this county.".
The sad thing is, he doesn't even realize that he has made an admission of
how his rights have been terrorized out of him by a bullying class.
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 15:58:51
From: Mike Kruger
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
Claire Petersky wrote:
> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> news:469038a7$0$30677$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>> But, instead, the judge said "I wouldn't ride MY bike on any main
>> road in this county.".
>
> The sad thing is, he doesn't even realize that he has made an
> admission of how his rights have been terrorized out of him by a
> bullying class.
Maybe he IS the bullying class.
--
Mike Kruger
In Puritan New England, Christmas wasn't even a legal holiday until 1856
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 09:07:30
From: Neil Brooks
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 15:58:51 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
<MikeKr@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
>Claire Petersky wrote:
>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>> news:469038a7$0$30677$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>>> But, instead, the judge said "I wouldn't ride MY bike on any main
>>> road in this county.".
>>
>> The sad thing is, he doesn't even realize that he has made an
>> admission of how his rights have been terrorized out of him by a
>> bullying class.
>
>Maybe he IS the bullying class.
Agreed.
Time to start checking the grilles of some of these (cars and) SUV's
for bike head badges.....
|
| |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 14:14:33
From:
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 7, 4:40 pm, Bob <hunr...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Jul 6, 10:51 pm, Veloise <galena3...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/070507whasmjdTopBicycle.475b...
>
> > So much for the "bicycle friendly city" designation.
>
> > --Karen D.
>
> Direct quote from the linked article-
> "There is no way of knowing what really happened Tuesday afternoon on
> the Second Street Bridge. Metro Police say that without personally
> witnessing the accident or having another witness at the scene, they
> are not charging the motorist with a crime.
> But it's not because it was a car vs. cyclist. Police spokesperson
> Alicia Smiley told me it would be the same whether it was a car vs.
> motorcycle or car vs. car."
> and a little further into the article-
> "Police told us that in this case, they only way they would file any
> charges is if the blood alcohol tests taken on the van's driver came
> back positive."
> With no evidence of a crime (blood tests, etc) and no witness to say
> what occurred what *should* happen?
Ideally? What _should_ happen is that driving should be considered a
privilege, not a right; and that privilege should be revoked for a
period of time if you injury anyone else with your vehicle. That
privilege should be permanently revoked if you kill someone else with
your vehicle. Not your fault? The burden of proof is upon you -
provide bulletproof evidence, and we'll let you drive again.
My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist who
hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault. That
sounds reasonable to me. It would completely transform the experience
of riding on roads, or even walking across or near them. (Our new
friends in Switzerland told us that such a law, even applied only to
legal crosswalks, made a world of difference there.)
We've made the world excessively convenient for motorists, and
extremely inconvenient for everyone else. Taking away their presumed
innocence would be a good first step.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 12:37:40
From:
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 12, 11:24 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
> > Sorry about your fork. But the point is, "stupid children" WILL do
> > things like dart out from in front of trucks. Drivers' Training
> > classes attempt to impress that point on teenagers, and make them
> > understand it's their responsibility as drivers to account for such
> > behavior and not kill kids.
>
> It is the parents' responsibility to supervise their children until they
> are old enough to act responsibly.
You sound like you've never had kids. Children have a certain amount
of randomness built into their behavior, and no amount of parenting
can prevent it from showing up from time to time. The rest of society
should be watching for kids, too - and ditto for old folks, and
bicyclists, and pedestrians.
> To avoid all accidents involving the irresponsible, we would have to
> slow traffic to below 10-mph (try riding a MUP if you do not believe
> this).
Absolutely false. Remember, there are places where what I describe IS
the law. And the traffic is absolutely not restrained to 10 mph.
> In the history of hominids, there has NEVER been a good zero-tolerance
> policy, as there are ALWAYS exceptions.
And you're losing track of my proposal. As I pointed out, given our
legal system, there would of course be challenges. I'm saying the
default condition would be no more driving - and that it would take
effect immediately, until the perp could prove his innocence, if he
could. The exceptions would be covered by drivers proving that they
were not speeding, that there was no possible way for them to avoid
the accident, etc.
> > And it's interesting to me that by saying you couldn't handle such a
> > law, you're effectively saying you're not competent to drive in the
> > Netherlands.
>
...
>
> So I should never ride a bicycle faster than 10-mph? Should I get off
> and walk whenever there is a pedestrian on the sidewalk that could
> possibly enter the street?
Again, your intense complaining has a corollary: You must consider
yourself incompetent to drive - or bicycle, it seems - in the
Netherlands!
Millions of drivers get where they're going while subject to the rules
I'm advocating. Are your skills really so inferior to theirs?
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 19:22:59
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Jul 12, 11:24 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> frkry...@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Sorry about your fork. But the point is, "stupid children" WILL do
>>> things like dart out from in front of trucks. Drivers' Training
>>> classes attempt to impress that point on teenagers, and make them
>>> understand it's their responsibility as drivers to account for such
>>> behavior and not kill kids.
>> It is the parents' responsibility to supervise their children until they
>> are old enough to act responsibly.
>
> You sound like you've never had kids.
For which great fortune I give thanks daily.
> Children have a certain amount
> of randomness built into their behavior, and no amount of parenting
> can prevent it from showing up from time to time. The rest of society
> should be watching for kids, too - and ditto for old folks, and
> bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Why should we base our behavior on accommodating the least common
denominator?
>> To avoid all accidents involving the irresponsible, we would have to
>> slow traffic to below 10-mph (try riding a MUP if you do not believe
>> this).
>
> Absolutely false. Remember, there are places where what I describe IS
> the law. And the traffic is absolutely not restrained to 10 mph.
It is then back to playing the lottery, and hoping one does not get
victimized by an irresponsible (I know, redundant) child.
>> In the history of hominids, there has NEVER been a good zero-tolerance
>> policy, as there are ALWAYS exceptions.
>
> And you're losing track of my proposal. As I pointed out, given our
> legal system, there would of course be challenges. I'm saying the
> default condition would be no more driving - and that it would take
> effect immediately, until the perp could prove his innocence, if he
> could. The exceptions would be covered by drivers proving that they
> were not speeding, that there was no possible way for them to avoid
> the accident, etc.
GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT!
Nice precedent there – one I am sure that the ruling executive would
like to apply to all its opponents.
>>> And it's interesting to me that by saying you couldn't handle such a
>>> law, you're effectively saying you're not competent to drive in the
>>> Netherlands.
> ...
>> So I should never ride a bicycle faster than 10-mph? Should I get off
>> and walk whenever there is a pedestrian on the sidewalk that could
>> possibly enter the street?
>
> Again, your intense complaining has a corollary: You must consider
> yourself incompetent to drive - or bicycle, it seems - in the
> Netherlands!
>
> Millions of drivers get where they're going while subject to the rules
> I'm advocating. Are your skills really so inferior to theirs?
Again, playing the lottery, hoping not to be one of the unlucky ones.
This very morning, a MOS (moron on bicycle) pulled off the shoulder and
INTO oncoming traffic (middle of right-hand lane) at a railroad
underpass on a normally busy street (six lanes, 50-mph speed limit).
There just happened to be enough of a gap that the two motor vehicles in
the right-hand lane (operating below the speed limit, in daylight, with
clear visibility, on dry pavement) could move to the center lane,
avoiding running the MOS over.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 13:40:24
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Louisville fatality, no charges pressed
|
On Jul 6, 10:51 pm, Veloise <galena3...@mypacks.net > wrote:
> http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/070507whasmjdTopBicycle.475b...
>
> So much for the "bicycle friendly city" designation.
>
> --Karen D.
Direct quote from the linked article-
"There is no way of knowing what really happened Tuesday afternoon on
the Second Street Bridge. Metro Police say that without personally
witnessing the accident or having another witness at the scene, they
are not charging the motorist with a crime.
But it's not because it was a car vs. cyclist. Police spokesperson
Alicia Smiley told me it would be the same whether it was a car vs.
motorcycle or car vs. car."
and a little further into the article-
"Police told us that in this case, they only way they would file any
charges is if the blood alcohol tests taken on the van's driver came
back positive."
With no evidence of a crime (blood tests, etc) and no witness to say
what occurred what *should* happen?
Regards,
Bob Hunt
|
|
