PDA

View Full Version : Florida 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap


Doug Haxton
October 25th 03, 02:46 PM
BRADENTON, Fla. -- The parents of an 8-year-old boy ticketed by police
for violating traffic rules on his bike say they won't pay the $34
citation for a child who is just half the legal driving age.
Second-grader Scott Montgomery has 30 days to pay Manatee County for
the ticket written by a Bradenton police officer Wednesday. "I'm
going to not pay this ticket, and Scott's definitely not going to pay
it," said Danielle McIntosh, the boy's mother. She added the only
money her son has is the allowance he has been saving for a
battery-operated miniature truck.

"He's an 8-year-old child. He does not understand what the right of
way is," She said. Scott was riding a bicycle in his neighborhood
when he jumped a dirt mound with five of his friends, Bradenton Police
Lt. Sam Campbell said. He crossed paths with a 2001 Nissan and the car
clipped the rear tire of Scott's 5-pound, 16-inch BMX bicycle. Scott
wasn't injured, but was cited by Officer Jeff Beckley for violating
the right of way. "I'm doing OK," said Scott, who was not wearing a
helmet during the accident. "I hit a little bit of his car, but then I
just got off my bike and ran away." McIntosh said the two people in
the Nissan claimed Scott flew up onto the hood of their car, causing
$1,000 worth of damage. Campbell said that police estimated $500 and
could not confirm whether Scott hit the hood. "His mother was
apparently pretty upset with us," Campbell said. "But in this case,
the child caused the accident by pulling out in front of the car. The
driver didn't have time to react." Campbell said officers issue
citations to many children throughout the year for not wearing helmets
or for committing traffic violations on their bicycles. Officers draft
the tickets in the child's name but usually expect the parents to pay
them. If no one is cited during an accident, insurance companies will
demand that vehicle owners pay for their damages even if they are not
at fault. It is a liability as well as a safety issue, Campbell said.

http://www.local6.com/news/2580655/detail.html


Doug

sbirn
October 25th 03, 06:00 PM
These parents should be cited for contempt of court and thrown in jail.

They are teaching their kid that nothing is ever his fault and he does
not have to bear responsibility for his actions.

He is clearly at fault for almost HITTING A CAR and getting himself killed.
Why the heck are the parents upset with the cops? They should take
away the kids bike for months for that kind of stupidity and thank
the driver obvious quick reaction that didn't lead to further injury.

The cop has all the reasons for giving this ticket. Even if the cop
wanted to let the kid off with just a warning for his stupidity,
it would have meant that the driver had to pay for his own repairs.
That is HARDLY fair. Perhaps if the parents really want the ticket
to go away, they should offer to pay for the damages to the car
instead of the ticket.

Bill Z.
October 25th 03, 08:04 PM
(sbirn) writes:

>
> The cop has all the reasons for giving this ticket. Even if the cop
> wanted to let the kid off with just a warning for his stupidity,
> it would have meant that the driver had to pay for his own repairs.
> That is HARDLY fair.

You can fill out an accident report and establish liability without
issuing a citation. Notifying the parents of an 8 year old who did
something stupid is a useful social service, and that can also be done
without a citation. Whether a traffic citation is appropriate in this
particular case is a separate issue, and one I'll avoid commenting on
due to not having read previous messages on this thread.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Robert Haston
October 25th 03, 09:19 PM
I don't get our society's obsession with going after cyclists who break
traffic laws with even greater zeal then speeding drivers, which kill
thousands.

Traffic laws are about preventing death and destruction, not some kind of
social etiquette. You break them on a bike, you get maimed or killed - and
you have no legal recourse. You break them in a car and you maim and kill
others. The term self-policing comes to mind.

I feel the real problem with this is people focus on the small real penalty
(a teeny ticket) and forget about the big penalty (quadriplegia).

Failing to yield the right of way on a BMX bike is not the same as in a
Hummer. Personally I think bike tickets should be limited to the cost of
requiring a cop to jack cyclists up, tell them at a high decibel level in
front of everyone what morons they are to risk their lives, hand them a GOOD
cycling guide, and filing a warning in the system (probably about $20). The
parting shot by the cop is telling them that their record is the first place
the lawyers will look if they are in an accident. Good luck getting a
decent settlement with a bad record and jury full of drivers - knucklehead!


"sbirn" > wrote in message
...
>
> These parents should be cited for contempt of court and thrown in jail.
>
> They are teaching their kid that nothing is ever his fault and he does
> not have to bear responsibility for his actions.
>
> He is clearly at fault for almost HITTING A CAR and getting himself
killed.
> Why the heck are the parents upset with the cops? They should take
> away the kids bike for months for that kind of stupidity and thank
> the driver obvious quick reaction that didn't lead to further injury.
>
> The cop has all the reasons for giving this ticket. Even if the cop
> wanted to let the kid off with just a warning for his stupidity,
> it would have meant that the driver had to pay for his own repairs.
> That is HARDLY fair. Perhaps if the parents really want the ticket
> to go away, they should offer to pay for the damages to the car
> instead of the ticket.
>

sbirn
October 26th 03, 03:05 AM
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 19:04:34 GMT, Bill Z. > wrote:
>You can fill out an accident report and establish liability without
>issuing a citation.

Really? Can you please present your Florida law credentials and a case
history of handling traffic claims? If not, then I will happily take the
statement of the local Florida press which said:
"If no one is cited during an accident, insurance companies will
demand that vehicle owners pay for their damages even if they
are not at fault."
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/7090233.htm

Notice...*EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT AT FAULT*. That seems to directly contradict
your statement, so you really need to prove that you have any basis other
than hot air for your statement.


> Notifying the parents of an 8 year old who did
>something stupid is a useful social service, and that can also be done
>without a citation.

Because of the above issue, I disagree. However, I also fail to see
what is wrong with having concrete consequences for his stupidity - or
rather his parents' stupidity in failing to properly teach him road
safety. The article also makes clear that the ticket is issued to
the child, but the expectation is for the parents to pay. Personally,
I think that the parents are getting off easy. They were negligent
in teaching their child proper safety, they have obviously failed to
teach him proper values that he shoudl own up for his actions. A
mere $34 is peanuts for that offense.

sbirn
October 26th 03, 03:12 AM
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:19:36 GMT, Robert Haston > wrote:
>Hummer. Personally I think bike tickets should be limited to the cost of
>requiring a cop to jack cyclists up, tell them at a high decibel level in
>front of everyone what morons they are to risk their lives, hand them a GOOD

Why? What if it is a mo-ped? What about a motorcycle? Should Harley riders
get the same warning as a cyclist? Is getting smacked by a car less risky on
a street-legal dirt bike than on a mountain bike?

Bikes are vehicles, just like any other. I think that selective enforcement
is simply stupid. You can (and should) allow officer discretion, but that
should be used based on the circumstances of the case and not the vehicle
type invovled.

This year alone, I've narrowly avoided being doored, side-swiped and cut
off numerous times. I even had one driver get out of his car and grab
my shoulder to try to pull me off my bike while I was at speed in the middle
of a main downtown street. In the later case, a police report was filed.
As much as these guys deserve whatever ticket is appropriate, so do the
cyclists I see who run red lights, ride at road speeds on sidewalks and
a host of other offenses I've seen.

Incidentally, what happens when a cyclist cuts off a car and the driver
causes a collision (maybe hits a pedestrian) trying to avoid the cyclist?
Do you only start cracking down when it's too late?

Rick
October 26th 03, 04:17 AM
....stuff deleted

> These parents should be cited for contempt of court and thrown in jail.
>

They should certainly be resonsible for whatever damage was incurred and for
paying whatever fines apply for violating the vehicle laws. Exactly the same
as though they were driving and had the same type of incident. Some folks
seem to feel that cyclists are privleged in some way and should not be held
accountable for their actions. Even though I am a cyclist, I can't get
behind this as a concept.

> They are teaching their kid that nothing is ever his fault and he does
> not have to bear responsibility for his actions.
>

Correct. They are also teaching their child that they don't give a flying
F*** about him. I remember my parents reactions when I perfomed some equally
dangerous acts as a youth. It was clear that if I broke something, they paid
compensation and there were definite consequences for me as a result.

> He is clearly at fault for almost HITTING A CAR and getting himself
killed.
> Why the heck are the parents upset with the cops? They should take
> away the kids bike for months for that kind of stupidity and thank
> the driver obvious quick reaction that didn't lead to further injury.
>

He actually did hit, and damage, the hood of the car. Given today's costs,
the $500 the cops cite is a very conservative number. The $1000 is
definitely closer to the mark, at least here in Ca. These folks will also be
seeing an increase in insurance premiums just because it was printed in the
paper and their insurance company knows about the incident. They deserve at
least sufficient compensation from the boy/parents to make up for their
losses.

....stuff deleted

Rick

Bill Z.
October 26th 03, 06:13 AM
(sbirn) writes:

> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 19:04:34 GMT, Bill Z. > wrote:
> >You can fill out an accident report and establish liability without
> >issuing a citation.
>
> Really? Can you please present your Florida law credentials and a case
> history of handling traffic claims?

Hey bozo, this is the case in California, where I live. A couple of
years ago, someone hit my car, doing over $5000 in damage, while I
was *parked* in front of a friends house. I didn't hear about a
citation, but his insurance company picked up my deductable and
the cost of a car rental for a month. That's simply standard when
fault can be clearly established. You don't need a law degree to
know how this works.

It certainly couldn't have been my fault - I was 200 miles away
at the time the accident happened and had parked legally (basically
completely off the road.) The driver (of a truck for a pool-cleaning
business) was probably filling out some paper work or reading where
to go next and wasn't looking at the road. That's about the only
way it would have happened since I was parked just over 100 feet
from the end of a dead-end street that had next to zero traffic.

If Florida allows insurance companies to cheat their customers,
then start firing your governor and elected representatives until
they start representing you instead of the insurance companies.
And don't you believe everything you read in the paper---often
some key facts are missing.

> > Notifying the parents of an 8 year old who did
> >something stupid is a useful social service, and that can also be done
> >without a citation.
>
> Because of the above issue, I disagree. However, I also fail to see
> what is wrong with having concrete consequences for his stupidity - or
> rather his parents' stupidity in failing to properly teach him road
> safety.

You mean you'd rather have his parents pay a fine to the state rather
than compenstate the driver if they don't have the financial resources
to do both?


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

sbirn
October 26th 03, 03:41 PM
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 06:13:26 GMT, Bill Z. > wrote:
>Hey bozo,

Ahh....showing off our intellect I see. Perhaps you are a classmate of
the 8-year old in question?

> this is the case in California, where I live. A couple of

Don't complain to me. You're the one who made a very clear factual
statement, and I simply told you to put up or shut up. In the future,
if you are simply making up your own facts, it would help to state as
much in your original message. That way people won't confuse you for
someone actually informed.

>was *parked* in front of a friends house. I didn't hear about a
>citation,

Tree falls in a forest?

> but his insurance company picked up my deductable and
>the cost of a car rental for a month. That's simply standard when
>fault can be clearly established. You don't need a law degree to
>know how this works.

True, but obviously you lack the brain required to see how your case,
even if it occured in the same state, is different from this one.

In your case, it was his insurance company that picked up the tab when
the police determined that you were not at fault. I'm going to go out
on a limb here and suggest that perhaps the 8-year-old's insurance
on his bicycle might not be completly paid up. Flipping it around,
what would have happened if the guy who hit your car had no insurance?
If your insurance company refused to pick up the tab, you'd be on
the hook - or you'd have to take the driver to civil court. Is this
starting to penetrate into the thick receses of your head? Children
do not have insurance on their bikes. In your case, it was a
settlement between two insurance companies. Got it?

>If Florida allows insurance companies to cheat their customers,
>then start firing your governor and elected representatives until

How is it cheating? All the article suggests to me is that if only
one party is insured, the insurance company needs the police to
make a clear citation of fault (via a ticket) in order for the
insurance company to pick up the tab. Seems pretty simple and
logical to me.

Incidentally, what clue have I given that I am from florida?

>And don't you believe everything you read in the paper---often
>some key facts are missing.

But we should believe everything you type in a Usenet post? I see.

>You mean you'd rather have his parents pay a fine to the state rather
>than compenstate the driver if they don't have the financial resources
>to do both?

Unless the law can force them to pay outside of a civil suit, I don't
see how they can be compelled to do so. Therefore, I simply pointed
out that if this stupid mother wants to take some moral stand against
the ticket, she should at least back up the consequences of the ticket
and pay for the repairs. After all is said and done, I'd love to
see the parents lose their financial resources to own a car in a
lawsuit, but that is a civil matter for down the road.

Bill Z.
October 26th 03, 06:06 PM
(sbirn) writes:

> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 06:13:26 GMT, Bill Z. > wrote:
> >Hey bozo,
>
> Ahh....showing off our intellect I see. Perhaps you are a classmate of
> the 8-year old in question?

Perhaps you should stop acting like a mindless idiot, starting your
posts the way you did. And you might look up the word "hypocrisy"
given your following statements.


> > this is the case in California, where I live. A couple of
>
> Don't complain to me. You're the one who made a very clear factual
> statement, and I simply told you to put up or shut up. In the future,
> if you are simply making up your own facts, it would help to state as
> much in your original message. That way people won't confuse you for
> someone actually informed.

Since you don't know, the facts are that the person who causes damages
is generally held responsible for the damages, either directly or
through insurance.


>
> >was *parked* in front of a friends house. I didn't hear about a
> >citation,
>
> Tree falls in a forest?

No. My friend's wife made sure the police were called, and watched
the whole process. There was a police report. No one saw the
actual collision, and it was at a fairly low speed, so there were
no grounds to write a citation. Citations are written only in
extreme cases.

> True, but obviously you lack the brain required to see how your case,
> even if it occured in the same state, is different from this one.

I guess you are in the 4th grade, given how you started your post,
although perhaps it is really simply that you are from Florida.

>
> In your case, it was his insurance company that picked up the tab when
> the police determined that you were not at fault. In your case, it was a
> settlement between two insurance companies. Got it?

Wrong. If the other guy didn't have to pay, his insurance company
wouldn't have paid either.

>
> >If Florida allows insurance companies to cheat their customers,
> >then start firing your governor and elected representatives until
>
> How is it cheating? All the article suggests to me is that if only
> one party is insured, the insurance company needs the police to
> make a clear citation of fault (via a ticket) in order for the
> insurance company to pick up the tab. Seems pretty simple and
> logical to me.

Are you actually dumb enough to believe a newspaper account? The
papers get the details wrong a large fraction of the time.

>
> Unless the law can force them to pay outside of a civil suit, I don't
> see how they can be compelled to do so.

They can't be compelled to pay *with* a civil suit if they don't have
the assets.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

culturevirus
October 27th 03, 06:08 PM
Reading the account below I don't think things add up. It says the rear tire
hit the car, which I assume means that young Scott had almost missed the
path of the car and got clipped at the last moment. If the rear tire was hit
shouldn't the bike/rider have spun out of the path of the car to some
degree, rather than up the hood? Young Scott also claims that he ran away.
How does a kid, who according to the driver made a trip up the hood, run
away from the accident with no injuries? In this case I think the driver is
lying and hoping to get money for previous damage to the car.

I do think the parents should pay the ticket and spend some time instructing
their son about bicycle safety. As the father of an eight yo daughter myself
I'd expect to do the same.

"Doug Haxton" > wrote in message
...

> "He's an 8-year-old child. He does not understand what the right of
> way is," She said. Scott was riding a bicycle in his neighborhood
> when he jumped a dirt mound with five of his friends, Bradenton Police
> Lt. Sam Campbell said. He crossed paths with a 2001 Nissan and the car
> clipped the rear tire of Scott's 5-pound, 16-inch BMX bicycle. Scott
> wasn't injured, but was cited by Officer Jeff Beckley for violating
> the right of way. "I'm doing OK," said Scott, who was not wearing a
> helmet during the accident. "I hit a little bit of his car, but then I
> just got off my bike and ran away." McIntosh said the two people in
> the Nissan claimed Scott flew up onto the hood of their car, causing
> $1,000 worth of damage. Campbell said that police estimated $500 and
> could not confirm whether Scott hit the hood. "His mother was
> apparently pretty upset with us," Campbell said. "But in this case,
> the child caused the accident by pulling out in front of the car. The
> driver didn't have time to react." Campbell said officers issue
> citations to many children throughout the year for not wearing helmets
> or for committing traffic violations on their bicycles. Officers draft
> the tickets in the child's name but usually expect the parents to pay
> them. If no one is cited during an accident, insurance companies will
> demand that vehicle owners pay for their damages even if they are not
> at fault. It is a liability as well as a safety issue, Campbell said.
>
> http://www.local6.com/news/2580655/detail.html
>
>
> Doug

Robert Haston
October 28th 03, 01:32 AM
What about a moped or a Harley? A Harley weighs several hundred pounds and
goes 6 times faster than an average cyclist. At 40 MPH a Harley has about
27 times the energy of an average cyclist, but still not enough to seriously
threaten a car occupant. It's easy physics, backed up by thousands of
accident statistics. These statistics would account for the oft-quoted but
heretofore unseen "cyclist causes fatal car wreck" scenario. Just base the
laws on physics and accurate accounting, not politics, which is more about
the TV-based slow-motion hysteria we call modern American Society.

Similar case in point: here in Florida, we have manatee zone speed laws
based on antiquated wake control laws; regardless of the size, weight,
draft, horsepower, propeller size, etc. of your boat. Physics means the
longer the boat, the faster you can go before you hit hull speed and make a
wake. Jet ski: 3-4 knots, 64 foot yacht: 10 knots. Same speed, jet ski
gets fine.

Physics kills people. Its like the old joke, the fall doesn't kill you -
the sudden stop does. You don't change the laws, you just base the fines on
the easy math of who is the risk to whom.

Do you really think a traffic violation with a Cannodale and a Cadillac are
the same thing?

Maybe before I die I will see the beginning of a society that turns to their
professors and physicians before their politicians on such issues.

maybe

"sbirn" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:19:36 GMT, Robert Haston >
wrote:
> >Hummer. Personally I think bike tickets should be limited to the cost of
> >requiring a cop to jack cyclists up, tell them at a high decibel level in
> >front of everyone what morons they are to risk their lives, hand them a
GOOD
>
> Why? What if it is a mo-ped? What about a motorcycle? Should Harley
riders
> get the same warning as a cyclist? Is getting smacked by a car less risky
on
> a street-legal dirt bike than on a mountain bike?
>
> Bikes are vehicles, just like any other. I think that selective
enforcement
> is simply stupid. You can (and should) allow officer discretion, but that
> should be used based on the circumstances of the case and not the vehicle
> type invovled.
>
> This year alone, I've narrowly avoided being doored, side-swiped and cut
> off numerous times. I even had one driver get out of his car and grab
> my shoulder to try to pull me off my bike while I was at speed in the
middle
> of a main downtown street. In the later case, a police report was filed.
> As much as these guys deserve whatever ticket is appropriate, so do the
> cyclists I see who run red lights, ride at road speeds on sidewalks and
> a host of other offenses I've seen.
>
> Incidentally, what happens when a cyclist cuts off a car and the driver
> causes a collision (maybe hits a pedestrian) trying to avoid the cyclist?
> Do you only start cracking down when it's too late?
>

Randall R Schulz
October 28th 03, 01:52 AM
Robert,


Robert Haston wrote:

> ...
>
> Physics kills people. Its like the old joke, the fall doesn't kill
> you - the sudden stop does. You don't change the laws, you just
> base the fines on the easy math of who is the risk to whom.
>
> Do you really think a traffic violation with a Cannodale and a
> Cadillac are the same thing?
>
> Maybe before I die I will see the beginning of a society that turns
> to their professors and physicians before their politicians on such
> issues.

Something to hope for. The only question who to put closer to
the bottom of the consultancy list, politicians, economists or
theologians.


> maybe

I won't be holding my breath.


Randall Schulz

sbirn
October 28th 03, 06:47 AM
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:06:14 GMT, Bill Z. > wrote:
>Since you don't know, the facts are that the person who causes damages
>is generally held responsible for the damages, either directly or
>through insurance.

It depends upon insurance laws. Where I live, they have no-fault insurance.
The idea being that your insurance company pays for your repairs no matter
what. The only variable is who pays the deductible. If the police do not
lay formal blame, you are on the hook for the deductible. I have no idea
what the insurance laws are like in Florida, but then again, neither do you.

All we know is that in this case, the officer obviously felt that the
child violated traffic laws, obligating them to cite the child while they
formally lay the blame for the accident on him.

>no grounds to write a citation. Citations are written only in
>extreme cases.

What is extreme, a drunk driver? Running a stop sign? Failing to
yeild and cutting someone off? What this kid did WAS a serious
violation.

>Are you actually dumb enough to believe a newspaper account? The
>papers get the details wrong a large fraction of the time.

While newspapers do sometimes make mistakes, I read that section
of the article as largely paraphrasing the police. And as much as the
press sometimes do get things wrong, in my experience, random people
on the Internet who think they are lawyers tend to be incorrect even
more often.

>They can't be compelled to pay *with* a civil suit if they don't have
>the assets.

Suddenly you know these guys are poor? Anyway, assets do not have to
be liquid. Items can be siezed.

sbirn
October 28th 03, 06:53 AM
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:32:57 GMT, Robert Haston > wrote:
>What about a moped or a Harley? A Harley weighs several hundred pounds and
>goes 6 times faster than an average cyclist. At 40 MPH a Harley has about

Am I to believe you want to issue tickets based upon the weight of the
vehicle? Should the cops carry a scale in the trunk?

Sorry, but I really don't care what someone is driving. If you cause an
accident, you deserve equal punishment regardless of your vehicle. If
you happen to be on a bike instead of a car, it's just Darwinism in action.

Just the other day I saw a car run a red light and almost t-bone someone.
If the light runner was a Harley, I certainly would expect him to get
just as harsh a punishment as the car driver might have. If you get
a Harley smack in your door you are not going to escape unscathed. So
maybe now it should be the weight of the vehicle with the injuries
sustained taken into account? Thus, you're not as guilty if nobody gets
hurt? It's just logic I simply don't get.

Bill Z.
October 28th 03, 07:52 AM
(sbirn) writes:

> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:06:14 GMT, Bill Z. > wrote:
> >Since you don't know, the facts are that the person who causes damages
> >is generally held responsible for the damages, either directly or
> >through insurance.
>
> It depends upon insurance laws. Where I live, they have no-fault
> insurance. The idea being that your insurance company pays for your
> repairs no matter what. The only variable is who pays the
> deductible. If the police do not lay formal blame, you are on the
> hook for the deductible. I have no idea what the insurance laws are
> like in Florida, but then again, neither do you.

Then you shouldn't have been so rude, since you now admit that you
don't have any idea. Also, I was describing general principles, and
it is not necessary to issue a citation to assign blame: a police
report can do that. If some other state is braindead in that regard,
then the laws in that state need to be changed.


> >no grounds to write a citation. Citations are written only in
> >extreme cases.
>
> What is extreme, a drunk driver? Running a stop sign? Failing to
> yeild and cutting someone off? What this kid did WAS a serious
> violation.

Around here, the threshold seems to be killing someone, unless an
oficer observes the accident. Significant property damage does
not suffice.


> While newspapers do sometimes make mistakes, I read that section
> of the article as largely paraphrasing the police.

As a friend once told another friend about to be interviewed by
the press, "now is your chance to be misquoted by the New York
Times." It may have been a different paper, but, sure enough,
he was misquoted (he was being interviewed about a research
project and they frequently get technical details wrong.)

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Doug Huffman
October 28th 03, 11:43 AM
I ignored him after I whois-ed his 'nuclear biodome org'. It is just the
puffed up e-mail address of a troll.


"Bill Z." > wrote in message
...
> (sbirn) writes:
>
> > On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:06:14 GMT, Bill Z. >
wrote:
> > >Since you don't know, the facts are that the person who causes damages
> > >is generally held responsible for the damages, either directly or
> > >through insurance.
> >
> > It depends upon insurance laws. Where I live, they have no-fault
> > insurance. The idea being that your insurance company pays for your
> > repairs no matter what. The only variable is who pays the
> > deductible. If the police do not lay formal blame, you are on the
> > hook for the deductible. I have no idea what the insurance laws are
> > like in Florida, but then again, neither do you.
>
> Then you shouldn't have been so rude, since you now admit that you
> don't have any idea. Also, I was describing general principles, and
> it is not necessary to issue a citation to assign blame: a police
> report can do that. If some other state is braindead in that regard,
> then the laws in that state need to be changed.
>
>
> > >no grounds to write a citation. Citations are written only in
> > >extreme cases.
> >
> > What is extreme, a drunk driver? Running a stop sign? Failing to
> > yeild and cutting someone off? What this kid did WAS a serious
> > violation.
>
> Around here, the threshold seems to be killing someone, unless an
> oficer observes the accident. Significant property damage does
> not suffice.
>
>
> > While newspapers do sometimes make mistakes, I read that section
> > of the article as largely paraphrasing the police.
>
> As a friend once told another friend about to be interviewed by
> the press, "now is your chance to be misquoted by the New York
> Times." It may have been a different paper, but, sure enough,
> he was misquoted (he was being interviewed about a research
> project and they frequently get technical details wrong.)
>
> Bill
>
> --
> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Robert Haston
October 28th 03, 03:46 PM
No, knucklehead, the cop doesn't have to carry a scale. Unless we've gone
back to the days before Eli Whitney while I wasn't looking - manufactured
products have a set weight. The cop gives out the ticket, the courthouse
assess the exact fine.

And as to the ubiquitous "cyclists causes an accident" scenario, I've never
even heard of one.

So you don't care what someone is driving? You don't care whether you are
about to be T-boned by a moped or a semi?

Thanks for proving my point about outdated, overly simplistic, unscientific
road safety mentalities.

"sbirn" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:32:57 GMT, Robert Haston >
wrote:
> >What about a moped or a Harley? A Harley weighs several hundred pounds
and
> >goes 6 times faster than an average cyclist. At 40 MPH a Harley has
about
>
> Am I to believe you want to issue tickets based upon the weight of the
> vehicle? Should the cops carry a scale in the trunk?
>
> Sorry, but I really don't care what someone is driving. If you cause an
> accident, you deserve equal punishment regardless of your vehicle. If
> you happen to be on a bike instead of a car, it's just Darwinism in
action.
>
> Just the other day I saw a car run a red light and almost t-bone someone.
> If the light runner was a Harley, I certainly would expect him to get
> just as harsh a punishment as the car driver might have. If you get
> a Harley smack in your door you are not going to escape unscathed. So
> maybe now it should be the weight of the vehicle with the injuries
> sustained taken into account? Thus, you're not as guilty if nobody gets
> hurt? It's just logic I simply don't get.
>
>
>

Tanya Quinn
October 28th 03, 05:02 PM
> Bikes are vehicles, just like any other. I think that selective enforcement
> is simply stupid. You can (and should) allow officer discretion, but that
> should be used based on the circumstances of the case and not the vehicle
> type invovled.

The big difference is bikes do not have motors. That makes a big
difference in terms of accident impact. For the most part they also
don't travel at full city speed limits - often 20 mph or less they are
travelling, which makes a traffic violation much less dangerous.

Robert Haston
October 29th 03, 03:10 PM
In reference to having bicycle and vehicle fines based on the threat they
impose other road users and accident statistics:

Gas taxes and pay at the pump insurance help accomplish the same thing. If
we all fought to eliminate property, sales and income taxes going to build
roads, pay crossing guards, provide police and fire services for wrecks,
spills, fires, etc. (the same sequestering the auto/road lobby did with gas
taxes) these would be shifted to gas taxes. More people would cycle, and
the incentive to buy big vehicles and drive them real fast would be
decreased. One can hope anyway.




"Tanya Quinn" > wrote in message
om...
> > Bikes are vehicles, just like any other. I think that selective
enforcement
> > is simply stupid. You can (and should) allow officer discretion, but
that
> > should be used based on the circumstances of the case and not the
vehicle
> > type invovled.
>
> The big difference is bikes do not have motors. That makes a big
> difference in terms of accident impact. For the most part they also
> don't travel at full city speed limits - often 20 mph or less they are
> travelling, which makes a traffic violation much less dangerous.

Ken [NY)
October 29th 03, 05:45 PM
You folks are a lot of fun. I have been lurking with the idea
of jumping in somewhere, but just about all of the responses have been
so far off the wall, where would one begin?

Chuckling,
Ken (NY)
Chairman,
Department Of Redundancy Department
___________________________________
email:
http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm

"If you think health care is expensive now,
wait until you see what it costs when it's free."
- P.J. O'Rourke

Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading?
A: Telling your parents you’re gay.

Robert Haston
October 30th 03, 03:32 PM
This era's heresy is the next era's normalcy. Not too long ago it was
considered right to steal someone's land, kill lots of them, then own the
rest like cattle, all because of the pigment in their skin and what brand of
God they worshipped.

Bad road etiquette may create the situation that maims and kills, but its
physics that determine who gets maimed or killed and how bad. With millions
of injury accidents a year, we had the data to write the formulas long ago:

I can see a traffic ticket clerk typing in vehicle type (linked to database
of vehicle weight and other factors, such as pedestrian/cyclist injury rate
(i.e. SUVs tend to run down & crush people) speed, location, etc. Based on
formulas derived from local and nationwide stats, your ticket price reflects
as close as possible just how much risk you posed to others.

It wouldn't be perfect, but its a hell of a lot smarter than giving a Trek
and a tractor trailer the same ticket.



"Ken [NY)" > wrote in message
...
>
> You folks are a lot of fun. I have been lurking with the idea
> of jumping in somewhere, but just about all of the responses have been
> so far off the wall, where would one begin?
>
> Chuckling,
> Ken (NY)
> Chairman,
> Department Of Redundancy Department
> ___________________________________
> email:
> http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
>
> "If you think health care is expensive now,
> wait until you see what it costs when it's free."
> - P.J. O'Rourke
>
> Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading?
> A: Telling your parents you're gay.

sbirn
October 30th 03, 05:59 PM
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:46:39 GMT, Robert Haston > wrote:
>back to the days before Eli Whitney while I wasn't looking - manufactured
>products have a set weight.

I once owned a Jeep. It was *cosiderably* heavier than it was when it
left the factory 15 years before. So would the court make me to and weigh
it on a truck scale or something?

>And as to the ubiquitous "cyclists causes an accident" scenario, I've never
>even heard of one.

I sat and watched a cyclist run every single red light without looking in
a downtown street last summer. I got a very close look because he actually
assaulted me for the fact that I kept passing him between lights. But anyway,
there were numerous cars that had to slam on their brakes to avoid hitting
him. One of the braking cars might have been rear-ended or a driver could
have swerved and hit a pedestrian.

Had anything happened, that cyclist should damned well have had to face
the same punishment as any driver who caused a similar accident.

>So you don't care what someone is driving? You don't care whether you are
>about to be T-boned by a moped or a semi?

For my safety? Sure. For determining the punishment of someone who causes
an accident? Not a damned care in the world. If the cyclist above also
drives a car, I'd rather he get caught and tossed a $50k fine for behaving
like an idiot on his bike than in his car. If he is given a weak message
for doing dumb things on a bike, that will translate into actions in his car.

sbirn
October 30th 03, 06:27 PM
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:52:30 GMT, Bill Z. > wrote:
>Then you shouldn't have been so rude, since you now admit that you
>don't have any idea.

From the begining I stated I wasn't from Florida. You just kept insisting
that I was. I have also said right from the beginning that unless you
can present law credentials for the Sate of Florida, I will readily accept
what is reported in their press overy anything you have to say. Yes,
reporters do sometimes get things wrong. However, often they do proper
research and they get things right. The odds that the press has it right
certainly beats your odds since you're just speaking about your opinion
based on local laws where YOU are.

> Also, I was describing general principles, and
>it is not necessary to issue a citation to assign blame: a police
>report can do that. If some other state is braindead in that regard,
>then the laws in that state need to be changed.

So let me see...you're right and the reporter is wrong, based not on
research but on your own opinion. If it should happen that you are
wrong, you SHOULD not be wrong and the entire electorate of the
State of Florida is. I see. I don't think I even need to comment on
that.

>Around here, the threshold seems to be killing someone, unless an
>oficer observes the accident. Significant property damage does
>not suffice.

Personally, I think YOUR laws should be changed if anyting. I'd rather
make a driver face consequences for property damage without having to wait
for it to get to them killing someone.

sbirn
October 30th 03, 06:31 PM
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:43:26 -0500, Doug Huffman > wrote:
>I ignored him after I whois-ed his 'nuclear biodome org'. It is just the
>puffed up e-mail address of a troll.

Interesting. So now the name of a computer dictates someone's personality?
Aside from the fact that I don't own either this computer or the domain name,
I find your statement rather ignorant.

Bill Z.
October 31st 03, 05:10 AM
(sbirn) writes:

> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:52:30 GMT, Bill Z. > wrote:
> >Then you shouldn't have been so rude, since you now admit that you
> >don't have any idea.
>
> From the begining I stated I wasn't from Florida. You just kept insisting
> that I was. I have also said right from the beginning that unless you
> can present law credentials for the Sate of Florida, I will readily accept
> what is reported in their press overy anything you have to say.

Then you are more of a fool than I thought.

> >Around here, the threshold seems to be killing someone, unless an
> >oficer observes the accident. Significant property damage does
> >not suffice.
>
> Personally, I think YOUR laws should be changed if anyting. I'd rather
> make a driver face consequences for property damage without having to wait
> for it to get to them killing someone.

The problem is not the laws. It is the threshold the police and the
District Attorney set before prosecuting someone. In one case around
here, the DA tried to whitewash a fatal accident, only to cave in
after considerable political pressure from advocacy groups. The driver
was finally convicted.

So much for your opinions.

Bill


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum
October 31st 03, 05:37 AM
Doug Haxton wrote:

> BRADENTON, Fla. -- The parents of an 8-year-old boy ticketed by police
> for violating traffic rules on his bike say they won't pay the $34
> citation for a child who is just half the legal driving age.

Is that actually legal in the US? Here in Germany no one under 14 can be
punished. Civil liability for damages caused is a different matter, that
starts with age 7.

So what would happen here is that the police officer would give a stern
lecture to the boy, and return him to his parents. The car driver would
then claim his repair bill from the parents (or their liability
insurance, if they have one).

There is a possibility to issue a citation to the parents if they did
not supervise the cild properly, but that is done only if serious
neglect is involved.

Bill Z.
October 31st 03, 06:27 AM
Dr Engelbert Buxbaum > writes:

> Doug Haxton wrote:
>
> > BRADENTON, Fla. -- The parents of an 8-year-old boy ticketed by police
> > for violating traffic rules on his bike say they won't pay the $34
> > citation for a child who is just half the legal driving age.
>
> Is that actually legal in the US? Here in Germany no one under 14 can be
> punished. Civil liability for damages caused is a different matter, that
> starts with age 7.
>
> So what would happen here is that the police officer would give a stern
> lecture to the boy, and return him to his parents. The car driver would
> then claim his repair bill from the parents (or their liability
> insurance, if they have one).
>
> There is a possibility to issue a citation to the parents if they did
> not supervise the cild properly, but that is done only if serious
> neglect is involved.

Sie wohnen doch in einem zivilisierten Land.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Robert Haston
November 1st 03, 03:39 AM
"sbirn" > wrote in message
...
> I once owned a Jeep. It was *cosiderably* heavier than it was when it
> left the factory 15 years before. So would the court make me to and weigh
> it on a truck scale or something?

Like I said, no system is perfect, but that doesn't keep you from striving
towards perfection.

> I sat and watched a cyclist run every single red light without looking in
> a downtown street last summer. I got a very close look because he
actually
> assaulted me for the fact that I kept passing him between lights. But
anyway,
> there were numerous cars that had to slam on their brakes to avoid hitting
> him. One of the braking cars might have been rear-ended or a driver could
> have swerved and hit a pedestrian.
>
> Had anything happened, that cyclist should damned well have had to face
> the same punishment as any driver who caused a similar accident.

So you also have never seen a cyclist caused accident. You saw one lunatic
cyclist with a death wish act like a total idiot. He faced the instant
death penalty for being stupid. Works for me - cuts a lot of red tape.

> >So you don't care what someone is driving? You don't care whether you
are
> >about to be T-boned by a moped or a semi?
>
> For my safety? Sure. For determining the punishment of someone who
causes
> an accident? Not a damned care in the world. If the cyclist above also
> drives a car, I'd rather he get caught and tossed a $50k fine for behaving
> like an idiot on his bike than in his car. If he is given a weak message
> for doing dumb things on a bike, that will translate into actions in his
car.
>
So for your safety, yes - every one else's - no.

NO - IT GIVES THE OPPOSITE MESSAGE - If I face far less potential total
punishment (fines + potential injury) whilst wrapped in thousands of pounds
of steel safety cage - I can be even less responsible! Which is exactly
what we have - a society that acts like cyclists deserve what they get in a
wreck, even if its not their fault.

Here's a sci-fi story food for thought: Modern automotive safety devices
make cars avoid pedestrians and cyclists, and often crash instead into
obstacles and eachother - which is bad, but kills far less people overall.
The climax is pedestrians and cyclists start enjoying the power drivers
always had - and start paying less and less attention to the road. Some
even regularly harass cars and a few make some crash on purpose (sound
familiar?) But these are hard to prove. Drunks in particular become a
menace to traffic. They can't change the laws back because the total death
toll would rise. Drivers just have to start paying lots of extra attention
to keep themselves safe. In other words - the tables turn.

Risk Homeostasis: Every individual has a certain amount of risk they are
willing to accept in a given activity. If you lower the risk (air bags,
anti-lock brakes, etc.) people typically change their behavior to regain the
same level of risk - speeding, driving aggressively, paying less attention,
etc. This is why our cars have gotten safer, but accident statistics remain
stagnant.

Its too bad we can't take the misplaced fear from things like shark attack
and school shooters and fill in where its needed.

Randall R Schulz
November 1st 03, 03:56 AM
Robert,

I agree. As I like to put it, the automotive safety device we really
need is a 10-in dagger projecting from the center of each steering wheel.

RRS

Cybrgeezer
November 9th 03, 11:53 PM
I live in Florida, where I was the innocent victim in a parking-lot accident.
No citation was issued but liability was established via the police report.

The other driver's insurance company paid my deductable, as it should.

IOW, the same as Bill Z describes.


Will
To respond, remove shorts

Google

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home