Dickens:"The law is a ass."
https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/
-- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
On 1/31/2018 2:48 PM, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/ Time for Spike Bike? -- - Frank Krygowski |
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
On 2/1/2018 10:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/31/2018 2:48 PM, AMuzi wrote: https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/ Time for Spike Bike? This story has a lot of traction, in the headlines every morning. And yet here we are. Even yet: https://nypost.com/2018/01/31/mom-of...mands-justice/ -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 2:48:49 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/ -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 I'm curious why so many cyclists think death of a cyclist in an accident is a crime. Murder requires intent. Manslaughter requires "gross negligence.." Accidents are not a crime, even if there is negligence, even if people die. Unless the driver did something way out of the ordinary that caused the accident- no crime occurred. The lawyer is absolutely right, the lapsed license is utterly irrelevant to the cause of the injury. |
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
"The police and prosecutors
do not want to ruin someone's life just for killing a cyclist, so they accept "I didn't see" him or her as a valid defense (instead of the admission of negligence that it really is. " Most of us drive too. It is damned easy not to see a cyclist. Other than a persecution complex, there is no reason to conclude "just a cyclist" as some kind of motive, when the easier explanation is that mere negligence is a just a civil case and there is simply insufficient evidence to prove a crime. When every juror is going to hear the facts and think "there but for the grace of god go I", there is basically no way it can constitute gross negligence and therefore isn't a crime. I just don't see the point of the many internet whines (and posting of newspaper articles) that a cyclist got hit and died, so there must have been a crime that isn't being punished. No. That is an unsupportable leap. You need more for it to be a crime. |
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 6:58:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
"The police and prosecutors do not want to ruin someone's life just for killing a cyclist, so they accept "I didn't see" him or her as a valid defense (instead of the admission of negligence that it really is. " Most of us drive too. It is damned easy not to see a cyclist. If you really believe that applies to a cyclist in ordinary daylight, or a legally lit cyclist at night, you should turn in your driver's license. It's your job as a driver to see cyclists, plus pedestrians (including kids who my react unpredictably), plus motorcycles, plus other cars, plus trash cans that blow into the road, plus trees by the side of the road, plus any number of other things that may be near you or in front of you. Other than a persecution complex, there is no reason to conclude "just a cyclist" as some kind of motive, when the easier explanation is that mere negligence is a just a civil case and there is simply insufficient evidence to prove a crime. Negligence is not just a civil case. There are laws against it. - Frank Krygowski |
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
On 2/8/2018 6:13 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
How are most cyclists injured or killed in accidents? They are struck from behind by an overtaking motor vehicle. Sorry, that's not true. See https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE...f/swless04.pdf "10. The bicycle-motor vehicle crashes were divided into the three main categories as such: Parallel-path events 36 percent Crossing-path events 57 percent Specific circumstances 7 percent 11. The most frequent parallel-path crashes were motorist turn/merge into bicyclist’s path (12.2 percent), motorist overtaking the bicyclist (8.6 percent), and bicyclist turn/merge into motorist’s path (7.3 percent). The most frequent crossing path crashes were motorist failed to yield to bicyclist (21.7 percent), bicyclist failed to yield at an intersection (16.8 percent), and bicyclist failed to yield midblock (11.8 percent). These six individual crash types accounted for almost 80 percent of all bicycle-motor vehicle crashes." So motorist overtaking were just 8.6 percent of the total. And I'd bet that a majority of those were of two types: Totally Unlit cyclists at night, which legal lighting would prevent; and "I think I can squeeze by" events, which would have been averted by lane control by the cyclist. Recently, the now-useless League of American Bicyclist pulled a publicity stunt to try to promote segregated paths. They had interns scan news reports of bike crashes to see how the reporters described the crash details. From those, they tried to glean the percentage of hit-from-behind crashes, and came up with a wild overestimate. Needless to say, their methodology was terrible. But that's consistent behavior from an organization that has shifted from "cyclists' rights to the road" to "let's build cycle tracks everywhere." -- - Frank Krygowski |
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
On 08/02/2018 4:29 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 2:48:49 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote: https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/ -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 I'm curious why so many cyclists think death of a cyclist in an accident is a crime. Murder requires intent. Manslaughter requires "gross negligence." Accidents are not a crime, even if there is negligence, even if people die. Unless the driver did something way out of the ordinary that caused the accident- no crime occurred. The lawyer is absolutely right, the lapsed license is utterly irrelevant to the cause of the injury. You don't think texting while driving is gross negligence? How about driving drunk? How about the recent discussion of the case in Boston with the professional truck driver turning right from a middle lane and killing someone? I agree that accidents happen but when the event is caused by a reckless disregard I don't think it's still an accident. As far as the suspended license, it shows a propensity to this behavior. |
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 4:30:39 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 6:58:04 PM UTC-5, wrote: "The police and prosecutors do not want to ruin someone's life just for killing a cyclist, so they accept "I didn't see" him or her as a valid defense (instead of the admission of negligence that it really is. " Most of us drive too. It is damned easy not to see a cyclist. If you really believe that applies to a cyclist in ordinary daylight, or a legally lit cyclist at night, you should turn in your driver's license. It's your job as a driver to see cyclists, plus pedestrians (including kids who my react unpredictably), plus motorcycles, plus other cars, plus trash cans that blow into the road, plus trees by the side of the road, plus any number of other things that may be near you or in front of you. Other than a persecution complex, there is no reason to conclude "just a cyclist" as some kind of motive, when the easier explanation is that mere negligence is a just a civil case and there is simply insufficient evidence to prove a crime. Negligence is not just a civil case. There are laws against it. Well, unless your drunk or criminally negligent, it is a civil case. Otherwise, every car v. car accident would be criminally prosecuted. The evil dark side of treating bicycles as vehicles is that getting hit by a car is legally no different from getting hit in a car by another car. You ask who had the right of way and go from there. But I have yet to see a ghost car by the side of the road. http://www.oregonlive.com/living/ind...nd_a_bitt.html It's easy to see cyclists on a long, flat, empty road. It's not as easy in cluttered urban environment with lots of distractions, e.g. pedestrians, cars, traffic signals. This is not an excuse -- just a reality. There are places where I know conflicts are common, and I exercise case. And regrettably, bike facilities more often than not put cyclists in harms way -- and will do so until motorists learn that bike lanes are (wait for it) lanes. Separate facilities can hide cyclists altogether at intersections or pit bikes against bikes or pedestrians. For some f****** unknown reason, they just put a Tesla dealership straddling a separated bike path on my way home, and now that is the killing fields. You're basically riding through a car dealership with cars using the bike path as a road (because there is no road, just a bike path). And don't get me going about the buses. I've already ordered my flame-thrower from Elon Musk, which I intent to use on the buses and his Tesla dealership. -- Jay Beattie. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com