On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 9:25:53 PM UTC-5, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 02:46:08 -0700, Chalo wrote:

Thing is, a ped is wildly unlikely to hurt anyone by running into them.
Fundamentally false premise, e.g. ped into ped and ped into bicyclist.

So it's not the ped's ethical responsibility to mitigate the risk that's
being imposed unilaterally by a cyclist, the same way it's not a
cyclist's ethical duty to mitigate the lethal risks unilaterally imposed
by car drivers.

The one who brings the hazard into a situation is the one responsible if
anybody gets hurt.

Which was the ped . Their action lead to the collission.


Your logic is badly flawed. Example: Hunter in the forest, countryside, hunting. There is also a known and used trail, path, through the woods, countryside. Hunter fires the gun. Hits walker on or near the trail. Lets say near because the walker stepped 10 feet off the trail to do his business behind a bush. So by your very bad logic, the pedestrian is at fault because he walked into the gun shot. Or an area where gun shots are possible. He was officially "off" the trail, being 10 feet off to do his business.






Once the ped launched the civil suit, the cyclist should have launched a
counter suit. This is how the law is an ass as is judges $$$ as more
important than any thing else.

Rule one, if you get knocked down here is to wait for an ambulance and a
ride to hospital for medical examinsation and never make light or
underplay any symptions. This is the world that the arseholes have
created.