Door prize and a ticket to hereafter

Such was the fate of a Toronto cyclist this past week.

http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/2183#comments

In article ,
Luke writes:

Such was the fate of a Toronto cyclist this past week.

http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/2183#comments

What a needless and unfortunate death!
Just because someone couldn't be bothered
to look before heedlessly flinging a car
door into a traffic stream.

Now there's a big hue & cry about punishing
the car-door-flinging offender, instead of
fixing the root of the problem.

I guess so many people endemically forget there
is other traffic besides motor vehicles. That's
why I appreciate how Critical Mass contributes
toward reminding people that, y'know, there
are other things out there besides motor vehicles,
too. Like, for instance: /people/!

And before anyone pipes up about how the rider
should have taken the lane, I submit it's not
always possible to do so on many urban arterial
streets. It's so easy to be an armchair quarterback.
It's not about what the rider should have done;
it's about what the driver should /not/ have done.

Actually, it's about how people should behave
among ourselves, and that transcends any legalism.

I find it most saddening and disappointing that
so many people are so unwilling to look out for
our fellows, to the point of unwittingly killing
'em in moments of blithe, self-centred ignorance.
Whudda buncha pigs we people can be. Especially
when seated behind a steering wheel and two or
three actuating pedals.


klahowya,
Tom

--
Shame is the ultimate punishment.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On May 25, 4:30 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
Luke writes:



Such was the fate of a Toronto cyclist this past week.

http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/2183#comments

What a needless and unfortunate death!
Just because someone couldn't be bothered
to look before heedlessly flinging a car
door into a traffic stream.

Now there's a big hue & cry about punishing
the car-door-flinging offender, instead of
fixing the root of the problem.

Punishing the car-door-flinger is one step that would help fix the
root of the problem. The woman clearly violated the law. Her
violation was the direct cause of a person's death. Should we give
her an award?

And before anyone pipes up about how the rider
should have taken the lane, I submit it's not
always possible to do so on many urban arterial
streets.

Why? Or more specifically, why could the cyclist not have taken the
lane in this case? http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Eglinto...ntario,+Canada
or http://tinyurl.com/3uyo7n makes it look like a busy city street,
probably with a low speed limit. Take the lane! It's better than
trusting your life to a cell-phone-chatting motorist in a hurry.

It's so easy to be an armchair quarterback.
It's not about what the rider should have done;
it's about what the driver should /not/ have done.

It's about both.

- Frank Krygowski

On May 25, 7:29 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Why? Or more specifically, why could the cyclist not have taken the
lane in this case? http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Eglinto...r+Ave,+Toronto,...
orhttp://tinyurl.com/3uyo7nmakes it look like a busy city street,
probably with a low speed limit. Take the lane! It's better than
trusting your life to a cell-phone-chatting motorist in a hurry.

It is a very busy city street. It does not have a low speed limit,
although that particular stretch isn't particularly speedy. It's a
major cross-town road in a city of 2.5 million (5 million in the metro
area), and that intersection is about a 5 blocks off Yonge Street,
which is Toronto's main street.

Eglinton Avenue is also hilly and is a major bus route (thanks to a
previous government killing a subway project that was already in
progress.) As well, the north-south streets don't connect straight
across from each other, so cars and trucks are constantly zig-zagging,
passing buses, and accelerating up the slopes.

I've never understood while parking is allowed there, but people seem
to think it's a God-given right. God gives, God takes.

In article ,
Frank Krygowski writes:
On May 25, 4:30 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
Luke writes:



Such was the fate of a Toronto cyclist this past week.

http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/2183#comments

What a needless and unfortunate death!
Just because someone couldn't be bothered
to look before heedlessly flinging a car
door into a traffic stream.

Now there's a big hue & cry about punishing
the car-door-flinging offender, instead of
fixing the root of the problem.

Punishing the car-door-flinger is one step that would help fix the
root of the problem. The woman clearly violated the law. Her
^^^^^^^

Maybe not so clearly. People have it so ingrained & engrammed
into us to watch out for /cars/, we're often blindly oblivious
to anything else.

So the driver is apparently getting off scot-free because
her misjudgement seems to be deemed "understandable."
That's hardly a clear violation of the law.

At any rate, she now has to live with herself.


violation was the direct cause of a person's death. Should we give
her an award?

What do you wanna do -- hang her from the streelight standard
nearest the incident, and feed her dead body to the crows?
Maybe we should keel-haul her, or have her drawn 'n quartered
by four bicycles, or inflict horrific Vlad The Impaler stuff
on her.

While you're at it, you could complain about how my
massive snippage of your post destroys your context.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

In article ,
Frank Krygowski writes:

And before anyone pipes up about how the rider
should have taken the lane, I submit it's not
always possible to do so on many urban arterial
streets.

Why? Or more specifically, why could the cyclist not have taken the
lane in this case? http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Eglinto...ntario,+Canada
or http://tinyurl.com/3uyo7n makes it look like a busy city street,
probably with a low speed limit. Take the lane! It's better than
trusting your life to a cell-phone-chatting motorist in a hurry.

It's so easy to be an armchair quarterback.
It's not about what the rider should have done;
it's about what the driver should /not/ have done.
[snippage restored]

Actually, it's about how people should behave
among ourselves, and that transcends any legalism.

You're just blaming the victim in a pathetic attempt
to be argumentative for some obscure reason known
only to yourself.

I'm not gonna play [with you.]

I guess the next sentence is so inferrable,
I shouldn't have to utter it.

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On May 25, 10:20 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
Frank Krygowski writes:

On May 25, 4:30 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
Luke writes:

Such was the fate of a Toronto cyclist this past week.

http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/2183#comments

What a needless and unfortunate death!
Just because someone couldn't be bothered
to look before heedlessly flinging a car
door into a traffic stream.

Now there's a big hue & cry about punishing
the car-door-flinging offender, instead of
fixing the root of the problem.

Punishing the car-door-flinger is one step that would help fix the
root of the problem. The woman clearly violated the law. Her

^^^^^^^

Maybe not so clearly. People have it so ingrained & engrammed
into us to watch out for /cars/, we're often blindly oblivious
to anything else.

So the driver is apparently getting off scot-free because
her misjudgement seems to be deemed "understandable."
That's hardly a clear violation of the law.

To paraphrase: The law makes it illegal to open a door in such a way
as to harm others. She opened the door in a way that directly caused
a death. Seems pretty clear to me!

At any rate, she now has to live with herself.

That could be said of every violator of every law in the land -
except, perhaps, illegal suicides. It's meaningless.

violation was the direct cause of a person's death. Should we give
her an award?

What do you wanna do -- hang her from the streelight standard
nearest the incident, and feed her dead body to the crows?
Maybe we should keel-haul her, or have her drawn 'n quartered
by four bicycles, or inflict horrific Vlad The Impaler stuff
on her.

Drop the hyperbole. A little if OK for literary purposes. Going over
the top just shows you're not willing to engage logically.

If given a free hand, here's what I'd do: I'd say she could never,
ever drive again. As I've said before, driving is a privilege, and
that privilege should be permanently revoked any time any motorist
causes a death. If you don't lose the privilege for that most
grevious act, what act would be worse?

Also, I'd have her face and that fact on billboards, newspapers and TV
screens. Shame is under-utilized as a deterrent in our society.

But I recognize our society is seriously twisted in the privileges it
gives to motorists. So, realistically, I think she should be
prosecuted as harshly as the law allows, and I think the entire
process should receive maximum publicity. She should get the maximum
possible penalty, and I hope it's enough that other motorists would
say "Wow. I've _really_ got to be more careful."

While you're at it, you could complain about how my
massive snippage of your post destroys your context.

I've never once complained about snipping posts. In fact, the only
person I know that does so is the terminally inept Bill Sornson.

- Frank Krygowski

I think you are underestimating the part about her having to live with it
for the rest of her life. Once, I went to pick up some boys to take to Cub
Scouts, and a little boy ran out of his apartment house, hit some ice, and
slid under my car! I didn't even run over him, but the memory of that has
stayed with me since, and that was in 1984. Just thinking of what could have
happened gives me shivers! And, I didn't even hit him!

So, she will have those memories of causing someone's death in her head for
the rest of her life--memories which come upon her at random times such as
when she almost nods off to sleep.

Yes, she should be prosecuted more severely. I'm just saying don't just
brush off the memories she'll have to deal with.

Maybe it's not the door opener but the runner over that would be
subject to punishment. I'm not sure that the bicyclist's sudden
falling after hitting the door negates the motorist's obligation not
to run over him. I doubt that the actual dooring bit of the incident
would have been fatal without the running over bit.

I wasn't there, didn't see it happen, and generally that's what the
police are gonna say too... That's probably why so few motorists are
ever held accountable for the damage that they do with their motors,
we all say that since we didn't actually see what happened it may be
that there is no way it could have been avoided.

On May 27, 2:04 pm, DennisTheBald wrote:
...
we all say that since we didn't actually see what happened it may be
that there is no way it could have been avoided.

This is one place where I'd like to reduce the strength of "innocent
until proven guilty." IOW, the cops and the rest of the legal system
seems to say "There may be some microscopic chance that it couldn't
have been avoided, therefore we won't even bother giving you a
ticket."

IIRC (and IANAL)