Door prize and a ticket to hereafter

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) criminal judgments are based on "no reasonable
doubt" (i.e. near-100% certainty) while civil judgments are based on
"preponderance of evidence." I think the privilege of continuing to
drive should be decided based on preponderance of evidence, not "no
reasonable doubt."

- Frank Krygowski

IIRC (and IANAL) criminal judgments are based on "no reasonable
doubt" (i.e. near-100% certainty) while civil judgments are based on
"preponderance of evidence." I think the privilege of continuing to
drive should be decided based on preponderance of evidence, not "no
reasonable doubt."

- Frank Krygowski

Roger that! We act like motoring about was protected in the Bill of
Rights. I think that holding drivers accountable for the damage that
they do is often a civil matter, and as a civil matter should be held
to that standard of proof, but I guess ya gotta sue 'em to invoke that
civil law and shooting seems so much more appropriate, or at least
hanging. I guess if we enforced the laws folks wouldn't buy cars and
then all the auto makers would have to lay off the workers and we
couldn't have that. If we held motor vehicle manufacturers to the
same standard as we do firearm and say ladder manufacturers they
wouldn't make muscle cars... they probably wouldn't make any cars.

But if we had to haul everything from the railhead to the retail
outlet via pedal power we could sure put a lot of unemployed
assemblers to work. Where would you rather work, on the big line or
pulling a big trailer? Even in the rain, there isn't much question in
my mind.

In article ,
Frank Krygowski writes:
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!

You paraphrase (or rather, /infer/) my point mistakenly.

Was she in an environment that would induce her to look
for bicyclists before swinging that car door open?
I'm not excusing her, but I can see how the gears of the
minds of the judiciary work.

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.

In cases of illegal suicides, it's especially meaningless,
since suicides don't have to live with themselves.

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.

I agree.

If you don't lose the privilege for that most
grevious act, what act would be worse?

I'm afraid I don't grok that.

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.

I guess you didn't notice my modified tag-line in my post, where
I suggested shame is the ultimate punishment. But unlike ROW,
shame is taken, not given.

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."

I prefer considered & balanced justice on an individual basis.

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.

But you sure can edit other people's posts!

That's okay, so can I :-|

In fact, the only
person I know that does so is the terminally inept Bill Sornson.

Anyway, I apologize for, and regret my other distasteful
post to you in this thread. I became too passionate about
the issue, and temporarily lost my reason and sociability.
I hope you can forgive me.

You seem to have that effect on people :-) chuckle

But y'know what? Wide outside lanes on urban arterial streets
(as opposed to lined bike lanes) don't necessarily obviate the
dangers of dooring.

And, in practice, on urban arterial streets, there's always the
"squeeze play" on so many occasions.


peace,
Tom

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

On Sat, 31 May 2008 03:38:41 -0700, (Tom Keats)
wrote:

Was she in an environment that would induce her to look
for bicyclists before swinging that car door open?

like on the edge of a road, where cyclists ride?

I'm not excusing her, but I can see how the gears of the
minds of the judiciary work.

The car driving judicary.

In article ,
Aeek writes:

I'm not excusing her, but I can see how the gears of the
minds of the judiciary work.

The car driving judicary.

The Judiciary pretty much /is/ comprised of carheads.

Those are the cards stacked against us.

We can bitch about it, knock ourselves out trying to
change it, deny it, or just deal with it.

Historically, we've mostly just dealt with it.

Maybe that's something to think about. That,
and the fact that we riders haven't yet been
really and truly repressed. We're irrepressible.
Always have been, always will be.


cheers,
Tom

--
Not Dead Yet
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On May 31, 6:38 am, (Tom Keats) wrote:


Anyway, I apologize for, and regret my other distasteful
post to you in this thread. I became too passionate about
the issue, and temporarily lost my reason and sociability.
I hope you can forgive me.

No problem. Your apology is a Usenet rarity, and a sign of class.
All is forgiven.

- Frank Krygowski