Killer gets off with 1-3 years

Zoot Katz wrote:
Sat, 19 Mar 2005 06:42:54 -0600, , Tom
Sherman wrote:

The fact remains that in all these cases it is the motor vehicle
which inflicts the injuries, and the driver, to a good first
approximation anyway, suffers no injury as a result. I think that
there is nothing unreasonable about placing the burden of care on
those who bring the bulk of the danger.

According to the figures Guy presents, 30% of the time the cyclist
is at fault. This is a rather high rate of innocent people that we
would be punishing if we accepted Frank's proposition the motor
vehicle operator is always at fault in any accident.

If a motor vehicle driver is waiting in the queue at a red light,
within the lane markers, with the vehicle in proper order (all
lights and reflectors operating) and is rear ended by an inattentive
cyclist, who then dies from a head or spinal injury, should that
driver have his/her license permanently revoked? According to
Frank's proposal, the answer is yes.

Had that car been left parked somewhere safely off the road it
wouldn't have contributed to the cyclist's injury or death. By driving
it in public you're exposing others to risk.

My advice: Lose the keys and forget where you parked.

Your conscious and willful choice of transportation modes predictably
created a hazard for other road users. Pay the piper.

OK, I'll bite. What if the cyclist runs into a full city bus? Or a train?
Is the driver/conductor still guilty? Is the municipality?

Frank's (and now your) argument is just plain silly, and you know it.

Among the trolled Bill

S o r n i wrote:
Zoot Katz wrote:

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 06:42:54 -0600, , Tom
Sherman wrote:


The fact remains that in all these cases it is the motor vehicle
which inflicts the injuries, and the driver, to a good first
approximation anyway, suffers no injury as a result. I think that
there is nothing unreasonable about placing the burden of care on
those who bring the bulk of the danger.

According to the figures Guy presents, 30% of the time the cyclist
is at fault. This is a rather high rate of innocent people that we
would be punishing if we accepted Frank's proposition the motor
vehicle operator is always at fault in any accident.

If a motor vehicle driver is waiting in the queue at a red light,
within the lane markers, with the vehicle in proper order (all
lights and reflectors operating) and is rear ended by an inattentive
cyclist, who then dies from a head or spinal injury, should that
driver have his/her license permanently revoked? According to
Frank's proposal, the answer is yes.

Had that car been left parked somewhere safely off the road it
wouldn't have contributed to the cyclist's injury or death. By driving
it in public you're exposing others to risk.

My advice: Lose the keys and forget where you parked.

Your conscious and willful choice of transportation modes predictably
created a hazard for other road users. Pay the piper.


OK, I'll bite. What if the cyclist runs into a full city bus? Or a train?
Is the driver/conductor still guilty? Is the municipality?

Frank's (and now your) argument is just plain silly, and you know it.

Among the trolled Bill


I'll take the bait too. When I ride alone in traffic I mix with the cars
for left turns at lights. On green I go fast and nearly rear end the car
in front of me, but not quite. If I lost it and went down then got run
over by the driver behind me would it be his fault for not having fast
enough reflexes?
Yesterday I 'raced' 3 big gravel trucks from a light and caught the
draft of all 3 getting up to maybe 35 MPH before getting RPM'd out and
losing the draft and my breath. Fun, but a slip could be fatal with a
large truck, or 3. About 130 RPM * (44/11) * 26" x 1.75" = ??MPH.
Bill Baka, dangerous only to myself.

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:36:56 GMT,
, trolled and tossed back,
"S o r n i" wrote:

OK, I'll bite. What if the cyclist runs into a full city bus? Or a train?
Is the driver/conductor still guilty? Is the municipality?

No more so than if the cyclist ran into a clearly marked bridge
abutment or retaining wall. I regard them as infrastructure.
Cars are a gratuitous exercise in self aggrandisement.
--
zk

Tom Sherman wrote:
Guy Chapman wrote:


But I think Frank is fundamentally right, for this reason: I did a
back-of-an-envelope calculation based on the numbers of cyclists
killed and seriously injured and the apportionment of blame in
accidents involving them according to police, our Transport
Research
Laboratory and even our Automobile Association.

The results we

* Number of cyclists injured or killed in car crashes where
cyclist is to blame: 700
* Number of drivers injured or killed in these crashes: 0
* Number of cyclists injured or killed in car crashes where driver
is
to blame: 1,700
* Number of drivers injured or killed in these crashes: 0


According to the figures Guy presents, 30% of the time the cyclist is
at
fault. This is a rather high rate of innocent people that we would be

punishing if we accepted Frank's proposition the motor vehicle
operator
is always at fault in any accident.

Before I'd accept that "30% of the time, the cyclist is at fault," I'd
like to see details on how that was determined. We're talking about
cyclist fatalities here. How many ghosts of cyclists are silently
moaning "He's lying! That's not at all how it happened!" ?

Go back to my experience the other night, walking across that five-lane
street with my wife. IF we'd seen a gap in traffic and decided to
scamper across the five lanes; and IF a driver zoomed up from the side
street, saw the same gap, and also decided to jump for it, and IF he
didn't pull a hit and run after killing us, the story would have been
"They ran right in front of me; there was nothing I could do." Even if
we were in motion before he was.

Would he have noticed us at all? It was dark. There are streetlights,
and I was carrying and using a flashlight. Still, he might not have,
because watching for pedestrians (or cyclists) is not a priority for
motorists.

The priority, as always, is to shave 15 seconds off any auto trip.
That priority exists whether you're the driver, or you're the
transportation engineer who decided to add a five-lane highway to this
otherwise walkable village. Compared to that priority, pedestrian
safety - let alone convenience - is off the bottom of the scale.

If we _could_ get automatic assumption of guilt, things would change.
Speeds in this village would drop an average of five miles per hour,
I'd bet. And since collision speed is extremely influential in
pedestrian and bike fatalities, safety would significantly increase.
The world would literally be a much better place.

I know we won't have this happen in the forseeable future. However,
that does not mean it's unreasonable. As others have said, cars are as
dangerous as weapons; yet we treat them entirely differently.

We do not allow people to travel in public shooting guns or swinging
swords at random while talking on phones, fishing for CDs, putting on
makeup, etc. If someone did that and killed someone accidentally, the
outrage would be endless. But we do allow people to drive with similar
carelessness, and when they kill someone, we say "Oh, but it was an
accident. Taking away his license for life won't bring anyone back.
We can't wrongly convict anyone."

I say, presumption of innocence is fine regarding jail time. I say
presumption of guilt is appropriate when you're giving away the
PRIVILEGE of a license to operate deadly machinery in public.


Incidentally, those who disagree because of intentional bicyclist
suicides and other extreme possibilities: Please try moving away from
that extreme, to real incidents. Can you agree with me for the case
where a motorist drive the 35 mph speed limit, despite a crowd of
schoolkids jostling each other, trying to hurry across the street to
get home? Can you agree for the case where the ball bounced down the
drive, followed by a kid chasing it? Can you agree for the case of the
elderly lady hobbling across the street after the crosswalk turned to
"Don't Walk" because she's too slow to make it all the way on the
"Walk" light?

In other words, how much slack _are_ you willing to give the motorists?
At present, their "slack" is essentially 100%. Kill someone, you get
a slap on the wrist, and you drive home after paying your penalty. I
think that's an atrocity.

wrote:

Tom Sherman wrote:

Guy Chapman wrote:


But I think Frank is fundamentally right, for this reason: I did a
back-of-an-envelope calculation based on the numbers of cyclists
killed and seriously injured and the apportionment of blame in
accidents involving them according to police, our Transport

Research

Laboratory and even our Automobile Association.

The results we

* Number of cyclists injured or killed in car crashes where
cyclist is to blame: 700
* Number of drivers injured or killed in these crashes: 0
* Number of cyclists injured or killed in car crashes where driver

is

to blame: 1,700
* Number of drivers injured or killed in these crashes: 0



According to the figures Guy presents, 30% of the time the cyclist is

at

fault. This is a rather high rate of innocent people that we would be


punishing if we accepted Frank's proposition the motor vehicle

operator

is always at fault in any accident.


Before I'd accept that "30% of the time, the cyclist is at fault," I'd
like to see details on how that was determined. We're talking about
cyclist fatalities here. How many ghosts of cyclists are silently
moaning "He's lying! That's not at all how it happened!" ?

Go back to my experience the other night, walking across that five-lane
street with my wife. IF we'd seen a gap in traffic and decided to
scamper across the five lanes; and IF a driver zoomed up from the side
street, saw the same gap, and also decided to jump for it, and IF he
didn't pull a hit and run after killing us, the story would have been
"They ran right in front of me; there was nothing I could do." Even if
we were in motion before he was.

Would he have noticed us at all? It was dark. There are streetlights,
and I was carrying and using a flashlight. Still, he might not have,
because watching for pedestrians (or cyclists) is not a priority for
motorists.

The priority, as always, is to shave 15 seconds off any auto trip.
That priority exists whether you're the driver, or you're the
transportation engineer who decided to add a five-lane highway to this
otherwise walkable village. Compared to that priority, pedestrian
safety - let alone convenience - is off the bottom of the scale.

If we _could_ get automatic assumption of guilt, things would change.
Speeds in this village would drop an average of five miles per hour,
I'd bet. And since collision speed is extremely influential in
pedestrian and bike fatalities, safety would significantly increase.
The world would literally be a much better place.

I know we won't have this happen in the forseeable future. However,
that does not mean it's unreasonable. As others have said, cars are as
dangerous as weapons; yet we treat them entirely differently.

We do not allow people to travel in public shooting guns or swinging
swords at random while talking on phones, fishing for CDs, putting on
makeup, etc. If someone did that and killed someone accidentally, the
outrage would be endless. But we do allow people to drive with similar
carelessness, and when they kill someone, we say "Oh, but it was an
accident. Taking away his license for life won't bring anyone back.
We can't wrongly convict anyone."

I say, presumption of innocence is fine regarding jail time. I say
presumption of guilt is appropriate when you're giving away the
PRIVILEGE of a license to operate deadly machinery in public.


Incidentally, those who disagree because of intentional bicyclist
suicides and other extreme possibilities: Please try moving away from
that extreme, to real incidents. Can you agree with me for the case
where a motorist drive the 35 mph speed limit, despite a crowd of
schoolkids jostling each other, trying to hurry across the street to
get home? Can you agree for the case where the ball bounced down the
drive, followed by a kid chasing it? Can you agree for the case of the
elderly lady hobbling across the street after the crosswalk turned to
"Don't Walk" because she's too slow to make it all the way on the
"Walk" light?

In other words, how much slack _are_ you willing to give the motorists?
At present, their "slack" is essentially 100%. Kill someone, you get
a slap on the wrist, and you drive home after paying your penalty. I
think that's an atrocity.

It is still a presumption of guilt, regardless of the evidence. That is
not and will never be acceptable.

Ban personal use of motor vehicles if you believe them to be so evil,
but do not make a mockery of justice by conducting a lottery.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:03:17 -0600, ,
Tom Sherman wrote:


It is still a presumption of guilt, regardless of the evidence. That is
not and will never be acceptable.

Well it apparently is acceptable to some Americans.

Where's the evidence condemning the presumed guilty persons locked up
at Guantanamo, Diego Garcia, Abu Ghurayb, Shibarghan etc.?
--
zk

Zoot Katz wrote:

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:03:17 -0600, ,
Tom Sherman wrote:


It is still a presumption of guilt, regardless of the evidence. That is
not and will never be acceptable.


Well it apparently is acceptable to some Americans.

Where's the evidence condemning the presumed guilty persons locked up
at Guantanamo, Diego Garcia, Abu Ghurayb, Shibarghan etc.?

They did not vote for Bush II - what more evidence of their criminality
is needed?

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:12:39 -0600, ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

Where's the evidence condemning the presumed guilty persons locked up
at Guantanamo, Diego Garcia, Abu Ghurayb, Shibarghan etc.?

They did not vote for Bush II - what more evidence of their criminality
is needed?

That's proof that they're not criminally insane anyway.
--
zk

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
wrote:

In other words, how much slack _are_ you willing to give the motorists?
At present, their "slack" is essentially 100%. Kill someone, you get
a slap on the wrist, and you drive home after paying your penalty. I
think that's an atrocity.

It is still a presumption of guilt, regardless of the evidence. That is
not and will never be acceptable.

Nonsense. In a case of car vs bike, the cyclist is almost always presumed
guilty

It's only motorists who can expect to be presumed innocent.

Ban personal use of motor vehicles if you believe them to be so evil, but
do not make a mockery of justice by conducting a lottery.

You don't consider 1-3 years for a repeat offender who killed somebody with
his car to be a mockery of justice?

RichC

Rich Clark wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

wrote:


In other words, how much slack _are_ you willing to give the motorists?
At present, their "slack" is essentially 100%. Kill someone, you get
a slap on the wrist, and you drive home after paying your penalty. I
think that's an atrocity.

It is still a presumption of guilt, regardless of the evidence. That is
not and will never be acceptable.


Nonsense. In a case of car vs bike, the cyclist is almost always presumed
guilty

It's only motorists who can expect to be presumed innocent.

This is obviously not true, or anytime there was a cyclist/motor vehicle
accident, the cyclist would automatically be assessed for any damage to
the motor vehicle.

Ban personal use of motor vehicles if you believe them to be so evil, but
do not make a mockery of justice by conducting a lottery.


You don't consider 1-3 years for a repeat offender who killed somebody with
his car to be a mockery of justice?

I never said anything about that, and it is bad form to try to imply
that I did.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)