Bicyclist killed, trucker guilty

(Dennis P. Harris)

wrote in part:

how do you know that judges where he lives haven't been granted
that power?

It really isn't all that difficult, Dennis. The post was about a fatality in
GA. The poster I was replying to is also in GA. Read the GA statutes. Simple,
huh? g

Regards,
Bob Hunt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2004-08-29, Hunrobe wrote:
Frank Krygowski

wrote in part:

... the rule should be: you kill someone
for _any_ reason, you never drive again.

So, when I'm driving my cement truck down the freeway, and the drunk in the
oncoming lanes vaults the center divider and we collide at a combined speed
of 110mph, and he dies, I should never drive again?

seems harsh.

Mark

Bob's stuff snipped

Regards,
Bob Hunt


- --
Remove both wrongs to make the email address right.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBNWTQLVmEOl6/PWERAgaCAJ9y3k48uh+r8H+N7JmxAl5vW1wcAwCgsGBD
EUbeg0TLux8wFnUGwoYyNBw=
=YWcG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2004-08-30, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Hunrobe wrote:

Frank Krygowski


wrote in part:


... the rule should be: you kill someone
for _any_ reason, you never drive again.


Okay. Change the laws to require that instead of demanding judges revoke
driving licenses by fiat.

Yep. That's pretty close to what I'd like to see - except I'd prefer to
go further, sort of in the direction of strict sentencing guidelines.

I'd reduce it to this:

Did the car you were driving cause someone to die? If so, you'll never
drive again.

So you're saying that there is no possible circumstance where one can do
everything right, give all possible care and attention to road conditions,
traffic situation, etc in a well-maintained vehicle and still be involved
in a fatal accident?

I disagree.

I think even the most casual survey of fatal accident reports can turn up a
number of blameless survivors of fatal accidents. I can't prove this, but
perhaps Mr. Hunt can back me up.

Frank, I mostly agree with your above statement, "Did the car you were
driving cause someone to die? If so, you'll never drive again.". I would
agree with it wholeheartedly if you add "...cause someone to die, due to
your inattention or irresponsibility?" Or words to that effect.

Mark


- --
Remove both wrongs to make the email address right.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBNWciLVmEOl6/PWERAqThAJ0ZT781WrCiWUw7fH6Upiw4OM6MZACeLDmu
nsswalTHT5SXg/LdZGgaKwQ=
=5GUr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bob Hunt writes:

If it really did take a court order obtained by a private
legal firm to get critical (and basic) investigative steps
taken, then shame on the agency that had jurisdiction.

=v= Yes, it really did. That's what I told you in another
thread, and you said you refused to believe it. I personally
know of other cases in the Bay Area and Boston like this.
It *is* a problem.
_Jym_

Mark Mitchell wrote:
So you're saying that there is no possible circumstance where one can do
everything right, give all possible care and attention to road conditions,
traffic situation, etc in a well-maintained vehicle and still be involved
in a fatal accident?

People have jumped on to busy highways in order to commit suicide. Not
something I would blame the driver for.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

Jym Dyer

wrote:

Yes, it really did. That's what I told you in another
thread, and you said you refused to believe it. I personally
know of other cases in the Bay Area and Boston like this.
It *is* a problem.

I've often disagreed with you or your interpretation of events but I've never
called you a liar or accused you of fabrication. Please point out the thread
where we have had such an exchange.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

(Dennis P. Harris)

wrote:

(Hunrobe) wrote:

No court that I'm aware of here in the
US has the authority to revoke licenses.

Alaskan courts certainly do, and they do it all the time.

My point was that judges can't revoke or suspend driving privileges
willy-nilly. There has to be statutory authority. That's true in all the
States, Alaska included, but I stand partially corrected.
AS 28.15.181 lists ten offenses that, if convicted, the court may revoke the
defendant's driving privileges. That seems to me a rather odd way of wording
the process but then the wording of the corresponding Illinois statutes ("Upon
conviction of (offense) the court shall notify the Secretary of State and the
Secretary shall revoke/suspend the convicted person's driving privileges...")
would likely seem odd to an Alaskan. g

Regards,
Bob Hunt
..

(Dennis P. Harris)

wrote:

(Hunrobe) wrote:

No court that I'm aware of here in the
US has the authority to revoke licenses.

Alaskan courts certainly do, and they do it all the time.

My point was that judges can't revoke or suspend driving privileges
willy-nilly. There has to be statutory authority. That's true in all the
States, Alaska included, but I stand partially corrected.
AS 28.15.181 lists ten offenses that, if convicted, the court may revoke the
defendant's driving privileges. That seems to me a rather odd way of wording
the process but then the wording of the corresponding Illinois statutes ("Upon
conviction of (offense) the court shall notify the Secretary of State and the
Secretary shall revoke/suspend the convicted person's driving privileges...")
would likely seem odd to an Alaskan. g

Regards,
Bob Hunt
..

Mark Mitchell wrote:



Frank, I mostly agree with your above statement, "Did the car you were
driving cause someone to die? If so, you'll never drive again.". I would
agree with it wholeheartedly if you add "...cause someone to die, due to
your inattention or irresponsibility?" Or words to that effect.

I understand your point. But the current definition of "your
inattention or irresponsibility" is so weak that "Gee, I just didn't see
him" doesn't count.

My understanding is that in some countries, the assumption is driver
guilt; the driver must present sufficient evidence to exonerate himself,
and it's not necessarily easy. This change in attitude would, I think,
lead to significantly better behavior around cyclists and pedestrians.

And if someone did unjustly lose the permission to drive, it's hardly
comparable to someone losing their life. Again, it's supposed to be a
priveledge, not a right.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Mark Mitchell wrote:



Frank, I mostly agree with your above statement, "Did the car you were
driving cause someone to die? If so, you'll never drive again.". I would
agree with it wholeheartedly if you add "...cause someone to die, due to
your inattention or irresponsibility?" Or words to that effect.

I understand your point. But the current definition of "your
inattention or irresponsibility" is so weak that "Gee, I just didn't see
him" doesn't count.

My understanding is that in some countries, the assumption is driver
guilt; the driver must present sufficient evidence to exonerate himself,
and it's not necessarily easy. This change in attitude would, I think,
lead to significantly better behavior around cyclists and pedestrians.

And if someone did unjustly lose the permission to drive, it's hardly
comparable to someone losing their life. Again, it's supposed to be a
priveledge, not a right.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]