Sue or go bankrupt?

On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 10:53:47 PM UTC-4, wrote:
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.

NOT the same at all.

Cheers

On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 19:53:46 -0700, wrote:

On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 9:25:53 PM UTC-5, news18 wrote:

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.

I think your whole argument is off with the pixies. Is this a USA centric
argument?

Over here, if GovCco wants to allow hunting in certain area, then it
restricts all other users from entering the area, except for registered/
authorised hunters.

In any case, if hunters shoot someone, then they get put throught the
ringer as the whole of country requirement is that you must have positive
identification of your targer. There is no shooting bushes in case
"target animal" is hiding there.

On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 19:53:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

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.

Ah but... The hunter says "Oh! I thought it was a deer and I shot. A
regrettable accident, but an accident never the less..

When I lived in Maine there were one or two cases like that every
year. Usually by the time anyone got there the guy that was shot had a
white handkerchief or a roll of toilet paper in his hand or something
else white. ( a white tailed deer flicks his white tail when he is
alarmed) . It was invariably ruled an accident.

I knew a couple of State Policemen pretty well and they told me that
they reckoned that at least some of them were some guy shooting his
father-in-law or something like that, but there was no proof.
--
cheers,

John B.

Another plausible principle is to divide fault according to kinetic energy. That would probably work 997 times out of 1000.

On 6/29/2019 3:12 AM, Chalo wrote:
Another plausible principle is to divide fault according to kinetic energy. That would probably work 997 times out of 1000.


??? Read some local news in any city.

Stolen motorcycle running a red light into a mommyvan full
of children, etc.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Motorists hitting/killing safer road users is so ubiquitous it rarely merits news coverage.

On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 01:12:31 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
wrote:

Another plausible principle is to divide fault according to kinetic energy. That would probably work 997 times out of 1000.

That doesn't even come close to logic.
Let me give you an example. Big 10 wheel truck hauling a big 10 wheel
trailer, probably a load of 40 - 80 tons aboard, coming around a wide
sweeping 90 degree corner at the posted speed limit of (if I remember
correctly) 80 KPH. Nice woman on a 100 cc Honda with another lady and
two small kids aboard enters the road from a small side road directly
in front of the bog truck. The driver did his best to stop in fact he
ended up flipping the trailer but couldn't so hit the small
motorcycle. The results? One adult and one child killed in the crash
and the other lady and child taken to the hospital with critical
injuries.

Ignoring the trailer the Kinetic energy of, lets say 40 tons plus the
weight of the truck of about 10 tons at 80 kph is 11,278,300 J while
the loaded 100 cc Honda with two adults and two kids aboard traveling
at. oh say 20 kph is what ? Maybe 32,332.1 J.

Using your theory the truck has, perhaps, 349 times the kinetic energy
of the motorcycle and thus is obviously at fault. Right?

Using the same theory a rider on a bike and rider, say 70 kg rider and
6.8 kg bike surely has a greater kinetic energy than someone just
walking down the road so, again using your rules, a bicycle is always
wrong in a bicycle/pedestrian collision.

I'm certainly glad that I don't live in your world.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 01:12:31 -0700, Chalo wrote:

Another plausible principle is to divide fault according to kinetic
energy. That would probably work 997 times out of 1000.

As part of the principle, yes, but as both suffered KE might be
subjective in this case.

My 2c is that modern tech. e.g. dash-cams might be a solution for the
large masses for phone users who experience Ke exposure.

Neighbour drives large trucks and has all fitted with surround "dash
cams" for times when motor vehcile jumps in front and heavily brakes.
Police review footage of any collision and motor gets charged. Says it is
a good investment for his line of work(mostly servicing construction
sites in city.

Ethically, driving on a shared right-of-way faster than your ability to respond to reasonably foreseeable circumstances is always wrong, and always incurs fault when something goes wrong. A train-sized truck isn't a train; it has no exclusive right to its road.

Our entire traffic system is based on the transfer of responsibility from abusers to their victims, but being status quo doesn't make it right, any more than the institution of slavery being protected by law made it right.

On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 07:58:46 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/29/2019 3:12 AM, Chalo wrote:
Another plausible principle is to divide fault according to kinetic
energy. That would probably work 997 times out of 1000.


??? Read some local news in any city.

Stolen motorcycle running a red light into a mommyvan full of children,
etc.

There is always goig to be situations like that. That is where KE can be
a principle and given the weight of some motor bikes, it might be to
their detriment.