Sue or go bankrupt?

On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 06:16:37 +0700, John B. wrote:

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.

Yep, someone can always generate a counter example.

Firstly, your example screams exceedingly bad road engineering for a
start.
Secondly, the driver of the very overloaded Hhonda is clearly culpable,
and thus it points out that any rule/priciple needs to be applied
carefully.

Thirdly, as I've mentoned before, the technology existed for a while for
the owner/driver of the large vehicle to fit a dash cam system to show
their side of the argument. It is a small investment compared to
investment in vehicle, trailer, etc.


Thirdly,

On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 13:37:29 +0700, John B. wrote:

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..

Nope, clearly the "deer" wasn't clearly indentified.
Bzzt, end of that line.


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.

Supports my point exactly, the "deer' was not clearly identified.

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.

Shrug, it is country thaty cosiders the "right" to bear arms and
discharge a firearm surpasses any other right right.

On Saturday, June 29, 2019 at 6:34:57 PM UTC-7, Chalo wrote:
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.

Yikes, the UVC and slavery in the same sentence? Wow.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Saturday, June 29, 2019 at 2:20:54 AM UTC-4, news18 wrote:
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.

I once knew a guy who showed up to school after a frustrating weekend of deer
hunting. I heard him tell another guy he was so disgusted he took a few bush
shots.

"What's a bush shot?" I asked.

"I heard something moving in the bushes, so I just shot into the bushes."

I was pretty horrified, because it easily could have been another hunter in the
bush; but the asshole hunter thought nothing of it.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 01:54:10 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 06:16:37 +0700, John B. wrote:

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.

Yep, someone can always generate a counter example.


Firstly, your example screams exceedingly bad road engineering for a
start.

Nope.The road is the highway from the bridge (the only highway access
to the island of Bucket) and is a 4 lane highway that was recently
reworked - curves were widened and banked, guard rails fitted,
re-paved and so on. The narrow access road where the motor cycle
entered the main road is the only access to the little village and
was built by the village not by the prefecture and is not maintained
by the prefecture. Just exactly like the small New England village
that I grew up in.

What do you suggest? Tell the village that they can't go to town? Tell
the tax payers that "we gotta raise taxes in order to take care of all
the village streets"?

Secondly, the driver of the very overloaded Hhonda is clearly culpable,
and thus it points out that any rule/priciple needs to be applied
carefully.

Ah, but your argument was that in 97.7% of the cases the heavy weight
bloke was in the wrong and I simply pointed out that it wasn't
necessarily correct, nor for that matter just.

Yet another example, I hit a pedestrian with a motorcycle when I was
working in N. Thailand. I had just come out of the Air Field gate and
was moving, maybe, 20 kph and this guy ran straight out in front of
me, maybe ten feet in front of me. Luckily there was a Thai policeman
that saw it and I was absolved of any blame.

And, Thailand has a law that blames the larger vehicle in an
accident... unless there is evidence that he was not in the wrong. So
even in a country that has a law that seems to emulates your theory I
have never seen a news report stating arbitrarily that the big guy
was wrong for no other reason that he was the big guy.

Thirdly, as I've mentoned before, the technology existed for a while for
the owner/driver of the large vehicle to fit a dash cam system to show
their side of the argument. It is a small investment compared to
investment in vehicle, trailer, etc.

So logically every automobile should be equipped with cameras to
record accidents and given the weeping and wailing that one hears from
the bicycle ranks about the horrendous number of cyclists killed on
the roads it would seem that bicycles should also be equipped with
cameras and to be certain that these cameras are functional probably
they should be inspected from time to time and something should be
done to enforce that policy... a $1,000 fine for non-compliance would
probably do the job.

You know, in considering your thesis I got to wondering whether a 6
foot tall, 180 pound cyclist would be deemed to be in the wrong if he
hits me, 5.5" tall and 130 lbs. After all the Big Guy would obviously
have more kinetic force that little old me. and I likely would be
much slower too.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 01:59:21 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 13:37:29 +0700, John B. wrote:

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..

Nope, clearly the "deer" wasn't clearly indentified.
Bzzt, end of that line.

Perhaps the end of your line but see
https://www.thoughtco.com/hunting-accident-rates-127877
which says in part, "fewer than 1,000 people in the US and Canada are
accidentally shot by hunters"
or
https://tinyurl.com/y3hgw3tl
which says in part "Maine, which annually licenses more than 200,000
hunters, averages two hunting fatalities a year"
and yet another
https://accident.laws.com/hunting-accidents
concludes that about 1,000 die annually in hunting accidents in the
U.S. and Canada.
This site also states that, "some people have even proposed complete
bans on any such activities involving firearm usage in order to
prevent any hunting accidents from occurring." which makes pretty good
sense.

Of course bicycling is obviously also rather dangerous as about 80% as
many die in bicycle crashes... just think, if we banned bicycles think
of all the lives that would be saved.



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.

Supports my point exactly, the "deer' was not clearly identified.

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.

Shrug, it is country thaty cosiders the "right" to bear arms and
discharge a firearm surpasses any other right right.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 20:43:22 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Saturday, June 29, 2019 at 2:20:54 AM UTC-4, news18 wrote:
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.

I once knew a guy who showed up to school after a frustrating weekend of deer
hunting. I heard him tell another guy he was so disgusted he took a few bush
shots.

"What's a bush shot?" I asked.

"I heard something moving in the bushes, so I just shot into the bushes."

I was pretty horrified, because it easily could have been another hunter in the
bush; but the asshole hunter thought nothing of it.

- Frank Krygowski

Must have been one of those City Slickers :-) My granddad probably
fired two or three round during deer hunting season. Ii depended
largely on where the Game Warden was working the days that he hunted,
if was one round that you could figure that the warden was working in
our end of the county but if the warden was down at the other end of
the state than it might be 2 or 3 :-)

My father once went 3 years and fired three rounds.
--
cheers,

John B.

jbeattie wrote:
Yikes, the UVC and slavery in the same sentence? Wow.

Yep. Cars will be the thing that people of the future use to conclude we were all assholes. Gluttonous, callously indifferent, and flagrantly unethical. Sociopathic even.

On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 22:52:47 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
wrote:

jbeattie wrote:
Yikes, the UVC and slavery in the same sentence? Wow.

Yep. Cars will be the thing that people of the future use to conclude we were all assholes. Gluttonous, callously indifferent, and flagrantly unethical. Sociopathic even.

Except when I commented that the Average family in the U.S. owns 1.9
automobiles many replied, "But we NEED two cars".

A correction, I just looked at
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...e-usa-in-2001/
and it says that the *average* one person family owned 1.1 cars and
the average 2 person owned 1.98 and in 2016 the average all households
owned 1.97 autos.
And https://tinyurl.com/y6hv3ugz
says that "According to a research study by Experian, the average
American family owns 2.28 vehicles." but no date is mentioned.

You, apparently, are in the minority with this theory.
--
cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote:

You, apparently, are in the minority with this theory.

So were abolitionists. They were right.