Where is the Attempted Murder Charge?

In article
,
Jay Beattie wrote:

On Jun 15, 10:11Â*am, Phil W Lee wrote:
Dan O considered Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:15:40
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:





On Jun 14, 12:16Â*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:

snip

What we need are proper penalties for abuse of the privilege of motor
vehicle use.
Heavy fines for the responsible party in any collision - and if they
can't decide which party that was, the fine should be split between
them, not ignored. Â*The full cost of the clear up and medical
treatment necessary should be charged to their insurance.
Any injury should result in imprisonment, the duration depending on
the severity - why should the perpetrator recover any more quickly
than their victim? Â*Permanent disablement or death should equal life
imprisonment.
NOBODY who has caused any doubt to be raised over their ability to use
a motor vehicle safely should be allowed further use. Â*End of story.

Okay, but "any doubt" in *whose* Â*mind?

Any contact with another vehicle, object or person that can't be
entirely attributed to another party.

I repeat, the vagaries of human nature in all its splendor abound at
the controls of traffic. Â*(Whjee)

If people knew that these were the consequences of an "accident"
they'd take the necessary care to avoid them.

Absolutely right! Â*It's about time.

If licence suspensions and/or revocations were used more often, people
would get used to the idea of alternatives to driving, and it would be
economically viable to provide those alternatives.

No, they would get used to driving without a license -- and without
insurance.

The accident described in the original post involved an aparent
psychopathic driver. Most non-psychopathic drivers want to avoid
accidents and do not need further incentive -- e.g., the threat of
license suspension or revocation for an "accident." Psychopaths don't
care and are probably driving without a license anyway.

The people who do the most damage are rarely those who respond to
bland punishments.

Hear! Hear!

--
Michael Press

Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jun 15, 10:11 am, Phil W Lee wrote:
Dan O considered Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:15:40
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:





On Jun 14, 12:16 pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
snip
What we need are proper penalties for abuse of the privilege of motor
vehicle use.
Heavy fines for the responsible party in any collision - and if they
can't decide which party that was, the fine should be split between
them, not ignored. The full cost of the clear up and medical
treatment necessary should be charged to their insurance.
Any injury should result in imprisonment, the duration depending on
the severity - why should the perpetrator recover any more quickly
than their victim? Permanent disablement or death should equal life
imprisonment.
NOBODY who has caused any doubt to be raised over their ability to use
a motor vehicle safely should be allowed further use. End of story.
Okay, but "any doubt" in *whose* mind?
Any contact with another vehicle, object or person that can't be
entirely attributed to another party.

I repeat, the vagaries of human nature in all its splendor abound at
the controls of traffic. (Whjee)
If people knew that these were the consequences of an "accident"
they'd take the necessary care to avoid them.
Absolutely right! It's about time.
If licence suspensions and/or revocations were used more often, people
would get used to the idea of alternatives to driving, and it would be
economically viable to provide those alternatives.

No, they would get used to driving without a license -- and without
insurance.

The accident described in the original post involved an aparent
psychopathic driver. Most non-psychopathic drivers want to avoid
accidents and do not need further incentive -- e.g., the threat of
license suspension or revocation for an "accident." Psychopaths don't
care and are probably driving without a license anyway.

The people who do the most damage are rarely those who respond to
bland punishments.

-- Jay Beattie.


OK, good argument.
But there are just so damned many psychopaths out the
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/06/...run-kills-girl

http://preview.tinyurl.com/5vcvgxv

As a daily newspaper reader, it's overwhelming.
No, I do not have an answer to the problem.

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

Ronko wrote:
In article , phil@lee-
family.me.uk says...

"lee.watkins" considered Tue, 14 Jun 2011
07:31:26 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

The basis of this mentality is authoritarianism, which is now the
predominant right-wing conservative
perspective in the USA, particularly Christian Conservatism. Violence
directed towards perceived
lower tiers without conscience, combined with a kiss-up attitude
towards authority figures.

The driver assumes anyone else would do the same thing given the
opportunity. The perception is
magnified by the metaphor that the car did the violence on the
drivers' behalf (absolution),
and the cyclists' lack of official operators credentials.

The language used in newspaper articles and local broadcast TV/radio
to describe automobile crashes is intended to reinforce the
absolution, in part because automobile manufactures/retailers are the
primary (and sometimes only) advertising revenue source.
The lack of enforcement of harsh fines or jail time for this behavior
removes any doubt that this behavior is sanctioned. This is driven by
conservative politics.
the lack of cyclist licensing and registration/plates credentials
informs an authoritarian that the cyclist does not belong
on the road and thus should be punished for getting in the way, or
even just for fun.

I think the best way to counter all this is to make cycling more
Authoritarian friendly. An vigorous licensing and registration
bureaucracy. Drum up patriotic and religious associations with the
bicycle. The flag, cross, and bible imagery! Build segregated
bikeways like in Europe, protected with bollards and make it downright
christian and patriotic.
What utter cobblers.
What we need are proper penalties for abuse of the privilege of motor
vehicle use.
Heavy fines for the responsible party in any collision - and if they
can't decide which party that was, the fine should be split between
them, not ignored. The full cost of the clear up and medical
treatment necessary should be charged to their insurance.
Any injury should result in imprisonment, the duration depending on
the severity - why should the perpetrator recover any more quickly
than their victim? Permanent disablement or death should equal life
imprisonment.
NOBODY who has caused any doubt to be raised over their ability to use
a motor vehicle safely should be allowed further use. End of story.

If people knew that these were the consequences of an "accident"
they'd take the necessary care to avoid them.
Logically Christian conservatives have every supposed moral, ethical,
and principled reason to be all about bikes, but modern conservatives
have no conscience. They really don't - at least not since
Goldwater! You have to give them increasingly authoritarian
reasons. and that can be done and will work like a charm.

On Jun 12, 5:01 pm, Tºm Shermªn °_°
""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
Police report:

"THE CYCLIST WAS WEST BOUND ON MS50 NEAR THE TRULOVE LOOP
INTERSECTION.
 V1 WAS WEST BOUND ON MS50 APPROACHING THE CYCLIST FROM
THE REAR. Â THE
FRONT OF V1 COLLIDED WITH THE REAR OF THE BICYCLE. Â THE
IMPACT THREW THE
CYCLIST INTO THE AIR BEFORE LANDING ON THE HOOD OF V1 AND
ONTO THE
WINDSHIELD. Â V1 CONTINUED FOR A FEW FEET BEFORE COMING TO
A STOP. Â THE
CYCLIST WAS THEN THROWN TO THE ASPHALT WHEN V1 STOPPED.
 THE DRIVER OF
V1 EXITED THE VEHICLE AND OBSERVED THE CYCLIST WHILE
TALKING ON THE
PHONE. Â D1 THEN REENTERED HER VEHICLE AND RAN THE CYCLIST
OVER AGAIN
BEFORE BEING FORCED FROM HER VEHICLE BY WITNESSES. Â V1
CAME TO FINAL
REST FACING WEST IN THE WEST BOUND LANE ON MS 50 JUST
METERS WEST OF THE
TRULOVE LOOP INTERSECTION. Â THE CYCLIST CAME TO FINAL REST
NEAR THE
RIGHT FRONT TIRE OF V1."

See

http://www.accidentin.com/article307..._of_accident_v...
.
Why is Robbie Norton, 44, of Cedar Bluff, MS still free to commit
mayhem
with her vehicle?

http://www.starkvilledailynews.com/node/5919

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
3500 pound car protecting the motorist vs cyclist with no metal around
him/her means the car wins every time. Unfortuneatly that's the nature of
the beast and drivers, if cited at all, are only cited for driving erratically or
not staying in the lane or some other only citable offense. The cyclist is left
with serious or fatal injuries and if fortuneate enough to get hit by a driver
with adequate resources or insurance, can gain some financial recourse in
civil court.

However, this case of the driver hitting the cyclist a second time is an
entirely different matter. If intent of the driver's part can be shown, this
probably warrants assault with a deadly weapon or attempted
manslaughter/murder type of charge. I would like to see that. Local politics
and attitude toward bicyclists usually plays a critical part in how the
offender is charged, if at all.


'every time' is categorical.

My employee ran a red light on his bicycle, smashed a car
panel with his shoulder and was both cited and billed for
the damage. No injuries to shoulder or bicycle.

I can't imagine how the second battery could be anything but
'with intent'. We'll see how the jury parses it.

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

On Jun 15, 3:09*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jun 15, 10:11*am, Phil W Lee wrote:



Dan O considered Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:15:40
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Jun 14, 12:16*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:

snip

What we need are proper penalties for abuse of the privilege of motor
vehicle use.
Heavy fines for the responsible party in any collision - and if they
can't decide which party that was, the fine should be split between
them, not ignored. *The full cost of the clear up and medical
treatment necessary should be charged to their insurance.
Any injury should result in imprisonment, the duration depending on
the severity - why should the perpetrator recover any more quickly
than their victim? *Permanent disablement or death should equal life
imprisonment.
NOBODY who has caused any doubt to be raised over their ability to use
a motor vehicle safely should be allowed further use. *End of story.

Okay, but "any doubt" in *whose* *mind?

Any contact with another vehicle, object or person that can't be
entirely attributed to another party.

I repeat, the vagaries of human nature in all its splendor abound at
the controls of traffic. *(Whjee)

If people knew that these were the consequences of an "accident"
they'd take the necessary care to avoid them.

Absolutely right! *It's about time.

If licence suspensions and/or revocations were used more often, people
would get used to the idea of alternatives to driving, and it would be
economically viable to provide those alternatives.

No, they would get used to driving without a license -- and without
insurance.

The accident described in the original post involved an aparent
psychopathic driver. *Most non-psychopathic drivers want to avoid
accidents and do not need further incentive -- e.g., the threat of
license suspension or revocation for an "accident." *Psychopaths don't
care and are probably driving without a license anyway.

The people who do the most damage are rarely those who respond to
bland punishments.

There's not much you can do with psychopaths, AFAIK. They're
certainly a problem. But they're rare.

Most damage to cyclists (and peds) is done by much more ordinary
people, who are just insufficiently careful. Changes in liability
laws and penalties can cause very significant improvements in their
behavior.

As mentioned before, friends in Zurich described how walking in that
city was transformed for the better after a strict liability law went
into effect on motorists. And those laws are probably responsible for
much of the greater safety (for both pedestrians and cyclists) in
several northern European countries.

By contrast, the US laws seem to say "You can drive a car no matter
who you are or what you've done." That's messed up.

- Frank Krygowski

On Jun 15, 8:58*pm, AMuzi wrote:

But there are just so damned many psychopaths out thehttp://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/06/...s-girl-on-bike...

http://preview.tinyurl.com/5vcvgxv

On Professor Hare's widely used scale, about one in a 100 Americans is
a psychopath, including the majority of those in prison and almost
everyone on death row.

The equivalent number for Britain is one in 200, half the density of
psychopaths compared to the States.

So a bicyclist doesn't have to be on a busy road very long to be in
close proximity to a psychopath in charge of a moving lethal weapon.

Whatever the precise number of psychopaths in any location, it is too
high!

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books
http://coolmainpress.com/andrejute.html

On Jun 15, 9:16*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

There's not much you can do with psychopaths, AFAIK. *They're
certainly a problem. *But they're rare.

Nonsense. On a widely used scale 1 in every 100 Americans is a
psychopath. Several pass you on street every hour you cycle, Frank.

That said, I actually agree with the rest of what Frank said. On the
rare occasion when I've experienced deliberately aggressive behavior
from motorists it has been from a testosterone of young or youngish
men in a car.

Most damage to cyclists (and peds) is done by much more ordinary
people, who are just insufficiently careful. *Changes in liability
laws and penalties can cause very significant improvements in their
behavior.

As mentioned before, friends in Zurich described how walking in that
city was transformed for the better after a strict liability law went
into effect on motorists. *And those laws are probably responsible for
much of the greater safety (for both pedestrians and cyclists) in
several northern European countries.

By contrast, the US laws seem to say "You can drive a car no matter
who you are or what you've done." *That's messed up.

Chalo made a really good point not too long ago, the implications of
which we haven't yet assimilated. He pointed out that the bicyclist is
on the road by natural right, without having to be licensed, whereas
the motorist is on the road as a privilege, by license from the
community, and, in consideration of being in charge of overwhelming
force, in fact a lethal weapon, should behave accordingly.

It is the principle on which Dutch road law operates, and all it takes
is a stricter or just a more even-handed application of existing laws
of liability.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://coolmainpress.com/BICYCLING.html

On 6/15/2011 2:09 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jun 15, 10:11�am, Phil W wrote:
Dan considered Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:15:40
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:





On Jun 14, 12:16�pm, Phil W wrote:

snip

What we need are proper penalties for abuse of the privilege of motor
vehicle use.
Heavy fines for the responsible party in any collision - and if they
can't decide which party that was, the fine should be split between
them, not ignored. �The full cost of the clear up and medical
treatment necessary should be charged to their insurance.
Any injury should result in imprisonment, the duration depending on
the severity - why should the perpetrator recover any more quickly
than their victim? �Permanent disablement or death should equal life
imprisonment.
NOBODY who has caused any doubt to be raised over their ability to use
a motor vehicle safely should be allowed further use. �End of story.

Okay, but "any doubt" in *whose* �mind?

Any contact with another vehicle, object or person that can't be
entirely attributed to another party.

I repeat, the vagaries of human nature in all its splendor abound at
the controls of traffic. �(Whjee)

If people knew that these were the consequences of an "accident"
they'd take the necessary care to avoid them.

Absolutely right! �It's about time.

If licence suspensions and/or revocations were used more often, people
would get used to the idea of alternatives to driving, and it would be
economically viable to provide those alternatives.

No, they would get used to driving without a license -- and without
insurance.
[...]

This was very common in the 'hood in Milwaukee where I used to work.
Many of the vehicles were also unregistered and/or stolen.

The paint striped bicycle lanes were often used for passing on the right
by motorists going 20-30 mph over the speed limit.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 6/15/2011 3:54 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Jun 15, 8:58�pm, wrote:

But there are just so damned many psychopaths out thehttp://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/06/...s-girl-on-bike...

http://preview.tinyurl.com/5vcvgxv

On Professor Hare's widely used scale, about one in a 100 Americans is
a psychopath, including the majority of those in prison and almost
everyone on death row.
[...]

Before the death penalty was revoked in Illinois, almost half of those
on death row had their convictions overturned based on DNA evidence that
was not available [1], and/or evidence that had been illegally
suppressed by the police and/or prosecution.

The latter makes one wonder who the real psychopaths are.

[1] Strictly speaking, the evidence was available, but the testing
methods were not.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 16/06/2011 5:26 AM, Ronko wrote:
3500 pound car protecting the motorist vs cyclist with no metal around
him/her means the car wins every time.

Yes mostly, but not always.

I went to pick up my wife's car from having the exhaust fixed. I jumped
on the MTB, and as it was only a couple of kms down the road, I rolled
along the footpath to avoid having to cross a busy narrow road twice for
the sake of about 0.5km. I was coasting along, watching driveways
intently, when a dude in his car appeared from behind some big bushes.

He was driving so fast, he didn't have time to stop before he had
crossed the footpath and the front wheels were almost in the gutter.

I jammed on the brakes (my hands were already on the levers), and slid
to a halt as my right knee connected with the front left quarter panel.

Me and my bike were fine. His car cost him over $1000 to repair. He
threatened to take me to court (I shouldn't have been riding on the
footpath, but by the same token, he failed to give way to pedestrian
traffic when he crossed the footpath), but it never came to that. I
think he realised it was going to cost him more than it was worth.

So, I chalked up a win that day.

--
JS.

On 6/15/2011 4:05 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Jun 15, 9:16�pm, Frank wrote:

There's not much you can do with psychopaths, AFAIK. �They're
certainly a problem. �But they're rare.

Nonsense. On a widely used scale 1 in every 100 Americans is a
psychopath. Several pass you on street every hour you cycle, Frank.

That said, I actually agree with the rest of what Frank said. On the
rare occasion when I've experienced deliberately aggressive behavior
from motorists it has been from a testosterone of young or youngish
men in a car.[...]

While psychopaths do not have empathy for others, many *do* care about
themselves, and therefore will be deterred from wrongful actions, unless
they find the probability of getting away with harming others to be high.

Therefore, the proportion of motorists who would murder a cyclist is
much lower than 1 in 100, or there would be tens of thousands of cyclist
deaths per year (in the US), rather than 7 or 8 hundred.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.