Woman who struck cyclists, killing one, now suing them for stressshe's suffered

On Sunday, May 4, 2014 9:56:25 AM UTC-7, JoeRiel wrote:
Dan O writes:
On Friday, May 2, 2014 5:49:49 PM UTC-7, Dan O wrote:
On Friday, May 2, 2014 3:27:06 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/2/2014 1:13 PM, Dan O wrote:

So now I'll say it: I tend to think that bicycling needs
_no laws whatsoever_. Just leave it at something like it's
illegal to cause harm by failure to exercise due care.

So here comes another wrong-way, no-lights at night rider wobbling
head-on toward me out of the dark. He says "Hey, I'm being really
careful." And that's good enough for you.

Sure, why not?

Why exempt bicycles? Let's examine some differences between
cars and bicycles.

First, civil law is off the table without damages (harm) -
unless you can conflate your indignant consternation into
some kind of legally significant emotional distress.

I'm not a lawyer, so am likely completely wrong, however, my
understanding is that traffic infractions can be either civil or
criminal. The traffic law we generally discuss here fall under the
civil branch. They are regulations, they don't require that any harm be
done to be enforced.


IANAL but I think there's no case to bring to civil court unless
there are quantifiable damages.

So what about criminal law? (I'm not a a law expert, and
don't think of blowing stop signs as a "crime", but have
the understanding that these are the two kinds of law.)

[snipped]

But bicycles don't go *only* on roads - heavens no, not by
a longshot. Bikes go on the sidewalk, over the berm, through
the vacant lot, across the meadow, around the back past the
dumpster, through the bushes, up on the rooftops - you name
it. and each of these places has its own unique due care
considerations. Bikes aren't treated like cars in any of
these places (i.e. prohibited); why then, on the road? (I
know you are into the "like any other vehicle" thing.)

A non-sequiter. Where the regulations don't apply, they don't apply.
You could ride your motorcycle on the roottop, as well, without
violating any traffic regulations. Doesn't mean they should not be
regulated when ridden on the street.

Let me put it another way, using the walking-bicycling-
motoring continuum. Frank wants bicycles to be treated under
traffic laws essentially the same as cars, with pedestrians
an altogether different thing with an altogether different set
of rights and responsibilities.

If I *am* subject to any "traffic" laws while walking, I sure
as hell don't think about it. At most I consider right-of-way
and wait for a good clear gap before jaywalking (though that's
really just mostly self-preservation, isn't it).

I think bicycling is closer to walking than it is to driving
a car. In fact I cherish my legal right to ride my bicycle
on sidewalks, with essentially the same rights and responsibilities
as pedestrians (which, as noted above, amounts to little more
than "don't pop out into the path of cars if you know what's
good for you", and other than that do whatever you want).

I also cherish my legal right to ride my bicycle on the road;
and sure that should be regulated. It *is* regulated by the
mere fact that havoc will ensue if you don't do it substantially
in accord with the same rules the cars are operating under.
That is due care.

Bottom line, at least almost everywhere that I have ever ridden
a bicycle, this "no rules just keep yourself out of trouble" is
the de facto rule anyway.

I'm not even *really* saying "exempt bicycles"; What I meant in
the first place was that laws regulating bicycles are not needed
as long as bicyclists exercise adequate due care to avoid
causing harm.

The same could be said of cars, but they cause *****loads* of
harm even *with* the laws regulating them. Not so bicycles.
That is (that part of) the difference.

The other part is the zooming on and off sidewalks and across
vacant (and not vacant) lots and everywhere else all over
creation. I guess I can shift in and out of regulatory mode
as I go on and off the road... (thinking about it a I write... )
okay - I guess I even sort of do that now (except that - just
as with walking, I don't really think about it except as it
bears on my self-preservation), and proceed using social
interaction (ala Monderman) - yes, in the context of the rules
of the road... okay, I see you guys' point.

I'm sorry if this comes off the wrong way, but in a way a bicycle
*is* a toy for me, and if I can operate on the road in sufficient
accord so as not to cause harm (including disruption of traffic),
well then there's no reason that I and my toy should not be
take seriously and respected as a legitimate road user.

Problem comes when I act in a way that causes no harm *except*
the consternation of some observer who doesn't understand free
and independent thinking and needs instead everything prescribed
step-by-step and freaks out when imposed order breaks down (as it
inevitably does), even just a little, and *his* response is action
that disrupts the continued harmonious (if not orderly according
to the "rules") flow.

So my point is that if people would just take the stick out of
their butt about law and order when it comes to bicyclists just
having some fun or being creative but not hurting anyone beyond
offending their stick-in-the-butt sensibility, things would be
more harmonious *and* enjoyable; and that there is rationale
for this in the relative threat to society posed by bicyclists
and by automobiles.

I mean, come on dudes - this is what the more advanced societies
on *my* planet have already done with presumed fault and such.
They take it even *farther* in that bicyclists can *fail* to
exercise due care and the automobile still has the greater
responsibility.