A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dickens:"The law is a ass."



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 10th 18, 10:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 5:04:39 PM UTC-5, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 15:58:01 -0800 (PST),
I wrote:
"The police and prosecutors do not want to ruin someone's life just
for killing a cyclist, so they accept "I didn't see" him or her as a
valid defense (instead of the admission of negligence that it really
is. "

Most of us drive too. It is damned easy not to see a cyclist.


With the exception of the dark-clothed cyclist with no lights at night
(which is something I see with depressive regularity around here, as
well as dark-clothed pedestrians at night), it's not that hard to see
bicyclists. On my bike I am taller than most cars.

In most cass "I didn't see" is either a lie or an admission of
negligence.


Your opinion. I think it is wrong, but okay.

Other than a persecution complex, there is no reason to conclude "just
a cyclist" as some kind of motive, when the easier explanation is that
mere negligence is a just a civil case and there is simply
insufficient evidence to prove a crime. When every juror is going to
hear the facts and think "there but for the grace of god go I", there
is basically no way it can constitute gross negligence and therefore
isn't a crime.


The prejudice of the jury doesn't determine what laws apply to what
situations. There are conditions under which negligence is a crime in
all 50 states in the US, and should be prosecuted under criminal laws
and not in civil court. If negligence results in the death of another
person, that is IMHO not a civil matter in most cases.


Of course the ADA handling the matter has to consider the jury. [S]he looks to see if there is sufficient evidence that a jury will convict. Not enough evidence = no case.

The fact that you think death makes it a criminal, not civil, does not make it the criminal law. Negligence that causes the death of another is ALWAYS a civil matter. It is only criminal if there is a much higher level of negligence. This is from the model penal code (just because it was easy to find online) "A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation."

Commonly called gross negligence. If it is just an accident, it isn't a crime. No matter how much you might wish otherwise. And folks continually saying it is a crime on the web is misinformation.


I just don't see the point of the many internet whines (and posting of
newspaper articles) that a cyclist got hit and died, so there must
have been a crime that isn't being punished. No. That is an
unsupportable leap. You need more for it to be a crime.


And there frequently is. That is the point. Drivers are frequently
distracted on their cell phones (talking, texting, looking at maps,
etc.), eating, reading books or magazines, arguing with passengers,
looking in the back seat, picking something up from the floor,
intoxicated... I have personally seen all of those scenarios multiple
times while driving on the highways as well as riding my bike on the
roads around here. That is enough for striking a bicyclist (or a
pedestrian or another car) to be a crime.


"Gross deviation" from normal behavior is what makes it criminal (as opposed to perhaps a traffic offense.) You says it happens all the time. Thus, based on your own experience, is probably not a gross deviation. So, not a crime.


Now, if the cyclist runs a stop sign or a red light, is riding the wrong
way down a one way street, is riding erratically and unpredictably- all
of which I have witnessed as well- then I think it's likely to be a very
different story. Even if the driver was distracted or inattentive, the
cyclist has some share in the burden of responsibility.


Ads
  #22  
Old February 11th 18, 01:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,044
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

On 2/10/2018 5:22 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 20:12:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 2/8/2018 6:13 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

How are most cyclists injured or killed in accidents? They are
struck from behind by an overtaking motor vehicle.


Sorry, that's not true. See
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE...f/swless04.pdf


snip

11. The most frequent parallel-path crashes were motorist turn/merge
into bicyclist’s path (12.2 percent), motorist overtaking the
bicyclist (8.6 percent), and bicyclist turn/merge into motorist’s path
(7.3 percent).


Do you know if the first type were exclusively drivers and cyclists
traveling in opposite drections? Or does this include situations where
the driver had passed the cyclist and then turned, cutting the cyclist
off? I would include that scenario in my original statement as they
were struck by a vehicle coming from behind. Not that it would be
likely to move that into the majority. Perhaps my information is out of
date, past research had indicated being struck by a vehicle traveling in
the same direction caused more fatalities.

The most frequent crossing path crashes were motorist failed to yield
to bicyclist (21.7 percent), bicyclist failed to yield at an
intersection (16.8 percent), and bicyclist failed to yield midblock
(11.8 percent).


In what scenario does a vehicle turning or entering the road in the
middle of the block have the right of way?


The PDF has illustrative diagrams of several common crash types.

These six individual crash types accounted for almost 80 percent of
all bicycle-motor vehicle crashes."


What are the other 20+%? Bicycists hitting parked cars?


Every examination of crash types I've read always had a sizeable "other"
category. I've assumed this is because many bicyclists find very
creative ways to get in trouble.

So motorist overtaking were just 8.6 percent of the total. And I'd bet
that a majority of those were of two types: Totally Unlit cyclists at
night, which legal lighting would prevent; and "I think I can squeeze
by" events, which would have been averted by lane control by the
cyclist.


I strongly suspect that 8.6% is a gross underestimate and that the real
number is at least double that. It doesn't pass the smell test.


IIRC, various studies have given different percentages to the relative
crash types.

This one from North Carolina
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat_nc/...types08-12.pdf
says hits from behind are about 17%.

An Orlando study ("Orlando Area Bicyclist Crash Study:
A Role-Based Approach to Crash Countermeasures") says motorist
overtaking accounted for 8.2%.

Carol Tan's "Crash Type Manual"
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publication...pedbike/96104/
lists five sub-categories of crashes caused by "motorist overtaking."
They total 8.6%, but maybe that's using the same data as the other study
I linked.

The Kenneth Cross study from the 1970s said "motorist collided with rear
of cyclist" comprised 4.17% of crashes. It's at
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm

Whatever the percentage, it seems hits-from-behind are a pretty small
percentage of crash types. And it's been noted that many of those that
do occur are rural, unlit cyclists riding at night.

Now granted, when it does happen, it's a very bad thing. It's
responsible for a disproportionate number of fatalities - but again, not
"most" of fatalities, IIRC.

It's a crash type that is excessively feared. There are more important
things to watch out for.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #24  
Old February 12th 18, 02:37 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,221
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 3:02:37 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:26:20 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

"Gross deviation" from normal behavior is what makes it criminal (as
opposed to perhaps a traffic offense.) You says it happens all the
time. Thus, based on your own experience, is probably not a gross
deviation. So, not a crime.


This is the gist of your argument and it is complete bull****. You are
claiming that crime is mitigated by the frequency with which it is
committed. Grossly dangerous behavior cannot be normalized; if we allow
that to be, there would ultimately be no point whatsoever to having laws
to govern human behavior.

An example is a local case being prosecuted criminally which is one of
the very examples I gave- being distracted by the cell phone resulting
in the driver striking and killing one person and permanently disabling
another in the car that she hit. Even though distracted driving happens
all the time, it does rise to the level of gross negligence.


What if the call on the cell-phone had been from an ER, telling the driver his baby son was being resuscitated. What if he had dropped hot coffee in his lap. What if, what if . . . Drivers have been distracted every since there were cars. Yes, its worse now with cellphones, and a legislature certainly could make it criminal to cause an injury while using a cellphone in a car. A lot of car-related conduct already is criminal, but making every negligent car accident a crime would be bizarre -- and would clog up the criminal docket. And why stop with cars. What about medical malpractice?

Personally, I'm for capital punishment for people who get into the quick check line with more than nine items. I would like to criminalize super-bright lights on bikes in bike lanes, and while I'm at it . . .

-- Jay Beattie.
  #25  
Old February 12th 18, 05:16 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 6:02:37 PM UTC-5, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:26:20 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

"Gross deviation" from normal behavior is what makes it criminal (as
opposed to perhaps a traffic offense.) You says it happens all the
time. Thus, based on your own experience, is probably not a gross
deviation. So, not a crime.


This is the gist of your argument and it is complete bull****. You are
claiming that crime is mitigated by the frequency with which it is
committed. Grossly dangerous behavior cannot be normalized; if we allow
that to be, there would ultimately be no point whatsoever to having laws
to govern human behavior.

An example is a local case being prosecuted criminally which is one of
the very examples I gave- being distracted by the cell phone resulting
in the driver striking and killing one person and permanently disabling
another in the car that she hit. Even though distracted driving happens
all the time, it does rise to the level of gross negligence.


You remind me of a friend who moonlights as a landlord. He refuses to hire a lawyer when he needs to evict a non-paying tenant. But, every time he goes to Court he gets twisted in circles by tenants because he confuses what he thinks the law should be with what it actually is. He refuses to listen to anyone who tries to explain, so he is convinced that the Court is completely biased against him. fini
  #26  
Old February 12th 18, 11:01 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,349
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 3:02:37 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:26:20 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

"Gross deviation" from normal behavior is what makes it criminal (as
opposed to perhaps a traffic offense.) You says it happens all the
time. Thus, based on your own experience, is probably not a gross
deviation. So, not a crime.


This is the gist of your argument and it is complete bull****. You are
claiming that crime is mitigated by the frequency with which it is
committed. Grossly dangerous behavior cannot be normalized; if we allow
that to be, there would ultimately be no point whatsoever to having laws
to govern human behavior.

An example is a local case being prosecuted criminally which is one of
the very examples I gave- being distracted by the cell phone resulting
in the driver striking and killing one person and permanently disabling
another in the car that she hit. Even though distracted driving happens
all the time, it does rise to the level of gross negligence.


What if the call on the cell-phone had been from an ER, telling the
driver his baby son was being resuscitated. What if he had dropped hot
coffee in his lap. What if, what if . . . Drivers have been distracted
every since there were cars. Yes, its worse now with cellphones, and a
legislature certainly could make it criminal to cause an injury while
using a cellphone in a car. A lot of car-related conduct already is
criminal, but making every negligent car accident a crime would be
bizarre -- and would clog up the criminal docket. And why stop with cars.
What about medical malpractice?

Personally, I'm for capital punishment for people who get into the quick
check line with more than nine items. I would like to criminalize
super-bright lights on bikes in bike lanes, and while I'm at it . . .

-- Jay Beattie.


There should be a distinction between taking a call and texting. Or
googling. Or catching the latest Game of Thrones episode.

--
duane
  #27  
Old February 12th 18, 03:23 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,557
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

On 2/11/2018 8:37 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 3:02:37 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:26:20 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

"Gross deviation" from normal behavior is what makes it criminal (as
opposed to perhaps a traffic offense.) You says it happens all the
time. Thus, based on your own experience, is probably not a gross
deviation. So, not a crime.


This is the gist of your argument and it is complete bull****. You are
claiming that crime is mitigated by the frequency with which it is
committed. Grossly dangerous behavior cannot be normalized; if we allow
that to be, there would ultimately be no point whatsoever to having laws
to govern human behavior.

An example is a local case being prosecuted criminally which is one of
the very examples I gave- being distracted by the cell phone resulting
in the driver striking and killing one person and permanently disabling
another in the car that she hit. Even though distracted driving happens
all the time, it does rise to the level of gross negligence.


What if the call on the cell-phone had been from an ER, telling the driver his baby son was being resuscitated. What if he had dropped hot coffee in his lap. What if, what if . . . Drivers have been distracted every since there were cars. Yes, its worse now with cellphones, and a legislature certainly could make it criminal to cause an injury while using a cellphone in a car. A lot of car-related conduct already is criminal, but making every negligent car accident a crime would be bizarre -- and would clog up the criminal docket. And why stop with cars. What about medical malpractice?

Personally, I'm for capital punishment for people who get into the quick check line with more than nine items. I would like to criminalize super-bright lights on bikes in bike lanes, and while I'm at it . . .




Jay, it's 2018. We don't have satire or parody any longer:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ampaign =1490

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


  #28  
Old February 14th 18, 12:19 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Oculus Lights[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default Dickens:"The law is a ass."

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 11:48:49 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


my favorite line when I played Mr. Bumble in sixth grade, getting to shout out the word ass in front of all the parents and teachers.
IF I kill someone through my own negligence, then haven't I commited a crime? Where does the line of premeditation get drawn to say that the real crime was being negligent? After that, then make me responsible for the result of my negligence.
Yes, the law is an ASS in the way drivers vs bicyclists are treated when responsibility is assigned and adjudicated. Been on the short end of crooked ticketing getting blamed for what the cop called failure to keep right, on a shoulderless narrow lane two lane road in Hillsborough NJ when a car pulling a trailer of lawn mowers came up and declared its god given right to pass a bicycle despite an oncoming car quickly showing up around a bend on a crest of a slight rise. Trailer's wheel grabbed the frame of my Paramount throwing me up in the air like a baseball pitching machine, landing me sideways into a tumble that cracked my helmet in half. One memory from laying there on the roadway half numb half excruciating general pain was seeing the shine of sunlight off the driver's NJ state PBS card in the cop's hand. Yes the law was an ass then and still is. Three years ago Alan Brumm was killed by an oncoming driver passing a bicyclist going the opposition direction, driver claiming they were asserting their right according to state law to pass a bicyclist across the center line if there isn't oncoming traffic. Well dammit isn't a bicyclist considered an oncoming vehicle? The CHP said no and the murderer walked away free. For bicyclists when it comes to car collisions Yes the law is an ASS.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"John "Cho" Gilmer keeps publishing his "Manifesto" over and over." Hoodini Racing 0 April 23rd 07 12:38 AM
Vandeman calls mountain bikers "liars" and "criminals" then surprised by hate mail! Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 0 June 1st 06 08:15 PM
Vandeman calls mountain bikers "liars" and "criminals" then surprisedby hate mail! ChainSmoker Mountain Biking 0 May 27th 06 05:39 PM
Vandeman calls mountain bikers "liars" and "criminals" then surprised by hate mail! tom Mountain Biking 0 May 16th 06 04:22 AM
R.I.P. Jim Price (aka. "biker_billy", "sydney", "Boudreaux") spin156 Techniques 15 November 28th 05 07:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.