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

The other thing that seems odd is that these are kids. Since when are

adults not responsible when harming children even if the children are

being kids.


JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

GNAW...these here 'children' are out blocking a public highway in the middle of the night fully aware they are IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD...

then a viscious old whore a DRUG USER ! snuck up on the kids

WITH HER LGHTS OFF !

eyeyeyhahhahhahahhahahhahah


OK EVERYONE GRAB THEIR CHAINSAW N GET BACK TO WERK.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:41:06 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 4/28/2014 8:17 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 00:29:12 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Sunday, April 27, 2014 10:11:42 PM UTC-7, x wrote:
On Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:35:30 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


snip

Glancing at the replies in this thread it's again interesting to see how quickly many topics morph into something nearly totally unrelated to the original topic's post. Perhaps that is part of the reason moderated bicycling forums are taking over from Usenet?



the information SR posted questions responsibility for an accident. Responses are to that question.


IMO, a big part of responsibility in the OP case is with the...
(drum roll, please... ) car culture, wherein drivers _default
assumption_ is the only thing to contend with on the road is
other cars.

Sure it's still the driver's responsibility to assay a clear
path before barging into it, but in practice nothing much
dares hang out in the road, and inanimate objects of any
consequence are rare out there, too, so in practice a clear
path down the road is substantially safe to assume. Hans
Monderman recognized this problem.

And yes, it *will* be distressing for her, and yes, the kids
(and/or their parents) were negligible in just being there.
(Please understand I do not use "negligible" in the legal
liability sense here, but rather the "place yourself in the
potential path of cars and you're at to get hit" sense.)

Doesn't mean I think there's the least bit of validity to her
case. My guess is that it's a knee jerk to "the best defense
is a good offense".

I'll bet the Dutch think we're genuine barbarians over here.

I haven't lived in the U.S. for a long time but what amazes me are the
insignificant penalties that seem to be handed down for killing
someone. It appears that, from reading the news, that hitting someone
with an automobile is treated as only a misdemeanors any more. Perhaps
it really isn't but that is the impression I get from reading the
news.

Over here if you hit someone with a car and kill them you can get up
ten years. And no parole.



This didn't happen in the US. Canada is not the same with respect to
lawsuits. Sometime I think we should sue more here because
corporations, especially crown corporations are more or less exempt from
responsibility. But that's another issue.

The question with this article I think is about the driver thinking that
they own the road and all other users are not consequential. She wants
to sue the families because their children were in her way.

The other thing that seems odd is that these are kids. Since when are
adults not responsible when harming children even if the children are
being kids.

Not to argue, but I read it as a counter measure to the family suing
the driver.

But I do firmly believe that " the driver thinking that
they own the road and all other users are not consequential" is a
direct result of the penalties imposed.

(I hate to keep referring to foreign lands... but) when hand phones
became popular and everyone seemed to have one the Singapore
government noticed an increase in road accidents that they attributed
to people talking on phones while driving. They added a law to the
books that the use of a hand held phone while driving incurred a fine
of S$1,000.

At the time they wrote the new law S$1,000 would have been a large
part of, perhaps more than, a working man's, monthly salary. And in
Singapore these kinds of laws aren't subject to a Judge's opinion. You
do the crime and you do the time.

In Thailand (yet another foreign land) hitting someone on a smaller
vehicle and killing them has a maximum sentence of 10 years. In this
case it is a variable as the Judge will take notice of extenuating
circumstances, if any.

I suspect that if the U.S. laws were changed to reflect, say a US$
1,500 fine for using a hand phone while driving, and a 10 year
sentence for killing a cyclist that auto drivers wouldn't feel that
they owned so much road.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:04:26 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Frank Krygowski:
Many years ago, my wife, daughter and I toured Ireland by bike. One of
the amazing sights was the Cliffs of Moher:
http://www.studenthandouts.com/Geogr...s-of-Moher.jpg

No fences. You could get as close as you dared.

I had a similar experience walking the cliffs on St Alban's Head in
Southern UK. Most beautiful thing I've ever seen - and I lived 9 years
in Hawaii. Fences would have ruined it.

A little extra: I came upon this gem of a sign along the way:
http://tinyurl.com/ka6smcw

Basically it says "This is private property. Enjoy it. If you get hurt
it's not our problem"

In the USA, there would be a huge chain-link fence with barbed wire on
top.

Some time ago I read an announcement made by the Mayor of Pamplona
about the Running of the Bulls. He explained that it is obviously
dangerous to get close to fighting bulls and that anyone who ran with
them was engaging in a dangerous practice and that if an individual
wished to engage in such a practice the city would accept no
responsibility for any results of his/her acts.

Maybe I am some sort of reactionary but I've always felt that this was
completely rational.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:07:26 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per John B.:
Strange how the U.S. has changed. When I was a kid if you got hurt
playing in the school yard I suspect your folks would have tried to
hush it up as you weren't supposed to be in the school yard when
school was out.

I suspect that had you tried to sue, the court would likely have ruled
in favor of the school.

I went back to my high school as part of our fiftieth class reunion.

Back in the day it was wide open - lots of space. Now it's just a maze
of chain link fences and you just can't walk from point A to point B
without a ridiculous amount of detouring through gates.

I got depressed just looking at it.

And, how many kids were injured in "the old days" and how many are
injured now? I have this vague impression that most of the rules are
made because "they might fall".

There is a movement to ban guns because of school shootings, but a
week or so ago some kid stabbed 24 people at a school. 5 critically.

Ban Knives?

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, April 28, 2014 11:41:32 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:

There is a movement to ban guns because of school shootings...

Well, no, there isn't. Or if there is, it's a small enough movement that
it's not taken seriously by anyone. The black helicopter guys aren't
going to take your 0.22 rabbit gun, your duck-hunting shotgun or your
deer rifle.

There is a movement to ban high capacity magazines, and the kind of
rapid-fire weapons that allow gangs and crazies to out-gun police.
There is a movement to require better background checks, so the crazies,
the enraged and the known criminals have a harder time getting guns.
But the "ban guns" bit is NRA crap propaganda.

... but a
week or so ago some kid stabbed 24 people at a school. 5 critically.

Ban Knives?

As my ex-Brit friend used to say:
"When bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs."

- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:24:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Monday, April 28, 2014 11:41:32 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:

There is a movement to ban guns because of school shootings...

Well, no, there isn't. Or if there is, it's a small enough movement that
it's not taken seriously by anyone. The black helicopter guys aren't
going to take your 0.22 rabbit gun, your duck-hunting shotgun or your
deer rifle.

Yes I do know that. However there is a certain amount of breathless
screams, on the Web, for "Gun control" and the excuse is "Look what
they did at the school".


There is a movement to ban high capacity magazines, and the kind of
rapid-fire weapons that allow gangs and crazies to out-gun police.
There is a movement to require better background checks, so the crazies,
the enraged and the known criminals have a harder time getting guns.
But the "ban guns" bit is NRA crap propaganda.

... but a
week or so ago some kid stabbed 24 people at a school. 5 critically.

Ban Knives?

As my ex-Brit friend used to say:
"When bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs."

- Frank Krygowski

Actually, the thing that gets me about the "ban this, ban that"
movement is that, as a general statement, it is ineffective. Smoking
opium was banned in 1909 and the other recreational drugs followed.
The U.S. banned alcohol in 1919. Pistols were effectively banned in
New York state in 1911.

And as we all know, recreational drugs are impossible to obtain in the
U.S., the Mafia wars in New York were fought with slingshots and for
approximately 14 years not a single glass of an alcoholic beverage was
consumed in the U.S.

--
Cheers,

John B.

John B.

well, could be your (pl) analysis is based on an incomplete understanding of the English legal system based on precedent not dictate.

There is a tendency for forgetting where we are when an individual or group WANTS TO GET IT DONE....

In the bicycling area, for several important factors Imnotgonna delve into,
the English system was misused by authority mainly not moving protection into the STATUTORY area.

This is called "dismissal'

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 8:57:35 AM UTC-4, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
John B.
well, could be your (pl) analysis is based on an incomplete understanding of There is a tendency for forgetting where we are when an individual or group WANTS TO GET IT DONE....

the English system was misused by authority mainly not moving protection into the STATUTORY area.

This is called "dismissal'

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

yeah doahn get taken in with SR's headline subject...


WOMAN KILLS....


woman didn't kill...cyclists were riding in the middle of the road.

so the prob reads


SUICIDAL CYCLISTS ACCIDENTAL DEATHS IN LOWER PHHRT TOWNSHIP

so the prob reads

SUICIDAL CYCLISTS ACCIDENTAL DEATHS IN LOWER PHHRT TOWNSHIP

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS


BRANCH off from here...


https://www.google.com/#q=IS+SUICIDE+Illegal

On 4/29/2014 7:41 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:24:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Monday, April 28, 2014 11:41:32 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:

There is a movement to ban guns because of school shootings...

Well, no, there isn't. Or if there is, it's a small enough movement that
it's not taken seriously by anyone. The black helicopter guys aren't
going to take your 0.22 rabbit gun, your duck-hunting shotgun or your
deer rifle.

Yes I do know that. However there is a certain amount of breathless
screams, on the Web, for "Gun control" and the excuse is "Look what
they did at the school".


There is a movement to ban high capacity magazines, and the kind of
rapid-fire weapons that allow gangs and crazies to out-gun police.
There is a movement to require better background checks, so the crazies,
the enraged and the known criminals have a harder time getting guns.
But the "ban guns" bit is NRA crap propaganda.

... but a
week or so ago some kid stabbed 24 people at a school. 5 critically.

Ban Knives?

As my ex-Brit friend used to say:
"When bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs."

- Frank Krygowski

Actually, the thing that gets me about the "ban this, ban that"
movement is that, as a general statement, it is ineffective. Smoking
opium was banned in 1909 and the other recreational drugs followed.
The U.S. banned alcohol in 1919. Pistols were effectively banned in
New York state in 1911.

And as we all know, recreational drugs are impossible to obtain in the
U.S., the Mafia wars in New York were fought with slingshots and for
approximately 14 years not a single glass of an alcoholic beverage was
consumed in the U.S.

There are thousands upon thousands of laws in any country. Not one of
them is obeyed by all. Yet with only the fewest and craziest
exceptions, members of society see value in having laws.

--
- Frank Krygowski