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

On 4/28/2014 5:40 AM, Hauke Fath wrote:
Dan O wrote:

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.

German law mandates that as a driver, you have to be able to stop within
the range that you can overlook, in case of narrow roads half of that
distance. If you cannot, you are too fast, no matter what speed limit
the road has; and liability for any accident is on you.

Still, as you say, most drivers assume a clear path...

hauke

Can you give us more details on what exactly would happen to a German
driver in a situation like this one? For example, "liability for any
accident is on you": Does that mean simply that the motorist's
insurance would pay the costs of injuries and/or lawsuits? Or would the
driver face traffic tickets, or criminal prosecution, or what?

Also, it seems clear that the boys on bikes were not meeting legal
requirements for lights. That's very common among Americans on bikes.
How common is that in Germany?


--
- Frank Krygowski

DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
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


So what if it is? Can you suggest a punishment?

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

Open every day since 1 April, 1971

..........................

off course !

failure is culpable.

actually, suicide was first stop in searching so it went in...but you can see the effects....

suicide presents a clear danger to the public welfare

as riding down the middle of the road after dark.

2+2=5 or 6 should be cycle obvious.

1. light

2. car sound

3. expectation of injury

the driver would bring a lotta baggage to this scene for the responsible parties escape.

speeding tickets, job as barmaid, DUI .....

once you place yourself in danger, you dug a legal hole kinda hard to escape from. Escape happens, often newsworthy.

usually caws the entire mess is film worthy.

another blow against take the lane.

take the lane to the cemetery

AMuzi writes:

DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
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


So what if it is? Can you suggest a punishment?

http://www.cartoonbuddyblog.com/2010...d-english.html

--

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:08:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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.

I don't believe that you were in the Service, but one thing that
military Officers and NCO's are taught is "Never give an order that
you can't enforce". The obvious reason is that if one gives orders
that aren't obeyed and the order is not enforced then orders become
something that can be disobeyed without fear and can be ignored.

In Singapore possession of more than 3.5 ounces of Heroin qualifies
one as a "dealer" and the penalty is death.

Singapore heroin related arrests last year amounted to 0.03% of the
population. In the U.S. heroin arrests appear to have amounted to 0.5%
of the population.

Having thousands of laws that aren't enforced is tantamount to telling
your citizens that "never mind, go ahead, we won't watch".

If someone runs over a cyclist and gets 40 hours of community service,
well, "why worry, hit another one". If the same person knew that if
he/she/it runs over a cyclist they will serve 10 years in jail I
suspect the attitude would be somewhat different.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 13:13:45 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
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


So what if it is? Can you suggest a punishment?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian

Apparently, if you help some poor old bloke who is in constant pain,
with no hope of survival, to reach the Pearly Gates a bit sooner the
penalty is 10 - 25 years. If you run over a cyclist it appears to be
somewhat less.
See http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/11/1...ike-fatalities
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 4/29/2014 8:57 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:08:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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.

I don't believe that you were in the Service, but one thing that
military Officers and NCO's are taught is "Never give an order that
you can't enforce". The obvious reason is that if one gives orders
that aren't obeyed and the order is not enforced then orders become
something that can be disobeyed without fear and can be ignored.

In Singapore possession of more than 3.5 ounces of Heroin qualifies
one as a "dealer" and the penalty is death.

Singapore heroin related arrests last year amounted to 0.03% of the
population. In the U.S. heroin arrests appear to have amounted to 0.5%
of the population.

Having thousands of laws that aren't enforced is tantamount to telling
your citizens that "never mind, go ahead, we won't watch".

If someone runs over a cyclist and gets 40 hours of community service,
well, "why worry, hit another one". If the same person knew that if
he/she/it runs over a cyclist they will serve 10 years in jail I
suspect the attitude would be somewhat different.

I agree that unenforced laws aren't a good thing - assuming, of course,
that the law itself is reasonable and justified. In fact, I've been
asked to attend a meeting of our local council's legislative committee
regarding that precise issue, among some other things.

But we have to be realistic. No law can be enforced 100%, especially in
a nation like the U.S. where privacy and personal freedom are valued
highly. Yet most laws have real value, even if enforcement is imperfect.

In my view, imperfect enforcement of existing laws is not a blanket
justification for rejecting proposed new laws. Each proposal needs to be
examined on its own merit.

--
- Frank Krygowski

WHAT IS THIS ? BEGINNINGS OF THE 4TH REICH ?

Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 4/28/2014 5:40 AM, Hauke Fath wrote:
German law mandates that as a driver, you have to be able to stop within
the range that you can overlook, in case of narrow roads half of that
distance. If you cannot, you are too fast, no matter what speed limit
the road has; and liability for any accident is on you.

Can you give us more details on what exactly would happen to a German
driver in a situation like this one? For example, "liability for any
accident is on you": Does that mean simply that the motorist's
insurance would pay the costs of injuries and/or lawsuits?

Definitely.

While a criminal court would not necessarily deal with compensation
issues, the car driver's insurance would respect the sentence, and pay
compensation.

Or would the
driver face traffic tickets, or criminal prosecution, or what?

That, too, depending on the degree of misbehaviour.

http://www.adfc-weimar.de/sicherheit/stvo/§3-1-sichtfahrgebot.shtml
has a discussion of the issues involved, as well as three typical law
cases:

o On a secondary road, 65 kph are too fast, since a dark horse can only
be seen from thirty metres away.
o On a straight, wet secondary road more than 40 kph may be too fast
with dimmed headlights.
o The driver of a heavy lorry who rammed a capsized black commercial van
(killing its driver) with 85 kph on a motorway was found guilty - at the
given visibility he should not have driven faster than 45 kph.

The two diagrams on how speed and road surface influence the distance to
stop should be digestable even without German skills.

http://www.verkehrslexikon.de/Module/SichtFahrGebot.php has a list of
related legal cases (for those whose German is up to it which makes
it pretty clear that German courts value the visibility principle very
high. Basically there is a class of items on the road from stopped cars
to cows that a driver has to expect at all times, and adjust speed so
they can stop in time. Small items like car parts or tyres that are hard
to see are a different matter, as are game crossing the road.

Also, it seems clear that the boys on bikes were not meeting legal
requirements for lights. That's very common among Americans on bikes.
How common is that in Germany?

German law is pretty detailed on cycle lights, mandating dynamo-powered
front and rear lights with a certain power, plus front / rear / pedal /
spoke reflectors (equivalent battery-operated lights are a very recent
addition). Lights as well as reflectors have to be certified for meeting
regulations. Exempt are (road) bikes lighter than (IIRC) 10.5 kg during
daytime.

While some types of bikes (esp. mountain-bikes, and road bikes) are sold
without lights, the advent of affordable dynamo hubs and LED lights
means that even budget bikes are generally equipped with decent,
basically maintenance-free lights. Police occasionally run campaigns to
check for working lights - I've never been in one, ever, so they are
probably not too frequent.

In a trial, riding three abreast on a narrow road without lights nor
reflectors would certainly be held against the boys. But since the car
driver was speeding at limited visibility, the major share of
responsibility would be found with them.

Cheerio,
hauke

--
Now without signature.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 21:40:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/29/2014 8:57 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:08:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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.

I don't believe that you were in the Service, but one thing that
military Officers and NCO's are taught is "Never give an order that
you can't enforce". The obvious reason is that if one gives orders
that aren't obeyed and the order is not enforced then orders become
something that can be disobeyed without fear and can be ignored.

In Singapore possession of more than 3.5 ounces of Heroin qualifies
one as a "dealer" and the penalty is death.

Singapore heroin related arrests last year amounted to 0.03% of the
population. In the U.S. heroin arrests appear to have amounted to 0.5%
of the population.

Having thousands of laws that aren't enforced is tantamount to telling
your citizens that "never mind, go ahead, we won't watch".

If someone runs over a cyclist and gets 40 hours of community service,
well, "why worry, hit another one". If the same person knew that if
he/she/it runs over a cyclist they will serve 10 years in jail I
suspect the attitude would be somewhat different.

I agree that unenforced laws aren't a good thing - assuming, of course,
that the law itself is reasonable and justified. In fact, I've been
asked to attend a meeting of our local council's legislative committee
regarding that precise issue, among some other things.

But that is what your elected leaders are supposed to do. Way back in
the '50's the New Hampshire legislature reviewed all the state laws
and revoked a considerable number - some that dated back to the 1700's

But we have to be realistic. No law can be enforced 100%, especially in
a nation like the U.S. where privacy and personal freedom are valued
highly. Yet most laws have real value, even if enforcement is imperfect.

If it is not going to be enforced then what in the world do you need
it for?

Or are you contemplating some sort of "catch 'em all" law, the kind
where they can't prove your guilt on that side of the room but they
can get you on the other side?

In my view, imperfect enforcement of existing laws is not a blanket
justification for rejecting proposed new laws. Each proposal needs to be
examined on its own merit.

No one said that new laws are unjustified. But I do believe that laws
that apparently aren't intended to be enforced are just window
dressing and certainly do cause the public to become apathetic about
being law abiding.

To go back to my original thesis - if there was a mandatory sentence
of, say 10 years, for hitting and killing a cyclist how frequently
would cyclists be run down?
--
Cheers,

John B.