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

On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 7:36:23 AM UTC-4, Hauke Fath wrote:
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.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


and penalties for stabbing tennis players ?

bicycle protection from the SYSTEM is now ongoing with statutory protective barriers of 5-6 feet.

On 4/30/2014 8:17 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 21:40:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


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

Yes, that is what my elected leaders were supposed to do, but they
failed. The local legislative committee supposedly reviewed all local
ordinances last year. The chair of that committee is, shall we say, not
renowned for his competence or impartiality. I discovered some
legislative stupidity that he missed, and I'm working to fix it.

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?

Good question. All I'm saying is, don't mistake less-than-100%
enforcement for NO enforcement. I know that almost all motorists
disobey speed limits; but that doesn't justify repealing all speed limits.

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?

I'd love to find out. It's worth a try.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/30/2014 7:36 AM, Hauke Fath wrote:
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

Thanks, Hauke. Good information there!

- Frank Krygowski


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:24:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/30/2014 8:17 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 21:40:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


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

Yes, that is what my elected leaders were supposed to do, but they
failed. The local legislative committee supposedly reviewed all local
ordinances last year. The chair of that committee is, shall we say, not
renowned for his competence or impartiality. I discovered some
legislative stupidity that he missed, and I'm working to fix it.

If y'all keep electing the fellow then one might say that you deserve
the representation that you are getting.

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?

Good question. All I'm saying is, don't mistake less-than-100%
enforcement for NO enforcement. I know that almost all motorists
disobey speed limits; but that doesn't justify repealing all speed limits.

I'm not so sure. Here, excepting for occasional sessions of "slow 'em
down", speed laws are generally ignored with the result that many,
maybe most, people speed. The result is astonishing numbers of
fatalities over the New Years and Thai New Year (Songkran) holidays,
when everyone tries to go home for the holidays. This year during
Songkran there were 284 killed and 2643 injured during the five day
holiday. Nearly all the accidents were fully or partially attributed
to speeding and/or drinking. That amounts to 4.211 killed per 100,000,
during a 5 day period.

We just had two cases, in Bangkok, of cars crashing into police posts
and killing a police officer or three. Reported to be "speeding and
lost control". One driver also killed himself and reported as "signs
of drinking" while the second chap survived, said to have, "no signs
of drinking" so it is likely that there will be a "slow down" pogrom
in Bangkok for a month or so, but then things will get back to normal
:-)


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?

I'd love to find out. It's worth a try.

It is relatively simple. A slight re-wording of the laws to make
killing someone on the roads a matter of manslaughter.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 6:07:15 PM UTC-7, Sloc.. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:24:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/30/2014 8:17 AM, Slocombjb wrote:

snip

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?

I'd love to find out. It's worth a try.

It is relatively simple. A slight re-wording of the laws to make
killing someone on the roads a matter of manslaughter.

Doesn't help. Actually, I'm pretty sure that's already in place.
The problem is that the car culture - an integral part of the
overall culture and enshrined in the society's principles -
sees driving a car as a dog given right, and only gives nominal
consideration to the *true* responsibility. Pay your way, play
according to the rules (most of which are not laws, but rather
unspoken but well integrated social relationships and pecking
order - all in a rather anti-social society).

What you wind up with is a monumental tendency to blame the
victims (_as seen here in this thread_), so there's no prosecution
of the real offense (killing someone), and that merely feeds into
the understanding of responsibility.

Frank's education proposal is a fine idea, but the people who
will buy those goods aren't the ones who need it most, and the
*many* who need it most aren't buying. Also, as he likes to say
about public transit or whatever, it won't be sufficient by itself
even if it's ramrodded... er, mandated (which won't happen anyway
in the foreseeable future at the rate we're going). Also also,
he would have to drop the judgment (victim blaming) from his
presentation and just stick to the core curriculum.

Education is not primarily something you get from classrooms
and books and instruction. Education is *primarily* gained
from experience. The people and things that make up the world
you experience must reinforce the message; and as of now, in
the USA, they don't.

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:40:41 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

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.

Details! Please.

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.

The laws of nature do not seem to recognize this exception.

Yet most laws have real value, even if enforcement is imperfect.

"Value" is an altogether subjective thing, and cuts both ways.

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.

That's mighty reasonable of you.

On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:07:15 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:24:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

The local legislative committee supposedly reviewed all local
ordinances last year. The chair of that committee is, shall we say, not
renowned for his competence or impartiality. I discovered some
legislative stupidity that he missed, and I'm working to fix it.

If y'all keep electing the fellow then one might say that you deserve
the representation that you are getting.

Well, I've tried to do my part by voting against this guy every time he's run.
Unfortunately, he has enough of a following to keep getting re-elected.
He's got some skill at rousing the rabble - if you can call wealthy,
grey-haired conservatives "rabble."

Unfortunately, it doesn't take much to get re-elected, since there's very
little competition. Few people want the job.

BTW, the last losing contender was even worse than this guy.

- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, May 1, 2014 12:07:33 AM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:


Details! Please.

I'll tantalize you with just one you'll like. Turns out it's illegal to
park a bicycle without locking it. Apparently, that's true no matter
how briefly you leave it parked; so a kid who leans a bike against a wall
while he, say, ties his shoe, can theoretically be ticketed.

There are several other laws that are at least as silly. And I'm
concentrating on only the ones related to bicycles and pedestrians.

- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, May 1, 2014 1:18:17 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, May 1, 2014 12:07:33 AM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:





Details! Please.



I'll tantalize you with just one you'll like. Turns out it's illegal to

park a bicycle without locking it. Apparently, that's true no matter

how briefly you leave it parked; so a kid who leans a bike against a wall

while he, say, ties his shoe, can theoretically be ticketed.

- Frank Krygowski

Cite of that ordinance please.

Cheers