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

On 5/2/2014 7:54 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 22:11:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote:

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

If you are concerned, why don't you run for office?

First, the problem character I spoke of is usually outvoted on council,
so he's more an annoyance than anything. We can usually work around him.

But I do a lot of volunteer work already. I've thought a bit about
running for office, but to do a good job would be a rather large step up
in commitment. It would at least triple my commitment to various
committee meetings, and so would interfere with a lot of my other chosen
activities. It would also require working on projects and problems that
just don't interest me.

As it is, I get to choose what I'll volunteer for, and work on those
issues that are important to me. I'm satisfied with my situation as it is.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

--
- 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.



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



proving again people are stupid, laws are on the average, sane.

On Fri, 2 May 2014 08:33:25 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Friday, May 2, 2014 4:33:25 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:20:00 -0700 (PDT), Dan O wrote:
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:

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).

I don't know how it is now but back when I was in collage my brother,
who was a senior in high school had an accident and his girlfriend
died as a result. His case was brought before a grand jury for
assessment.

In his case the accident was considered an "Act of God"...

My point exactly (notwithstanding my complete ignorance of
the details of the particular case).

But the point was that it went to the grand jury, it wasn't handled as
some sort of minor offense, with a slap on the wrist. From what I read
now it seems that killing a cyclist is some sort of misdemeanor.

... but had it not
the grand jury would have returned at least manslaughter which at the
time had, I think, a maximum sentence of 10 years.

Because rehabilitation potential is so variable from one
offender to the next, sentencing guidelines seem arbitrary -
probably more useful for plea bargaining than anything else.

About 61% of felons are repeat offenders.


Well, it can be from class rooms, books and instruction.

But if it is "primarily" from that, then it is pathetically
lacking.

I certainly
learned a lot from classes and books - still keep some reference books
around too :-).

I certainly have learned a lot from books, a fair bit from classes,
still keep a *lot* of reference books, and continue to acquire
more.

You could, for example, buy a cup of MacDonald's coffee and spill it
in your lap or you could listen to your mother when she told you to
take care with hot stuff.

Aha! I wouldn't even think twice (hardly even once) about
arguing that _no one_ learns about "hot stuff" by _any way
other than experience_. (A perfect example. Simple, yes,
but the principle extends.)

I suppose it depend on how bright a fellow is.

There is always that; but if "bright" means going through
life *never* getting burned because you live your life
always doing what Mommy says, I'd rather be dim.

Sounds very macho. and of course you can show the burn scars where you
learned about HOT by scalded yourself with boiling water and where you
learned about gravity with the broken leg from jumping off the barn
roof and to stay away from dangerous animals with the scars where you
were gored by a bull, and even the cemetery monument from when you
jumped in the lake before you learned how to swim?

No Dan, contrary to your remarks, you did learn a lot from your
parents and others teaching you. In fact the your being able to
discuss the matter on the Internet is proof positive that you learned
something in school from your teachers.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Fri, 02 May 2014 13:28:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/2/2014 7:54 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 22:11:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote:

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

If you are concerned, why don't you run for office?

First, the problem character I spoke of is usually outvoted on council,
so he's more an annoyance than anything. We can usually work around him.

But I do a lot of volunteer work already. I've thought a bit about
running for office, but to do a good job would be a rather large step up
in commitment. It would at least triple my commitment to various
committee meetings, and so would interfere with a lot of my other chosen
activities. It would also require working on projects and problems that
just don't interest me.

As it is, I get to choose what I'll volunteer for, and work on those
issues that are important to me. I'm satisfied with my situation as it is.


The point is not whether you are satisfied with what you are doing it
is the fact that you are complaining about what another guy is doing
when all you have to do is run against him to solve what you perceive
as a problem.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

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?

On Friday, May 2, 2014 7:58:12 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:

The point is not whether you are satisfied with what you are doing it
is the fact that you are complaining about what another guy is doing
when all you have to do is run against him to solve what you perceive
as a problem.

I think you'd need to know about the specific problems I've perceived,
in order to make an accurate judgement.

I have no illusions that being elected to office would solve all of them.
There are always constraints, even for emperors and kings. There are many
more for village council member and mayors.

Again: the man in question botched the job on reviewing legislation, just
as he's botched other jobs. I'll be working with him (and others) to fix
the legislative problems he's missed. That's good enough for me.

- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 2 May 2014 21:47:56 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, May 2, 2014 7:58:12 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:

The point is not whether you are satisfied with what you are doing it
is the fact that you are complaining about what another guy is doing
when all you have to do is run against him to solve what you perceive
as a problem.

I think you'd need to know about the specific problems I've perceived,
in order to make an accurate judgement.

I have no illusions that being elected to office would solve all of them.
There are always constraints, even for emperors and kings. There are many
more for village council member and mayors.

Again: the man in question botched the job on reviewing legislation, just
as he's botched other jobs. I'll be working with him (and others) to fix
the legislative problems he's missed. That's good enough for me.

- Frank Krygowski


Frank, Frank, you seem to be stating the guy is incompetent and that
you help him out.... what happens when you don't help him?

Head Lines! "Incompetence reigns in small Ohio Town, collage prof too
busy to help.".

--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

The point is not whether you are satisfied with what you are doing it...


the point is



http://goo.gl/tNRTFN

On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:47:56 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, May 2, 2014 7:58:12 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:



The point is not whether you are satisfied with what you are doing it
is the fact that you are complaining about what another guy is doing
when all you have to do is run against him to solve what you perceive
as a problem.

I think you'd need to know about the specific problems I've perceived,
in order to make an accurate judgement.

I very specifically (and politely) asked for details.

I have no illusions that being elected to office would solve all of them.

All-or-noting thinking has no place in politics, so you'd best
stay out.

There are always constraints, even for emperors and kings. There are many
more for village council member and mayors.

Let go of the need to control, and all the constraints that
go with it go with it.

Again: the man in question botched the job on reviewing legislation, just
as he's botched other jobs. I'll be working with him (and others) to fix
the legislative problems he's missed. That's good enough for me.

Don't forget to show them the data ;-)