Dickens:"The law is a ass."

https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/31/2018 2:48 PM, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/

Time for Spike Bike?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/1/2018 10:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/31/2018 2:48 PM, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/

Time for Spike Bike?


This story has a lot of traction, in the headlines every
morning.

And yet here we are. Even yet:

https://nypost.com/2018/01/31/mom-of...mands-justice/

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

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 2:48:49 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I'm curious why so many cyclists think death of a cyclist in an accident is a crime. Murder requires intent. Manslaughter requires "gross negligence.." Accidents are not a crime, even if there is negligence, even if people die. Unless the driver did something way out of the ordinary that caused the accident- no crime occurred. The lawyer is absolutely right, the lapsed license is utterly irrelevant to the cause of the injury.

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 13:29:04 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 2:48:49 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/

I'm curious why so many cyclists think death of a cyclist in an accident is a crime.
Murder requires intent. Manslaughter requires "gross negligence." Accidents are not a
crime, even if there is negligence, even if people die. Unless the driver did
something way out of the ordinary that caused the accident- no crime occurred. The
lawyer is absolutely right, the lapsed license is utterly irrelevant to the cause of
the injury.

We tend to frame it that way because we deal every day with inattentive and or
incompetent drivers who avoid killing or maiming us only because we take the action to
compensate for their inattention and incompetence. Our lives are beneath their notice or
concern.

It may not be murder (e.g., no formulation of intent to kill the other person) but it is
more frequently manslaughter than drivers are charged with. 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. Question: how the hell do you not see someone who is dressed like a 200 lb canary on
a bike? Answer: you weren't even looking. Comment: it was your job to look.).

Now, there are cases where the cyclst ran a red light or a stop sign into a vehicle with
the right of way (or some other scenario where it is the cyclist that caused the
collision). Just as it would be if the cyclist was in a car, the cyclist is at fault.

How are most cyclists injured or killed in accidents? They are struck from behind by an
overtaking motor vehicle. Those are the driver's fault in the majority of cases.

"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. 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.

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.

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 6:58:04 PM UTC-5, 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.

If you really believe that applies to a cyclist in ordinary daylight, or a
legally lit cyclist at night, you should turn in your driver's license.

It's your job as a driver to see cyclists, plus pedestrians (including kids
who my react unpredictably), plus motorcycles, plus other cars, plus trash
cans that blow into the road, plus trees by the side of the road, plus any
number of other things that may be near you or in front of you.

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.

Negligence is not just a civil case. There are laws against it.

- Frank Krygowski

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

"10. The bicycle-motor vehicle crashes were divided
into the three main categories as such:
Parallel-path events 36 percent
Crossing-path events 57 percent
Specific circumstances 7 percent

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

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.

Recently, the now-useless League of American Bicyclist pulled a
publicity stunt to try to promote segregated paths. They had interns
scan news reports of bike crashes to see how the reporters described the
crash details. From those, they tried to glean the percentage of
hit-from-behind crashes, and came up with a wild overestimate. Needless
to say, their methodology was terrible.

But that's consistent behavior from an organization that has shifted
from "cyclists' rights to the road" to "let's build cycle tracks
everywhere."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 08/02/2018 4:29 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 2:48:49 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I'm curious why so many cyclists think death of a cyclist in an accident is a crime. Murder requires intent. Manslaughter requires "gross negligence." Accidents are not a crime, even if there is negligence, even if people die. Unless the driver did something way out of the ordinary that caused the accident- no crime occurred. The lawyer is absolutely right, the lapsed license is utterly irrelevant to the cause of the injury.


You don't think texting while driving is gross negligence? How about
driving drunk?

How about the recent discussion of the case in Boston with the
professional truck driver turning right from a middle lane and killing
someone?

I agree that accidents happen but when the event is caused by a reckless
disregard I don't think it's still an accident.

As far as the suspended license, it shows a propensity to this behavior.

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 4:30:39 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 6:58:04 PM UTC-5, 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.

If you really believe that applies to a cyclist in ordinary daylight, or a
legally lit cyclist at night, you should turn in your driver's license.

It's your job as a driver to see cyclists, plus pedestrians (including kids
who my react unpredictably), plus motorcycles, plus other cars, plus trash
cans that blow into the road, plus trees by the side of the road, plus any
number of other things that may be near you or in front of you.

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.

Negligence is not just a civil case. There are laws against it.


Well, unless your drunk or criminally negligent, it is a civil case. Otherwise, every car v. car accident would be criminally prosecuted. The evil dark side of treating bicycles as vehicles is that getting hit by a car is legally no different from getting hit in a car by another car. You ask who had the right of way and go from there.

But I have yet to see a ghost car by the side of the road. http://www.oregonlive.com/living/ind...nd_a_bitt.html

It's easy to see cyclists on a long, flat, empty road. It's not as easy in cluttered urban environment with lots of distractions, e.g. pedestrians, cars, traffic signals. This is not an excuse -- just a reality. There are places where I know conflicts are common, and I exercise case. And regrettably, bike facilities more often than not put cyclists in harms way -- and will do so until motorists learn that bike lanes are (wait for it) lanes. Separate facilities can hide cyclists altogether at intersections or pit bikes against bikes or pedestrians. For some f****** unknown reason, they just put a Tesla dealership straddling a separated bike path on my way home, and now that is the killing fields. You're basically riding through a car dealership with cars using the bike path as a road (because there is no road, just a bike path). And don't get me going about the buses. I've already ordered my flame-thrower from Elon Musk, which I intent to use on the buses and his Tesla dealership.

-- Jay Beattie.