Florida 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap

Reading the account below I don't think things add up. It says the rear tire
hit the car, which I assume means that young Scott had almost missed the
path of the car and got clipped at the last moment. If the rear tire was hit
shouldn't the bike/rider have spun out of the path of the car to some
degree, rather than up the hood? Young Scott also claims that he ran away.
How does a kid, who according to the driver made a trip up the hood, run
away from the accident with no injuries? In this case I think the driver is
lying and hoping to get money for previous damage to the car.

I do think the parents should pay the ticket and spend some time instructing
their son about bicycle safety. As the father of an eight yo daughter myself
I'd expect to do the same.

"Doug Haxton" wrote in message
...

"He's an 8-year-old child. He does not understand what the right of
way is," She said. Scott was riding a bicycle in his neighborhood
when he jumped a dirt mound with five of his friends, Bradenton Police
Lt. Sam Campbell said. He crossed paths with a 2001 Nissan and the car
clipped the rear tire of Scott's 5-pound, 16-inch BMX bicycle. Scott
wasn't injured, but was cited by Officer Jeff Beckley for violating
the right of way. "I'm doing OK," said Scott, who was not wearing a
helmet during the accident. "I hit a little bit of his car, but then I
just got off my bike and ran away." McIntosh said the two people in
the Nissan claimed Scott flew up onto the hood of their car, causing
$1,000 worth of damage. Campbell said that police estimated $500 and
could not confirm whether Scott hit the hood. "His mother was
apparently pretty upset with us," Campbell said. "But in this case,
the child caused the accident by pulling out in front of the car. The
driver didn't have time to react." Campbell said officers issue
citations to many children throughout the year for not wearing helmets
or for committing traffic violations on their bicycles. Officers draft
the tickets in the child's name but usually expect the parents to pay
them. If no one is cited during an accident, insurance companies will
demand that vehicle owners pay for their damages even if they are not
at fault. It is a liability as well as a safety issue, Campbell said.

http://www.local6.com/news/2580655/detail.html


Doug

What about a moped or a Harley? A Harley weighs several hundred pounds and
goes 6 times faster than an average cyclist. At 40 MPH a Harley has about
27 times the energy of an average cyclist, but still not enough to seriously
threaten a car occupant. It's easy physics, backed up by thousands of
accident statistics. These statistics would account for the oft-quoted but
heretofore unseen "cyclist causes fatal car wreck" scenario. Just base the
laws on physics and accurate accounting, not politics, which is more about
the TV-based slow-motion hysteria we call modern American Society.

Similar case in point: here in Florida, we have manatee zone speed laws
based on antiquated wake control laws; regardless of the size, weight,
draft, horsepower, propeller size, etc. of your boat. Physics means the
longer the boat, the faster you can go before you hit hull speed and make a
wake. Jet ski: 3-4 knots, 64 foot yacht: 10 knots. Same speed, jet ski
gets fine.

Physics kills people. Its like the old joke, the fall doesn't kill you -
the sudden stop does. You don't change the laws, you just base the fines on
the easy math of who is the risk to whom.

Do you really think a traffic violation with a Cannodale and a Cadillac are
the same thing?

Maybe before I die I will see the beginning of a society that turns to their
professors and physicians before their politicians on such issues.

maybe

"sbirn" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:19:36 GMT, Robert Haston
wrote:
Hummer. Personally I think bike tickets should be limited to the cost of
requiring a cop to jack cyclists up, tell them at a high decibel level in
front of everyone what morons they are to risk their lives, hand them a
GOOD

Why? What if it is a mo-ped? What about a motorcycle? Should Harley
riders
get the same warning as a cyclist? Is getting smacked by a car less risky
on
a street-legal dirt bike than on a mountain bike?

Bikes are vehicles, just like any other. I think that selective
enforcement
is simply stupid. You can (and should) allow officer discretion, but that
should be used based on the circumstances of the case and not the vehicle
type invovled.

This year alone, I've narrowly avoided being doored, side-swiped and cut
off numerous times. I even had one driver get out of his car and grab
my shoulder to try to pull me off my bike while I was at speed in the
middle
of a main downtown street. In the later case, a police report was filed.
As much as these guys deserve whatever ticket is appropriate, so do the
cyclists I see who run red lights, ride at road speeds on sidewalks and
a host of other offenses I've seen.

Incidentally, what happens when a cyclist cuts off a car and the driver
causes a collision (maybe hits a pedestrian) trying to avoid the cyclist?
Do you only start cracking down when it's too late?

Robert,


Robert Haston wrote:

...

Physics kills people. Its like the old joke, the fall doesn't kill
you - the sudden stop does. You don't change the laws, you just
base the fines on the easy math of who is the risk to whom.

Do you really think a traffic violation with a Cannodale and a
Cadillac are the same thing?

Maybe before I die I will see the beginning of a society that turns
to their professors and physicians before their politicians on such
issues.

Something to hope for. The only question who to put closer to
the bottom of the consultancy list, politicians, economists or
theologians.


maybe

I won't be holding my breath.


Randall Schulz

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:06:14 GMT, Bill Z. wrote:
Since you don't know, the facts are that the person who causes damages
is generally held responsible for the damages, either directly or
through insurance.

It depends upon insurance laws. Where I live, they have no-fault insurance.
The idea being that your insurance company pays for your repairs no matter
what. The only variable is who pays the deductible. If the police do not
lay formal blame, you are on the hook for the deductible. I have no idea
what the insurance laws are like in Florida, but then again, neither do you.

All we know is that in this case, the officer obviously felt that the
child violated traffic laws, obligating them to cite the child while they
formally lay the blame for the accident on him.

no grounds to write a citation. Citations are written only in
extreme cases.

What is extreme, a drunk driver? Running a stop sign? Failing to
yeild and cutting someone off? What this kid did WAS a serious
violation.

Are you actually dumb enough to believe a newspaper account? The
papers get the details wrong a large fraction of the time.

While newspapers do sometimes make mistakes, I read that section
of the article as largely paraphrasing the police. And as much as the
press sometimes do get things wrong, in my experience, random people
on the Internet who think they are lawyers tend to be incorrect even
more often.

They can't be compelled to pay *with* a civil suit if they don't have
the assets.

Suddenly you know these guys are poor? Anyway, assets do not have to
be liquid. Items can be siezed.

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:32:57 GMT, Robert Haston wrote:
What about a moped or a Harley? A Harley weighs several hundred pounds and
goes 6 times faster than an average cyclist. At 40 MPH a Harley has about

Am I to believe you want to issue tickets based upon the weight of the
vehicle? Should the cops carry a scale in the trunk?

Sorry, but I really don't care what someone is driving. If you cause an
accident, you deserve equal punishment regardless of your vehicle. If
you happen to be on a bike instead of a car, it's just Darwinism in action.

Just the other day I saw a car run a red light and almost t-bone someone.
If the light runner was a Harley, I certainly would expect him to get
just as harsh a punishment as the car driver might have. If you get
a Harley smack in your door you are not going to escape unscathed. So
maybe now it should be the weight of the vehicle with the injuries
sustained taken into account? Thus, you're not as guilty if nobody gets
hurt? It's just logic I simply don't get.

(sbirn) writes:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:06:14 GMT, Bill Z. wrote:
Since you don't know, the facts are that the person who causes damages
is generally held responsible for the damages, either directly or
through insurance.

It depends upon insurance laws. Where I live, they have no-fault
insurance. The idea being that your insurance company pays for your
repairs no matter what. The only variable is who pays the
deductible. If the police do not lay formal blame, you are on the
hook for the deductible. I have no idea what the insurance laws are
like in Florida, but then again, neither do you.

Then you shouldn't have been so rude, since you now admit that you
don't have any idea. Also, I was describing general principles, and
it is not necessary to issue a citation to assign blame: a police
report can do that. If some other state is braindead in that regard,
then the laws in that state need to be changed.


no grounds to write a citation. Citations are written only in
extreme cases.

What is extreme, a drunk driver? Running a stop sign? Failing to
yeild and cutting someone off? What this kid did WAS a serious
violation.

Around here, the threshold seems to be killing someone, unless an
oficer observes the accident. Significant property damage does
not suffice.


While newspapers do sometimes make mistakes, I read that section
of the article as largely paraphrasing the police.

As a friend once told another friend about to be interviewed by
the press, "now is your chance to be misquoted by the New York
Times." It may have been a different paper, but, sure enough,
he was misquoted (he was being interviewed about a research
project and they frequently get technical details wrong.)

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

I ignored him after I whois-ed his 'nuclear biodome org'. It is just the
puffed up e-mail address of a troll.


"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
(sbirn) writes:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:06:14 GMT, Bill Z.
wrote:
Since you don't know, the facts are that the person who causes damages
is generally held responsible for the damages, either directly or
through insurance.

It depends upon insurance laws. Where I live, they have no-fault
insurance. The idea being that your insurance company pays for your
repairs no matter what. The only variable is who pays the
deductible. If the police do not lay formal blame, you are on the
hook for the deductible. I have no idea what the insurance laws are
like in Florida, but then again, neither do you.

Then you shouldn't have been so rude, since you now admit that you
don't have any idea. Also, I was describing general principles, and
it is not necessary to issue a citation to assign blame: a police
report can do that. If some other state is braindead in that regard,
then the laws in that state need to be changed.


no grounds to write a citation. Citations are written only in
extreme cases.

What is extreme, a drunk driver? Running a stop sign? Failing to
yeild and cutting someone off? What this kid did WAS a serious
violation.

Around here, the threshold seems to be killing someone, unless an
oficer observes the accident. Significant property damage does
not suffice.


While newspapers do sometimes make mistakes, I read that section
of the article as largely paraphrasing the police.

As a friend once told another friend about to be interviewed by
the press, "now is your chance to be misquoted by the New York
Times." It may have been a different paper, but, sure enough,
he was misquoted (he was being interviewed about a research
project and they frequently get technical details wrong.)

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

No, knucklehead, the cop doesn't have to carry a scale. Unless we've gone
back to the days before Eli Whitney while I wasn't looking - manufactured
products have a set weight. The cop gives out the ticket, the courthouse
assess the exact fine.

And as to the ubiquitous "cyclists causes an accident" scenario, I've never
even heard of one.

So you don't care what someone is driving? You don't care whether you are
about to be T-boned by a moped or a semi?

Thanks for proving my point about outdated, overly simplistic, unscientific
road safety mentalities.

"sbirn" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:32:57 GMT, Robert Haston
wrote:
What about a moped or a Harley? A Harley weighs several hundred pounds
and
goes 6 times faster than an average cyclist. At 40 MPH a Harley has
about

Am I to believe you want to issue tickets based upon the weight of the
vehicle? Should the cops carry a scale in the trunk?

Sorry, but I really don't care what someone is driving. If you cause an
accident, you deserve equal punishment regardless of your vehicle. If
you happen to be on a bike instead of a car, it's just Darwinism in
action.

Just the other day I saw a car run a red light and almost t-bone someone.
If the light runner was a Harley, I certainly would expect him to get
just as harsh a punishment as the car driver might have. If you get
a Harley smack in your door you are not going to escape unscathed. So
maybe now it should be the weight of the vehicle with the injuries
sustained taken into account? Thus, you're not as guilty if nobody gets
hurt? It's just logic I simply don't get.

Bikes are vehicles, just like any other. I think that selective enforcement
is simply stupid. You can (and should) allow officer discretion, but that
should be used based on the circumstances of the case and not the vehicle
type invovled.

The big difference is bikes do not have motors. That makes a big
difference in terms of accident impact. For the most part they also
don't travel at full city speed limits - often 20 mph or less they are
travelling, which makes a traffic violation much less dangerous.

In reference to having bicycle and vehicle fines based on the threat they
impose other road users and accident statistics:

Gas taxes and pay at the pump insurance help accomplish the same thing. If
we all fought to eliminate property, sales and income taxes going to build
roads, pay crossing guards, provide police and fire services for wrecks,
spills, fires, etc. (the same sequestering the auto/road lobby did with gas
taxes) these would be shifted to gas taxes. More people would cycle, and
the incentive to buy big vehicles and drive them real fast would be
decreased. One can hope anyway.




"Tanya Quinn" wrote in message
om...
Bikes are vehicles, just like any other. I think that selective
enforcement
is simply stupid. You can (and should) allow officer discretion, but
that
should be used based on the circumstances of the case and not the
vehicle
type invovled.

The big difference is bikes do not have motors. That makes a big
difference in terms of accident impact. For the most part they also
don't travel at full city speed limits - often 20 mph or less they are
travelling, which makes a traffic violation much less dangerous.