Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsible idiot parents refuse to pay)

(sbirn) wrote:

I have nothing against kids being kids...but if you hit a car and damage
it, then you own up to what you did. If you want to jump off dirt into
the street, it's your call. But if you kill someone or get killed, just
remember that it's your fault and not theirs.

Kids on bikes kill no one.

It is unethical and absurd to burden a little child with the
responsibility that rightfully belongs to a car driver.

Cars are deadly, and fallaciously shifting the blame to the victim
does not put the victim at fault. It only indicts your reasoning as
broken.

Chalo Colina

"Chalo" wrote in message
om...

Parents whose values were not
grossly skewed by car-centrism would be more likely to track down the
person whose motor-driven careless disregard nearly killed their kid,
and lay on an ass whipping that would leave him/her somewhere between
remorseful and permanently disabled.

Troll.
Note that it's multiply posted within this thread.

"Chalo" wrote in message
om...

Society has no social contract with 8-year-olds that would oblige them
to observe traffic laws.

Their parents signed the contract.

And do we want a society that's safe for
cars, or one that's safe for kids? I know my answer.

We certainly don't want a society that teaches kids they're not responsible
for their actions until they become adults. Oh, wait, we already have one.
The one where metal detectors have to be installed at school entrances.

RichC

Chalo wrote:

The Real Bev wrote:

But in this case the kid DID get caught. Sensible parents would make
him pay restitution, pay something additional for punishment, and give
him some extra punishment for being careless and getting caught.

Don't know what you mean by "sensible". Parents whose values were not
grossly skewed by car-centrism

Ah, I see, you're here to spew. Third door on the left. You'll be
confronting Mr. Jones, who believes that all bicyclists should be
killed. Have a nice day.

would be more likely to track down the
person whose motor-driven careless disregard nearly killed their kid,
and lay on an ass whipping that would leave him/her somewhere between
remorseful and permanently disabled.

Their kid intruded into the space reserved for cars. One of the first
things you teach a kid is STAY OUT OF THE STREET unless certain
conditions are met. Such conditions vary with the age of the kid. An
8-year-old ought to know where he can and can't ride his bicycle, and
it's the kids' parents' responsibility to teach him. That's what
parents do.

Why would you wish to live in a world where children must pay the
price so that adult motorists can escape the consequences of their
actions?

God told you to say that, right?

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ============
"Arguing on the internet is like running a race in the Special
Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded."

Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:57:41 -0800, ,
The Real Bev wrote:

Their kid intruded into the space reserved for cars.

Somebody's private garage?
--
zk

Zoot Katz

wrote:

The Real Bev wrote:

Their kid intruded into the space reserved for cars.

Somebody's private garage?

I think what Bev meant to say is "... the space reserved for those that know
and follow the basic rules of the road."

Regards,
Bob Hunt

28 Oct 2003 07:14:09 GMT,
,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

Their kid intruded into the space reserved for cars.

Somebody's private garage?

I think what Bev meant to say is "... the space reserved for those that know
and follow the basic rules of the road."

Yes, them. And evidently those who'll just drive anyway.
--
zk

The Real Bev wrote:

Their kid intruded into the space reserved for cars.

By which you mean, the transportation infrastructure provided for the
use of all citizens? The one that kid cyclists get to use without
qualification, but that motorists must be licensed to use? Is that
the one you mean?

One of the first
things you teach a kid is STAY OUT OF THE STREET unless certain
conditions are met.

And a cardinal rule for car drivers (a litmus test for whether a
driver has screwed up, even) is "don't run into/over children under
any circumstances."

An 8-year-old ought to know where he can and can't ride his bicycle,
and it's the kids' parents' responsibility to teach him. That's what
parents do.

And it is a driver's responsibility to operate his or her vehicle in
such a way as not to squash kids. Even if that means _slowing down_,
or (God forbid!) _stopping_.

Ethical practice dictates that the one who imposes the risk of harm
into a situation take the responsibility for managing that risk. And
when it comes to anything other than cars, folks understand this
principle. For instance, if someone went out shooting a gun in an
assumed safe direction (for celebration, or warning, or whatever) and
someone else were shot and injured as a result, it would not matter to
most people that the gunman wasn't aiming to shoot anybody in
particular. He would still bear responsibility for the harm done.
The shooting victim would not be held responsible simply for being in
the line of fire.

Because driving is so pervasive, drivers do not see their activity as
tantamount to shooting around into the community, but it is. It kills
something like 4 to 5 times as many USA folks in a given year as are
killed by gunshot. (And the USA is the gunshot-killinest nation in
the developed world by a huge margin.)

Why would you wish to live in a world where children must pay the
price so that adult motorists can escape the consequences of their
actions?

God told you to say that, right?

I don't see what anybody's God has to do with it. It's basic ethics,
which belong to no religion.

Chalo Colina

"Sorni" wrote:

"Chalo" wrote:

What a load of crap. Any motorist who can't drive such as to avoid
mowing down children should be stripped of the right, and quickly.

So the next time a kid runs out from a hidden driveway or something in front
of you on your bike, you'll take full responsibility for both of your
injuries -- AND give up your "right" to ride?!?

If you won't morally distinguish between riding a bike-- which imposes
a risk on others less than that of lightning strikes, bee stings, or
choking on a wiener-- and driving a car, which kills thousands of
non-motorists in the USA every year, you must be actively trying to
justify your own morally indefensible conduct.

Every time you drive a car you accept a significant risk of hurting or
killing someone who had no part in your decision to drive. If a
non-motorist gets hurt or killed as a result, the responsibility lies
with you, the one who made the difference between an accident, and an
accident with injury or death.

Chalo Colina

Nothing 'chumpy' about these statements! I have often disagreed with all of
what this poster has said BUT NOT THIS.

What he is saying is correct and proper and how he's saying it is almost
strong enough.

Gracias Senior!


"Chalo" wrote in message
om...
If you won't morally distinguish between riding a bike-- which imposes
a risk on others less than that of lightning strikes, bee stings, or
choking on a wiener-- and driving a car, which kills thousands of
non-motorists in the USA every year, you must be actively trying to
justify your own morally indefensible conduct.

Every time you drive a car you accept a significant risk of hurting or
killing someone who had no part in your decision to drive. If a
non-motorist gets hurt or killed as a result, the responsibility lies
with you, the one who made the difference between an accident, and an
accident with injury or death.

Chalo Colina