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

"Chalo" wrote in message
om...

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_.

This kid would have squashed the car, had the mass ratio been reversed. As
described, the driver could have avoided the accident only by being in an
alternate universe.

Ethical practice dictates that the one who imposes the risk of harm
into a situation take the responsibility for managing that risk.

Which was the kid (and his buddies who built the jump that would result in
them landing in the street).

RichC

On 28 Oct 2003 15:17:46 -0800, Chalo wrote:

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

Change the circumstances a little.
Kid playing around on a bike, doing jumps, flys out in the street. Right
in front of oncoming traffic.

The traffic, in this hypothetical, is not a car, but a pair of bike
commuters, doing about 25mph.

The kid has literally come right out in front of the commuters. Nowhere to
go, no room to stop. The kid gets bowled over. Many injuries ensue.

Would you be so adamant about it being the commuters fault if this were
the case?

Pete
Sometimes, it *is* the cyclists fault.

"Arthur Harris" wrote:
In some states, parents are only responsible for the "willful misconduct" of
their kids. If the kid didn't deliberately cause the damge, they're off the
hook. (I learned that from watching Judge Wapner on "The Peoples Court.")
Personally, I think the kid and/or parents should face some consequences.

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.
Society has no social contract with 8-year-olds that would oblige them
to observe traffic laws. And do we want a society that's safe for
cars, or one that's safe for kids? I know my answer.


That is why the parents are supposed to both properly supervise and to train
their kids.

BTW in my area ALL vehicle operators ( including all bikes) are required by
law to follow ALL applicable laws.
If you enter the road surface, either you or if you are underage, your
parents can be held responsible.

If the child is under the age of 12, 16 and 18 - the rights and
responsibilities of kids increase and those of the parents ( for said kid's
behaviour ) decrease with the child's age.

In this particular case- it appears that an improperly supervised and
trained child entered a road surface and caused damage.
It also seems that without the charge the driver, who seems to have broken
no laws would have had to pay for the damage that the kid caused.

"Chalo" wrote in message
om...

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."

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_.

Chalo,

Blanket statements like these only apply in a world that can be measured in
absolutes - black or white, no grey allowed. But there are a great many
circumstances where the party at fault is a minor and the adult involved
made every reasonable effort to prevent an accident. It is impossible to do
anything in this world without some risk. Efforts to completely eliminate
the risks associated with transporting ourselves and the goods we depend on
in the manner you suggest would cripple our economy. Nothing could move
faster than a walking pace and everything would have to be made of nerf.

If you ever watch Real TV, you may have caught one of the more spectacular
accidents involving a car and a shopping cart. In case you missed it, a
group of kids sent one of their own down an alley in a shopping cart and he
rolled into the street in front of a car. The car sent him flying. The alley
was completely blocked by the adjacent building, so the driver had NO
opportunity to miss this kid. From what you write, you would hold that
driver responsible for the wreck.

This is similar to the situation being discussed here. But the kid on the
bike had a much greater ability to control where he was going. No one pushed
him. His bike had brakes. He made a choice to get into the street. Despite
his age, I'm sure he knew better. He should be held responsible.

-Buck

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 03:53:12 GMT, "Buck" s c h w i n n _ f o r _ s
a l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m wrote:
him. His bike had brakes. He made a choice to get into the street. Despite
his age, I'm sure he knew better. He should be held responsible.

Not "despite" his age. _By_ his age, he should know better.

-Buck
--
Rick Onanian

On 27 Oct 2003 17:17:33 -0800, Chalo wrote:
It is unethical and absurd to burden a little child with the
responsibility that rightfully belongs to a car driver.

Bzzzzt! Blame goes to the peson whose actions led directly to the collision.
If the kid had been operating his bike in a safe manner, he would not have
been hurt. There is NO EVIDENCE that the driver was doing anything but
operating in a safe manner.

Are you aware of this field of science called physics? It holds a basic
tenet that objects in motion like to stay in motion. Therefore, even
on a residential street a car traveling in a safe manner at 40km/h will
not be able to stop in 2 feet. Therefore, if anyone - kid or adult - suddenly
launches into the road on a bike only 5 feet in front of the car nobody
short of superman could stop that car in time.

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.

Let's take a hypothetical situation. We have two kids who want to play
street hockey...on an interstate....in a wooded section....just around a
blind corner. The posted speed limit is 100km/h. Even if it is a perfectly
clear day, a car coming around that blind corner needs probably 100 feet or
more to stop without even taking into account reaction time. Would you
still blame the driver?

I don't really give a damn if you like cars or not. Whether you like it
or not, drivers do not get into their cars looking for people to mow down.
When collisions happen, you simply cannot automagically blame one side or
another. Just because one party may be more or less protected by their
mode of transportation does not automatically impart blame on them.

Tell me, if you climb out onto a ledge of a tall building and a big gust
of wind comes along and sends you flying is it your fault for being stupid
or is it the fault of the building owner/builder for the existence of the
building?

In article ,
"Johann S." wrote:

Arpit Said:

"He's an 8-year-old child. He does not understand what the right of
way is," She said.
-----
Gee, I wonder why this kid rides his bike in such an unsafe manner?

You Americans are crazy. (Probably the whole damn world is.) Where are
the days where a kid could just ride his bike and have fun without
worrying about helmets and **** like that? Maybe it's too crowded over
there.

According to the article, the (helmetless) kid jumped over a dirt mound,
out into the street, and into the path of a car, where he apparently
caused $500 to $1000 worth of damage to the hood he landed on, before
running away from the scene.

And his mom is bitching about a $34 ticket?

Looks like the Darwin Award candidacy is already one generation too late.

PS: I have nothing against helmets, I even own one. (Don't wear it
very often though) My point is with all the rules and regulations
these days, it must be boring to be a kid.

With kids and stunts like that, it must be never boring to be their
parent.

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
....enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
....feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
....thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"

In article ,
"Arthur Harris" wrote:

"Hunrobe" wrote:

It rarely happens but here in Illinois if a child is fined by a
judge the parents are held responsible for payment. Even if the
original charge is a non-jailable offense a parent's refusal to pay
(as opposed to inability to pay) can result in a contempt citation
and contempt of court *is* jailable. I doubt it would happen but it
could be interesting.

In some states, parents are only responsible for the "willful misconduct" of
their kids. If the kid didn't deliberately cause the damge, they're off the
hook. (I learned that from watching Judge Wapner on "The Peoples Court.")

Really? You mean if little Johnny 'accidentally' hits a home run through
Mr. Wilson's living room window, neither Johnny nor John Sr. has to pay?

Personally, I think the kid and/or parents should face some consequences.

Same here.

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
....enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
....feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
....thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"

In article ,
(Chalo) wrote:

"Arthur Harris" wrote:

In some states, parents are only responsible for the "willful misconduct" of
their kids. If the kid didn't deliberately cause the damge, they're off the
hook. (I learned that from watching Judge Wapner on "The Peoples Court.")

Personally, I think the kid and/or parents should face some consequences.

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.

You're sounding like a troll with a prejudice against cars and
favoritism toward bikes. The article spoke of no "mowing down children"
but rather that a child darted into the vehicle's path. Had the oncoming
vehicle been another bicycle, even it would have been hard-pressed to
avoid a collision and the 8-year-old would clearly have been at fault.

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

Actually, society does. Through their legal guardians. In fact, the
converse is even stronger: 8-year-olds (and the guardians responsible
for them) have a contract with society to observe traffic laws. Do your
children run uncontrollably into traffic or ride their bikes to mow down
pedestrians, or do you teach them otherwise?

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

Unfortunately, your question is flawed. You're erroneously implying that
the two are mutually exclusive. (For instance, how about a society safe
for kids in cars?)

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
....enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
....feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
....thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"

Van Bagnol wrote:

You're sounding like a troll with a prejudice against cars and
favoritism toward bikes. The article spoke of no "mowing down children"
but rather that a child darted into the vehicle's path.

Had the driver been operating not a car but some other kind of deadly
machine-- say, a trench cutter or an agricultural combine-- in a
residential neighborhood, in such a way as to be unable to stop if a
child got in the way, he/she would be held to a moral standard. "What
the heck did you think you were doing barrelling such a thing around
like that in a neighborhood, you jerk?" would be a predictable and
appropriate response. But because driving is so pervasive and
exempted from moral judgement, we don't hold the same collective
standards for car drivers that we do for other machine operators, even
though cars cause orders of magnitude more deaths, injuries, and
costly accidents.

Collectively we understand that cluster bombs and land mines are
dangerous machines that hurt or kill by their very nature. We do not
hold children at fault when they are hurt or killed by such devices,
even if they _should_ know better than to touch them.

Cars are also proven to hurt and kill routinely, even when used
"correctly". As you have pointed out, there was nothing the driver
could have done in operating of the car, in the case at hand, that
would have prevented the accident and subsequent damage.

What the driver could have done is not use a car, a proven dangerous
machine, to do a routine task like personal transportation.

Had the oncoming
vehicle been another bicycle, even it would have been hard-pressed to
avoid a collision and the 8-year-old would clearly have been at fault.

The likelihood that this would happen, and the likelihood that damage,
injury, or death would result if it did happen, are miniscule compared
to the same if a car were involved. So your parallel is spurious.
You could conceivably make the same case for a person on foot, but
that comparison would be flawed in a similar way.

It's not even about how an occasional and inevitable accident comes to
pass. It's about the reasonably foreseeable results when it does
happen. We conveniently choose to ignore the horrors and tragedies
inflicted upon innocents and non-participants that are an inseparable
part of car driving, opting instead to divert accountability to the
victims. This is bunk.

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

Unfortunately, your question is flawed. You're erroneously implying that
the two are mutually exclusive. (For instance, how about a society safe
for kids in cars?)

How about a society safe for kids in self-propelled howitzers? The
two _are_ mutually exclusive. We have a society that is safe for
cars, and therefore unsafe for kids.

The times will change, and the moral contradictions undertaken by the
car-driving society will seem as corrupt as those which upheld the
institution of slavery. Ultimately, no amount of profit can justify
the cost of car driving in lives or in quality of life.

Chalo Colina