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

Dane Jackson wrote:

Even at $6.00 a gallon I'm sure you'll have lots of people driving. But
living 60 or 70 miles from your job will become very unpopular. SUV's
will suffer rather a drastic drop-off's in sales. Mass transit will
become more popular.

I'm rather fond of the idea myself.

Its chief appeal is that it is straightforward enough that it could
actually happen. Levying a colossal tax that falls disproportionally
on those of modest means is something the gov't could actually be
persuaded to do. Assuring that the resultant squillions of dollars of
instant revenue actually went to something benign would be another
matter entirely.

It's not like they would be disposed to spend the booty on transit
infrastructure, is it?

Chalo

In article , says...

"David Kerber" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

...

Since almost every adult drives, or derives benefit from driving
(schlepping
rides from friends), almost every adult contributes into the costs of
driving. Some of it is car registration, some gas tax, some comes from
the
general pot of tax money (income, sales, whatever).

Since there really is no external source of money, it all comes from
internal sources. We *all* pay. And, since we *all* drive....

Should the actual costs of driving be associated with fees for driving?
Yes.
All of the road construction, maintenance, police presence, medical,
etc,
etc should come directly from fees associated with driving.
Currently, they are not.

How do you get money from cyclists for the benefit they get from the
roads, if all the fees are associated with cars? Cyclists get a *lot*
of benefit from those roads...

Get benefit, yes. But also, cause basically zero wear and tear.

And since almost all adult cyclists are or were or will be motorists at
times...

However - a common yelling point among non-cyclists is "We pay for these
roads! Get your bikes off of it" might become even more common. and even
somewhat justified. By attitude if not elgally.

We don't want to go down that road.

That was kind of my point. If we *all* pay part of it, it's a lot
easier to claim we have a right to use it (provided other requirements
are met).


--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

Fri, 07 Nov 2003 17:55:36 GMT, ,
Mike Latondresse wrote:

Zoot Katz wrote in
:


That so-called consensus has been necessitated by the road gang's
determining the direction our society would take. The mouthpiece
media depends on their advertising dollars so their agenda is
pumped into our brains from birth creating a population duped into
slavery.

Gee Zoot with that attitude have you ever considered taking part in a
CM ride, and to emphasize your participation do something funky like
wear a costume, say a dinosaur suit?

Riding naked gets more attention.

While that summation appears a bit over-the-top, it's not. I've worked
with guys who can't afford lunch on payday because they put their last
five bucks in the gas tank to get to work to pick up their cheque.
Guys who'd beg for overtime so they could afford the car payment when
the insurance was due too. Their cars took priority because they
'needed' them so they could keep coming to work to pay for them.
Sounds like a form of slavery to me.

Consider that there are more cars than licensed drivers. Something is
driving this. Look at the amount of car advertising we're bombarded
with. Cars came to represent social status and sex appeal.

"What? I can sell my soul to GMAC in return for everlasting
gratification and freedom! Sure, sign me up."

Lots more people could qualify for mortgages and end up getting real
equity if they weren't supporting a car. Housing would be more
affordable if it weren't necessarily so large to facilitate also
housing the car required to get there. By 'owning' a stake in the
community, people take more care of what happens there.

Cars became a necessity for many people when the road gang pulled up
the trolley tracks and started shuffling populations to the new
suburbs served solely by the roads they lobbied to get.

It's a totally contrived and manipulated way to live. The
infrastructure created for this auto dependent lifestyle is
insidiously detrimental to the way people relate to each other. Partly
by creating huge barrens of concrete and asphalt that are not
conducive to human interaction. Concentrating our activity zones in
these barrens sends us the message that it's not our place.

How many sidewalk cafes do you see along Kingsway?

It's twisted.
--
zk

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 17:59:21 -0600, Kevan Smith
wrote:

[...]

Suffrage is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. So are the other things you
mention. Driving a car is not. Further, having your driving privileges revoked
in no way interferes with your "freedom of movement," since other transport
methods just as fast or faster exist (bus, plane, taxi, etc.). Yes, you might
lose a little convenience, but punishment isn't meant to be convenient.

A right in the sense I am using it is something that is due to a person or
governmental body by law, tradition, or nature. A driver's license under this
sense is not a right. A liberty is very similar: a right or immunity to engage
in certain actions without control or interference. Driving is most definitely
NOT a liberty in that sense, because we demand control of it for safety.

Perhaps someone could argue, based on the Second Amendment, that
motorists who use their cars as weapons should not be restricted from
driving them.

Of course for that to work one would have to ignore that whole
'militia' thing and that would be downright nutty.

Kevan Smith

wrote:

IF my position is indefensible, why are you compelled to keep attacking it
with
farcical hypothetical situations? There's a very good case to be made to
revoke
the drivers license of people who kill or seriously injure others with an
automobile. Since you view driving as a right and not a privilege, you just
can't see the merits of the case.

Firstly, I don't recall proposing *any* hypothetical situations to challenge
your argument. I certainly can't claim credit for the one you were responding
to. Secondly, you've now progressed from avoiding the question to deriding the
question. If it's farcical, why not simply answer it and so expose it as
ridiculous? Thirdly, I've had a direct hand in suspending/revoking the driving
licenses of literally hundreds of bad, careless drivers not to mention having
helped send scores of those drivers that kill and injure others through their
recklessness or criminal negligence to prison where they don't drive at all.
How you reconcile that reality with your allegation (your *baseless* allegation
BTW) that I view driving as a right not a privilege, I truly don't know.

Finally, let's be clear on the question at hand. I and others have said that
drivers that injure or kill *through their recklessness and/or criminal
negligence* should suffer severe consequences. You and a few others have said
that if a motor vehicle is involved no recklessness or criminal negligence
needs to be shown. Showing that there was injury or death is sufficient for
imposing punishment on the motor vehicle operator.

Now go ahead and defend that position or retract your earlier statements.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Kevan Smith

wrote in part:

A right

****in the sense I am using it****
[my emphasis added]

is something that is due to a person or
governmental body by law, tradition, or nature. A driver's license under this
sense is not a right. A liberty is very similar: a right or immunity to
engage
in certain actions without control or interference

You insist on substituting your own personal philosophical definitions for
legal ones. We're discussing the *law* Kev, not your personal philosophy so
your own personal definitions are meaningless.
Under US law driving is most definitely a "civil liberty" in the legal sense
and whether you like it or not the courts, up to and including the US Supreme
Court, have held that denying an individual the privilege to drive *without due
process* interferes with their Constitutional guarantee of freedom of movement.

That's the crux of our disagreement. You seem willing to trash due process
because:
1- it's easier and
2- it happens to achieve a result that you desire, namely fewer cars.
If I proposed similiarly trashing due process in the handling of criminal
complaints you'd be howling for the ACLU. If someone proposed trashing due
process in non-criminal matters- denying a hearing to cyclists ticketed for
disobeying red lights for instance- you'd be livid. It seems then that with you
it's just a question of whose ox is being gored.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

(Steven M. O'Neill)

wrote:

Freedom of movement and operatating a motor vehicle are not the
same thing.

Maybe not to you or I and maybe it *shouldn't* be for anyone but US courts have
consistently held that denying a person driving privileges can significantly
impact their rights to freedom of association and movement. That's why
suspending or revoking a person's driving license requires due process.
The argument Kev and I are having isn't one where I say we shouldn't deny or
revoke the driving privileges of reckless or criminally negligent drivers while
Kev says we should. Its one where I'm saying that simply driving a motor
vehicle doesn't exclude a person from the right to due process while he thinks
it should.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

"Hunrobe" wrote
Maybe not to you or I and maybe it *shouldn't* be for anyone but US courts
have
consistently held that denying a person driving privileges can
significantly
impact their rights to freedom of association and movement.

Not necessarily.
http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss10.asp#ucc

("the appellant asserts that the state ... has unduly infringed upon his
'right to travel' by requiring licensing and registarion .... However,
contrary to his assertions, at no time did the State of Tennessee place
constraints upon the appellant's exercise of this right. His right to
travel ... remains unimpeded.... Rather, based upon the context of his
argument, the appellant asserts an infringement upon his right to operate a
motor vehicle on the public highways of this state. This notion is wholly
separate from the right to travel. The ability to drive a motor vehicle on
a public highway is not a fundamental 'right'. Instead, it is a revocable
'privilege' that is granted upon compliance with statutory licensing
procedures.");
-Quackenbush v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 454, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 271

("The right to operate a motor vehicle is wholly a creation of state law;
it certainly is not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, and nothing
in that document or in our state constitution has even the slightest
appearance or an implicit guarantee of that right. The plaintiff's argument
that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its
relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel ... is utterly
frivolous. The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate
by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by
someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here is not his right
to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public
highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a
fundamental right.")
-Berberian v. Petit (RI 1977) 374 A2d 791, 86 ALR3d 468

("The right to travel on public highways is not absolute. It is subject to
reasonable regulation by the state, pursuant to the police power granted by
the Constitution. We have previously held that the motor vehicle codes are
a valid use of police power. We have also previously held that requiring
automobile insurance coverage and the registration of vehicles is a valid
use of the police power and does not violate the due process requirements of
the US Constitution.")
-State v. R.E. Wilson (Mont.Supm unpub 12/3/98);

"The state of Missouri, by making the licensing requirements in question,
is not prohibiting Davis from expressing or practicing his religious beliefs
or from traveling throughout this land. If he wishes, he may walk, ride a
bicycle or horse, or travel as a passenger in an automobile, bus, airplane
or helicopter. He cannot, however, operate a moto vehicle on the public
highways without ... a valid operator's license."
-State v. Davis (Mo.App 1988) 745 SW2d 249;

As the US Supreme Court noted in 1915, "The movement of motor vehicles over
the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and
is also abnormally destructive to the [high]ways themselves. ... [A] state
may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and
order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles -
those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. ... This is but an
exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states
and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of
their citizens."
- Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610;


But yes...still requires some sort of juducuary process to remove someone's
license.

That's why
suspending or revoking a person's driving license requires due process.
The argument Kev and I are having isn't one where I say we shouldn't deny
or
revoke the driving privileges of reckless or criminally negligent drivers
while
Kev says we should. Its one where I'm saying that simply driving a motor
vehicle doesn't exclude a person from the right to due process while he
thinks
it should.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

08 Nov 2003 02:32:04 GMT,
,
(Hunrobe) wrote:


Finally, let's be clear on the question at hand. I and others have said that
drivers that injure or kill *through their recklessness and/or criminal
negligence* should suffer severe consequences. You and a few others have said
that if a motor vehicle is involved no recklessness or criminal negligence
needs to be shown. Showing that there was injury or death is sufficient for
imposing punishment on the motor vehicle operator.

Yep, when drivers get into the car they know there is virtually no
chance of their being injured in a crash with a pedestrian or
bicyclist. I claim that rarely is recklessness or criminal negligence,
or even criminal intent, investigated let alone prosecuted. People
know they've a pretty good chance to get away with murder when the
weapon is a car. Why? Because of the programmed social deference
toward driving.

The distracted van driver who killed the cyclist was immediately
excused by the police saying, "this was an accident". The guy in
Florida was allowed to plead no contest because he didn't feel
responsible for putting 15 people in hospital. He at least lost his
license.

That's what should happen in the cases where fifty percent of more
fault can be ascribed to the driver and in all cases involving
debilitating injury or death. These types of cases must be more
rigourously prosecuted. The status quo is ludicrously weighted in
favour of the parties with much less personal stake in a collision.

Up their ante to keep them interested in the game.
--
zk

Kevan Smith

wrote:

Yes, that's a fair statement of what I think, the "punishment" being
revocation
of a driver's license.

Restating a position does not constitute defending that position so the
question remains, "punishment" for what? Absent criminal intent, recklessness,
or gross negligence what you are proposing is punishment for a result not an
act so try this-

A bus driver strikes and kills a pedestrian that steps off the curb in the
driver's blind spot. How shall we punish the *passengers* on that bus?

If there were no riders on that route then there would be no bus to squash the
pedestrian. That the riders performed no act- besides getting on the bus- is
immaterial under your theory. The result was a death so there must be
punishment. Revoke their bus passes immediately.

Regards,
Bob Hunt