|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#251
|
|||
|
|||
Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsible idiot parents refuse to pay)
|
Ads |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsible idiot parents refuse to pay)
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 16:15:11 -0500, Rick Onanian
wrote: Vegetarians and other non-cow-eaters will be eaten by the cows' pets, which will be vegetables. Did your parents buy you an encyclopedia, or did you have to walk to school? -- To absurdity, and beyond. |
#253
|
|||
|
|||
Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsible idiot parents refuse to pay)
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 23:14:28 GMT, Zippy the Pinhead
wrote: On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 16:15:11 -0500, Rick Onanian wrote: Vegetarians and other non-cow-eaters will be eaten by the cows' pets, which will be vegetables. Did your parents buy you an encyclopedia, or did you have to walk to school? I so wanted to walk, but they wouldn't allow it. I had to take the bus with all those other assholes. -- Rick Onanian |
#254
|
|||
|
|||
Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsible idiot parents refuse to pay)
|
#255
|
|||
|
|||
Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsible idiot parents refuse to pay)
Rick Onanian wrote:
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 16:24:21 -0600, Kevan Smith wrote: On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 15:36:49 -0500, Rick Onanian from The Esoteric c0wz Society wrote: tradition includes the right to a license unless you are really negligent or DO something to deserve to lose it...but a kid on a bike falling out of the sky onto your hood is no reason to lose that right. Yeah, and monkey's fly. C'mon, get real! A kid falling out of the sky on a bicycle! What? The UFOs just dropped him from a tractor beam? No, he ran his bike up a ramp. Don't you remember? Oh, the irony... Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
#257
|
|||
|
|||
Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsible idiot parents refuse to pay)
|
#258
|
|||
|
|||
Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsible idiot parents refuse to pay)
|
#259
|
|||
|
|||
Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsible idiot parents refuse to pay)
09 Nov 2003 06:35:28 GMT,
, (Hunrobe) wrote: Zoot Katz wrote: Explain how all those people that have been sent to prison for reckless homicide, vehicular homicide, involuntary manslaughter et al ended up there without investigations and prosecutions. Did they *volunteer* to go to prison? They're the ones who couldn't hire lawyers slick enough to get them reduced sentences for acts that were blatantly obvious to multiple witnesses. ---snip--- Zoot, *defendants* hire lawyers and you can't have defendants without the prosecutions you claim don't happen. I said, "rarely" happens. Cases are plea bargained down because it's too difficult to convict on the more serious charges. It's difficult to convict because jurors are afraid the same might happen to them for "just an accident". Sure, some go to court and some get a ticket and just drive home. What percentage of drivers involved in the annual ~5500 pedestrian and cyclist deaths end up doing jail time? ---snip--- What percentage of those fatal crashes are caused by reckless and/or criminally negligent drivers? We'll never know because the investigations aren't diligently prosecuted. It's too easy to write off a dead homeless pedestrian and give the suddenly clean-cut, church-going, family-man any benefit of doubt. It saves the court money. Dead peds and dead cyclists simply become the cost of doing business. It keeps people from examining the seriousness of running down another human lest they quit driving, buying cars and burning gasoline. How many unsolved hit-and-run injuries and deaths are on police files? Too many I'm sure. Many hit-and-run crashes- especially fatal ones- have no witnesses. How does that have anything to do with your claim? "rarely is recklessness or criminal negligence, or even criminal intent, investigated let alone prosecuted." Without witnesses, there's no investigation, so no prosecution simply because it would entail too much work. There's no will to pursue it unless there's sufficient public or political pressure. Without witnesses, it's too expensive to pursue. I'd say, based on W.Va. numbers, roughly 17% of injuries and deaths are caused by hit-and-run Remember the retired cyclist around Niagara Falls Ontario who was murdered on his morning ride by a punk in a car? It was filed away as a "hit-and-run accident" until a witness came forward and confessed he was in the car. IIRC, the court convicted the driver of manslaughter. He'll probably be out and driving again in two years unless he gets tagged a "dangerous offender". The current system is not working as a deterrent to reckless and dangerous driver behaviour. If I understand your point correctly then, what you are saying is that since we can't identify, arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate an acceptably high percentage of reckless and/or criminally negligent drivers we should simply assume that all drivers are reckless and/or criminally negligent. I'm saying when you load, arm and aim your car, and then launch it into a public place, you'd best be ready to accept more dire consequences than what are presently purveyed as some equitable kind of justice for having a brain fart that kills or cripples somebody. I'm saying the standard is too low for determining "negligence" when the driver is willingly, though somewhat idly, engaging in an activity that is known to regularly kill and maim those around them. I'm saying there's a cultural prejudice in favour of driving that effects how law enforcement and the courts handle the cases. It effects how media reports traffic fatalities which in turn effects how the masses think (don't think) about the actual and preventable horror. -- zk |
#260
|
|||
|
|||
Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsibleidiot parents refuse to pay)
Buck wrote:
NU design results in homes which are more expensive, provide less space (both inside the home and between homes), have street designs which are difficult to navigate in an auto, provide little or no open space for kids to safely play in, require greater maintenance, have little space for the urban forest (essential for attenuating the effects of solar gain in Texas), and are harder to patrol. They do not provide the sense of community which is something they are supposed to foster. I suppose my vision of New Urbanist design may be different than yours. (And I'm not sure what features would be on the "official list", I admit.) But I see no reason that the problems you list _must_ exist in this design scheme. For example, can't open space for kids and presence of trees be easily designed in? One could call such spaces "parks." Wouldn't local, walkable schools provide a sense of community, and wouldn't summer concerts in the parks do the same? They do in my village... and so on. As for me, I won't be buying into one.... And I probably won't - but in my case, it's largely because my current situation has most aspects of that design scheme, as I understand it. And I like it too much to leave. Ah well. Perhaps we should get back to talking about cycling. -- Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|