8 year bike rider accident with truck- who's liable?

[[email protected]]

I read the earlier posts regarding an eight year old bicyclist and a
car colliding in Florida. How about this one. The 8 year old was
riding a 3 year old siblings bike, and went up into a neighbor's
driveway to go around a backing up truck. The driver could not see the
bicyclist and the child fell off the bike and driver ran over child.
The spouse saw it as it was happening, and got the driver to stop and
go forward, so only one tire hit the child. The bycyclist apologized
afterwards, but then due to head injuries, child no longer remembers.
The driver was not ticketed and police told the driver there was no way
the driver could have seen the bicyclist ( by the way- who was NOT
wearing a helmet- which is Florida law ). The babysitters were drug
users, drug dealers, alcoholics- and their own children have been seen
playing with knives and bow and arrows outside, unwatched. Now the
driver and spouse are being sued for negligence. Who's negligent here?
They have been told that even though they were not negligent, they
don't stand much of a chance because it's a child involved. Granted,
the child was only eight, but an intelligent child who made a bad
judgment call- but why are the driver and spouse negligent when there
was no way to have seen the child? What about the babysitters? The
parents? If the child had a helmet on, the injuries would have been
less severe.

[Roger Zoul]

Simple: If you can't see where you're driving, then don't drive there. The
driver is supposed to be sure the way is clear before proceeding. The
driver is at fault.

Whether or not the kid had a helmet on has NOTHING to do with anything,
neither does the other stuff you mention.

wrote:
:: I read the earlier posts regarding an eight year old bicyclist and a
:: car colliding in Florida. How about this one. The 8 year old was
:: riding a 3 year old siblings bike, and went up into a neighbor's
:: driveway to go around a backing up truck. The driver could not see
:: the bicyclist and the child fell off the bike and driver ran over
:: child. The spouse saw it as it was happening, and got the driver to
:: stop and go forward, so only one tire hit the child. The bycyclist
:: apologized afterwards, but then due to head injuries, child no
:: longer remembers. The driver was not ticketed and police told the
:: driver there was no way the driver could have seen the bicyclist (
:: by the way- who was NOT wearing a helmet- which is Florida law ).
:: The babysitters were drug users, drug dealers, alcoholics- and their
:: own children have been seen playing with knives and bow and arrows
:: outside, unwatched. Now the driver and spouse are being sued for
:: negligence. Who's negligent here? They have been told that even
:: though they were not negligent, they don't stand much of a chance
:: because it's a child involved. Granted, the child was only eight,
:: but an intelligent child who made a bad judgment call- but why are
:: the driver and spouse negligent when there was no way to have seen
:: the child? What about the babysitters? The parents? If the
:: child had a helmet on, the injuries would have been less severe.

[[email protected]]

The driver could see the driveway where he/she was backing up, the
driver just couldn't see a child on a little bike go up the side of
driver's driveway and behind. You can only do so much with mirrors and
trust others to know the difference. A truck is running, a truck is
backing up... hmmm.. maybe I should wait on the sidewalk for driver to
get past the sidewalk, or just go somewhere else. Helmet does matter-
it's Florida law- it's purpose is to protect your head incase of an
accident!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What are you a lawyer? You sound like you know everything. You make
it sound so simple-

Roger Zoul wrote:
> Simple: If you can't see where you're driving, then don't drive there. The
> driver is supposed to be sure the way is clear before proceeding. The
> driver is at fault.
>
> Whether or not the kid had a helmet on has NOTHING to do with anything,
> neither does the other stuff you mention.
>
>

[[email protected]]

Florida law states that children have to wear a helmet- this was passed
to prevent injury to the head if they fall, or are in an accident. How
can that not be important??? And by the way, it was clear before they
backed up, the child came around AS they were backing up. The police
said there was no way they could have seen her, but I guess you know
better than the police who were there at the time.

Roger Zoul wrote:
> Simple: If you can't see where you're driving, then don't drive there. The
> driver is supposed to be sure the way is clear before proceeding. The
> driver is at fault.
>
> Whether or not the kid had a helmet on has NOTHING to do with anything,
> neither does the other stuff you mention.
>
> > :: child had a helmet on, the injuries would have been less severe.

[Roger Zoul]

wrote:
:: Florida law states that children have to wear a helmet- this was
:: passed to prevent injury to the head if they fall, or are in an
:: accident. How can that not be important??? And by the way, it was
:: clear before they backed up, the child came around AS they were
:: backing up. The police said there was no way they could have seen
:: her, but I guess you know better than the police who were there at
:: the time.
::

A helmet has nothing to do with fault. A helmet isn't a guarantee for
anything.

Were the police there when this happened? Were you there? If so, why didn't
they or you get the child out of the way? The police aren't lawyers either.
if the driver got in the car, he/she should have noticed if someone could
*potentially* get in they way of backing up and taken that into account
before backing up. One has the responsibility of being sure of conditions
before moving the car. Sorry, but that they way it is and should be.
Someone moving from a stopped position has the best chance of avoiding an
accident.

You sound as if you're the one who ran over this child. Are you?


:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Simple: If you can't see where you're driving, then don't drive
::: there. The driver is supposed to be sure the way is clear before
::: proceeding. The driver is at fault.
:::
::: Whether or not the kid had a helmet on has NOTHING to do with
::: anything, neither does the other stuff you mention.
:::
:::::: child had a helmet on, the injuries would have been less severe.

[Roger Zoul]

I see. You did run over this poor innocent child, didn't you?

wrote:
:: The driver could see the driveway where he/she was backing up, the
:: driver just couldn't see a child on a little bike go up the side of
:: driver's driveway and behind. You can only do so much with mirrors
:: and trust others to know the difference. A truck is running, a
:: truck is backing up... hmmm.. maybe I should wait on the sidewalk
:: for driver to get past the sidewalk, or just go somewhere else.
:: Helmet does matter- it's Florida law- it's purpose is to protect
:: your head incase of an
::
accident!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:: What are you a lawyer? You sound like you know everything. You
:: make it sound so simple-
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Simple: If you can't see where you're driving, then don't drive
::: there. The driver is supposed to be sure the way is clear before
::: proceeding. The driver is at fault.
:::
::: Whether or not the kid had a helmet on has NOTHING to do with
::: anything, neither does the other stuff you mention.

[[email protected]]

Get off the soapbox!! Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me
the driver! I feel very bad for all the parties involved, but as a
driver, and knowing there are circumstances out there that are
unavoidable... I was interested in how other people saw this situation.
You need to take a pill! According to what you are saying, then
nobody should drive anywhere because there are possibilities
everywhere! Not very realistic.

[Roger Zoul]

wrote:
:: Get off the soapbox!! Just because I disagree with you doesn't make
:: me the driver! I feel very bad for all the parties involved, but as
:: a driver, and knowing there are circumstances out there that are
:: unavoidable... I was interested in how other people saw this
:: situation. You need to take a pill! According to what you are
:: saying, then nobody should drive anywhere because there are
:: possibilities everywhere! Not very realistic.

According to your logic, a driver is never at fault. he/she can always say
I didn't see XX in any situation.

You get off the soapbox. I told you my thoughts and you starting saying
stuff like "are you a lawyer", "you sound as if you know everything," etc.

If you drive a car, you must accept a lot of responsibility for doing so.
One is making sure you don't run down kids who may be playing near your car.
A driver as a responsiblity to make his/her self aware of the surroundings.
Your comments simply help to allow drivers to get away with being
irresponsible mindless morons with cell phones and big macs.

[nash]

Shouldn't people in Florida honk the horn when they back up especially when
you cannot see what is behind you. The eight year old would have known then
what to do. Otherwise she does not have a chance in hell.

[[email protected]]

Maybe that's a idea, hit your horn. Maybe all new vehicles should be
required to have that back up (beeping ) indicator that some commercial
vehicles have. I would think an eight year old would be old enough to
realize that they couldn't ride behind a moving vehicle.

nash wrote:
> Shouldn't people in Florida honk the horn when they back up especially when
> you cannot see what is behind you. The eight year old would have known then
> what to do. Otherwise she does not have a chance in hell.

In article m>,
says...
> Maybe that's a idea, hit your horn. Maybe all new vehicles should be
> required to have that back up (beeping ) indicator that some commercial
> vehicles have. I would think an eight year old would be old enough to
> realize that they couldn't ride behind a moving vehicle.

Actually, it's an excellent idea, especially with the truly awful rear
visibility out of many SUVs and minivans.

Backup alarms are available aftermarket for around $20 built into a
backup-light bulb base. If a driver can't remember to honk before
backing up with inadequate visibility, making it automatic makes sense.

--
is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Books for Bicycle Mechanics and Tinkerers:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/bikebooks.html>

In article om>,
says...
> I read the earlier posts regarding an eight year old bicyclist and a
> car colliding in Florida. How about this one. The 8 year old was
> riding a 3 year old siblings bike, and went up into a neighbor's
> driveway to go around a backing up truck. The driver could not see the
> bicyclist and the child fell off the bike and driver ran over child.
> The spouse saw it as it was happening, and got the driver to stop and
> go forward, so only one tire hit the child. The bycyclist apologized
> afterwards, but then due to head injuries, child no longer remembers.
> The driver was not ticketed and police told the driver there was no way
> the driver could have seen the bicyclist ( by the way- who was NOT
> wearing a helmet- which is Florida law ). The babysitters were drug
> users, drug dealers, alcoholics- and their own children have been seen
> playing with knives and bow and arrows outside, unwatched. Now the
> driver and spouse are being sued for negligence. Who's negligent here?


One important thing to remember in civil suits is that anyone can sue
anybody for anything. Being sued doesn't mean you're liable, it means
the other party wants you to be found liable. Big difference. That's
why auto insurance covers defense costs as well as liability, so you
don't have to pay every time someone claims you were at fault.

Fault will be for the judge or jury to decide, of course. It's not up
to the police to decide -- they can decide not to cite the driver for a
violation, but that's a separate question from civil liability for
negligence. The police report may be useful evidence in rebutting the
claim of liability, but it's not the definitive answer.

In deciding who is liable, the judge or jury will attempt to evaluate
whether the driver took due care in the operation of the car, and
whether the child took the care one could expect of a child cyclist.

What exactly were the driver's obligations under the law? It may go
beyond the basic duty to take due care to avoid collisions. What do
Florida laws say about the duties of a driver who is backing up?

Failure to wear a helmet does not cause an accident, and obviously the
child's head was not what the motorist ran over, or else the child would
be dead -- helmets do not, and are not designed to, protect against
collision with a motor vehicle. It is possible the court will find the
failure to wear a helmet contributed to the severity of the accident,
but it cannot have contributed to the cause of the accident.


--
is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>

[[email protected]]

On 29 Nov 2006 08:12:52 -0800, wrote:

>The driver could see the driveway where he/she was backing up, the
>driver just couldn't see a child on a little bike go up the side of
>driver's driveway and behind. You can only do so much with mirrors and
>trust others to know the difference. A truck is running, a truck is
>backing up... hmmm.. maybe I should wait on the sidewalk for driver to
>get past the sidewalk, or just go somewhere else. Helmet does matter-
>it's Florida law- it's purpose is to protect your head incase of an
>accident!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


No, its purpose is to make money for cycle helmet manufacturers.

[[email protected]]

On 29 Nov 2006 08:47:19 -0800, wrote:

>Florida law states that children have to wear a helmet- this was passed
>to prevent injury to the head if they fall, or are in an accident. How
>can that not be important???

Perhaps it is because nomatter what a politician _says_ is the reason
that the law was passed, it does not change the _fact_ that cycle
helmets do _not_ have a positive effect of the health of cyclists. The
simple point is that they do not "work". They are good for the
manufacturers, and sometimes good for the politicians, but they are
not good for the population.

Did you believe the politicians when they told you they wouldn't raise
taxes?

[Paul Hobson]

_____________________
/| /| | | |
||__|| | | DO NOT FEED |
/ O O\__ | THE TROLLS |
/ \ | kthxbye |
/ \ \|_____________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____


sorry. I thought it was cute and applied.
\\paul

[Roger Zoul]

Paul Hobson wrote:
:: _____________________
:: /| /| | | |
:: ||__|| | | DO NOT FEED |
:: / O O\__ | THE TROLLS |
:: / \ | kthxbye |
:: / \ \|_____________________|
:: / _ \ \ ||
:: / |\____\ \ ||
:: / | | | |\____/ ||
:: / \|_|_|/ | _||
:: / / \ |____| ||
:: / | | | --|
:: | | | |____ --|
:: * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
:: *-- _--\ _ \ | ||
:: / _ \\ | / `
:: * / \_ /- | | |
:: * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____
::
::
:: sorry. I thought it was cute and applied.
:: \\paul

Don't feed the trolls, troll the trolls!

[tim]

I don't get it the connection - anyway, several of us were discussing
this truck-bike accident 'around the watercooler' and the general
consensus here is, while we feel really bad for the child, and the
driver, we do feel the driver is not completely negligent- if at all.
The child was old enough to know better. If it had been say a
preschool aged child, there would really be a difficulty putting any
responsibilty on that child. But that doesn't make the driver any more
responsible. I guess that's why it's referred to as an 'accident'. We
are curious- whereabouts did this happen?

[Roger Zoul]

tim wrote:
:: I don't get it the connection - anyway, several of us were
:: discussing this truck-bike accident 'around the watercooler' and the
:: general consensus here is, while we feel really bad for the child,
:: and the driver, we do feel the driver is not completely negligent-
:: if at all. The child was old enough to know better. If it had been
:: say a preschool aged child, there would really be a difficulty
:: putting any responsibilty on that child. But that doesn't make the
:: driver any more responsible. I guess that's why it's referred to as
:: an 'accident'. We are curious- whereabouts did this happen?

IMO, it is clear. You're stopped, you're moving backwards. If you can't see
or don't know what's behind you, don't move. You can simply look before you
get in the car.

How can any responsibility be put on an 8-year old child? Children develop
at different rates and you can't claim to know what whether a kid should
know better. That's what the word "child" means. Each of us has a
responsibility here. But it seems that once we get into a car, we want to
be absolved of those responsibilities because we don't wish to be
inconvenienced by having making sure we know the road is clear to drive on.

[Werehatrack]

On 29 Nov 2006 06:49:16 -0800, wrote:

>I read the earlier posts regarding an eight year old bicyclist and a
>car colliding in Florida. How about this one. The 8 year old was
>riding a 3 year old siblings bike, and went up into a neighbor's
>driveway to go around a backing up truck. The driver could not see the
>bicyclist and the child fell off the bike and driver ran over child.
>The spouse saw it as it was happening, and got the driver to stop and
>go forward, so only one tire hit the child. The bycyclist apologized
>afterwards, but then due to head injuries, child no longer remembers.
>The driver was not ticketed and police told the driver there was no way
>the driver could have seen the bicyclist ( by the way- who was NOT
>wearing a helmet- which is Florida law ). The babysitters were drug
>users, drug dealers, alcoholics- and their own children have been seen
>playing with knives and bow and arrows outside, unwatched. Now the
>driver and spouse are being sued for negligence. Who's negligent here?
> They have been told that even though they were not negligent, they
>don't stand much of a chance because it's a child involved. Granted,
>the child was only eight, but an intelligent child who made a bad
>judgment call- but why are the driver and spouse negligent when there
>was no way to have seen the child? What about the babysitters? The
>parents? If the child had a helmet on, the injuries would have been
>less severe.

The practical answer: The jury will decide, and the plaintiffs are
probably hoping that the defendant will crater and offer a settlement
to avoid the cost of the trial.

In Florida, this is a common method of making an unethical living.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[Buck]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> IMO, it is clear. You're stopped, you're moving backwards. If you can't see
> or don't know what's behind you, don't move. You can simply look before you
> get in the car.

I was under the impression that the driver saw that it was clear,
started moving backwards, then the child rode into his path. Conditions
can change considerably in the time it takes to enter a vehicle, put on
a seatbelt, start the vehicle, check mirrors, put it in gear, and start
moving backwards. You suggestion is a little far-fetched.

There have been plenty of cases of suicide by leaping in front of a
moving vehicle. Would you consider the driver responsible in those
cases?

In the case under discussion, the kid intentionally turned into a
driveway behind a moving vehicle. It is not clear whether he was
initially on the road or the sidewalk. There is no indication that the
driver was acting in a reckless manner. The child placed himself in
harm's way.

That being said, it would be extremely difficult not to blame the
driver if it were my child. But that is my emotions talking, not
reason.

-Buck

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

nash wrote:
> Shouldn't people in Florida honk the horn when they back up especially when
> you cannot see what is behind you. The eight year old would have known then
> what to do. Otherwise she does not have a chance in hell.

If the child is not capable of avoiding a vehicle that is slowly
backing up, then he or she should not be left unsupervised. The
adult(s) responsible for the child at the time are the ones at moral
fault.

This 8-year old child could potentially have caused an injury to a
legally operating cyclist. Hitting even a small child can potentially
cause serious injury or death to a cyclist, if the cyclist goes over
the handlebars from the impact.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2006 08:12:52 -0800, wrote:
>
> >The driver could see the driveway where he/she was backing up, the
> >driver just couldn't see a child on a little bike go up the side of
> >driver's driveway and behind. You can only do so much with mirrors and
> >trust others to know the difference. A truck is running, a truck is
> >backing up... hmmm.. maybe I should wait on the sidewalk for driver to
> >get past the sidewalk, or just go somewhere else. Helmet does matter-
> >it's Florida law- it's purpose is to protect your head incase of an
> >accident!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> No, its purpose is to make money for cycle helmet manufacturers.

WHAT!!! You mean a Magic Foam Hat [TM] molded from an inch thick piece
of expanded polystyrene can not support the weight of a truck to keep a
child's head from being crushed?

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

[Pat in TX]

>snip>
> You sound as if you're the one who ran over this child. Are you?
>
>
> :: Roger Zoul wrote:

It sure looks to me as if he has a dog in that fight. Otherwise, why so
passionate?

Pat in TX

[Pat in TX]

>>It is possible the court will find the
>>failure to wear a helmet contributed to the severity of the accident,
>>but it cannot have contributed to the cause of the accident.
>
> Failing to wear a helmet goes to the state of negligence on the part of
> the child or its guardians and could suggest a careless riding style
> that exceeded what the driver could have reasonably anticipated.
>
> --
>
> Bart

It makes me wonder if the Florida law includes children on bicycles on
private property or just out in the street.

Pat in TX

[Roger Zoul]

Buck wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: IMO, it is clear. You're stopped, you're moving backwards. If you
::: can't see or don't know what's behind you, don't move. You can
::: simply look before you get in the car.
::
:: I was under the impression that the driver saw that it was clear,
:: started moving backwards, then the child rode into his path.

I could understand this situation maybe....if it happened just that way then
I would say the driver could do nothing (but I'd wonder if the driver was
moving too quickly while backing up. One rarely needs to move very quickly
in reverse.) However, I didn't get that sense. Do you have another source of
what happened?

:: Conditions can change considerably in the time it takes to enter a
:: vehicle, put on a seatbelt, start the vehicle, check mirrors, put it
:: in gear, and start moving backwards. You suggestion is a little
:: far-fetched.

I don't think it is that far-fetched. What you're saying is that it's okay
to run over someone if you can't see what's in your path (as in backing up).
I don't think that should ever be the case. I agree that if someone comes
into your path so quickly that you can't possibly react, then that should be
called an accident. I frankly don't believe that's what happened with this
kid, though. Kids on undersized bikes don't move that fast. And I doubt an
8-year old would move into the path of a big truck if he/she knew it was
moving. This kid had time to fall off the bike and then get run over. All
while someone is watching, too. The driver pulled forward after running
over the child so that only one tire would come in contact - this after
being alerted by a bystander? Doesn't that sound a little fishy to you?

::
:: There have been plenty of cases of suicide by leaping in front of a
:: moving vehicle. Would you consider the driver responsible in those
:: cases?
::

No. However, backing up isn't the same as someone driving forward at speed
with a clear view of the road ahead and then having someone suddenly jump in
their path - on purpose.

:: In the case under discussion, the kid intentionally turned into a
:: driveway behind a moving vehicle. It is not clear whether he was
:: initially on the road or the sidewalk. There is no indication that
:: the driver was acting in a reckless manner. The child placed himself
:: in harm's way.

How could there be indications of reckless behavior? One doesn't need to be
reckless in order to be "not paying attention". Hopping in your car and
quickly backing out will seldom be thought of as reckless. It doesn't mean
that if the driver hadn't been paying more attention and being more careful
that he/she wouldn't have seen the child.

Children always place themselves in harms way. People - adults do the same
thing. When you're driving a potentially lethal weapon you assume a greater
level of responsibility, IMO. Anytime you move without a clear view of what
in your path extra caution must be used. The message to drivers needs to be
made loud and clear. I think people are getting too much slack while doing
serious damage with automobiles.

::
:: That being said, it would be extremely difficult not to blame the
:: driver if it were my child. But that is my emotions talking, not
:: reason.
::
:: -Buck

Check your reason, though. When someone runs over a child while backing up,
even if the child created the situation, doesn't mean the driver isn't at
fault. Facts don't represent truth in every situation.

[Buck]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> Buck wrote:
> :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> ::: IMO, it is clear. You're stopped, you're moving backwards. If you
> ::: can't see or don't know what's behind you, don't move. You can
> ::: simply look before you get in the car.
> ::
> :: I was under the impression that the driver saw that it was clear,
> :: started moving backwards, then the child rode into his path.
>
> I could understand this situation maybe....if it happened just that way then
> I would say the driver could do nothing (but I'd wonder if the driver was
> moving too quickly while backing up. One rarely needs to move very quickly
> in reverse.) However, I didn't get that sense. Do you have another source of
> what happened?

I'm not clairvoyant and I can't find another source of information for
this story. I think what we have here is a clear case of different
assumptions. You are assuming the worst from and place the
responsibility on the driver. I assume that the cyclist could have
avoided the incident altogether.

Let me share an incident so you better understand my perspective.
Earlier this year, I was riding home and had only the final turn to
into my driveway left to make. The only problem was that someone
decided to use my driveway to turn around. I live near the intersection
of two rural highways, so it is common for someone who misses the
intersection to use my driveway to turn around.

I was in the center turning lane (four lane road with a center turning
lane). I thought the driver saw me because he stopped backing. I don't
like sitting in the turn lane for long so I (wrongly) decided that he
was offering to let me in and I proceeded to turn. Of course, he just
stopped to make sure that traffic was clear in the near lanes and
wasn't expecting someone to try to go around him into the driveway. He
started moving slowly backward as I moved directly into his path. A
solid thump of my hand on the trunk alerted him to my presence and he
immediately stopped.

Now, I think it is pretty clear that I was at fault. The way was
blocked, I was approaching from the blind spot on his car, I made
assumptions about his intentions, and I proceeded to place myself in
his path. Stupid decision on my part.

Since there are so many unanswered questions in the story about this
child, I am not so quick to crucify the driver. We don't know where the
kid was riding. We don't know if he approached from the driver's left
or right. We don't know how fast the kid was riding. (Your assumption
that a child can't move fast on a small bicycle is the same
ill-informed assumption that drivers make about adult cyclists every
day. I assure you that my daughter can fly on her little bike when she
wants to.)

Your perspective also colors your interpretation of what I have
written. I have never stated that I think it's ok to run over someone
if you can't see what is in the path. I was taking issue with your
statement "[y]ou can simply look before you get in the car." By this
statement, you suggest that the area behind a vehicle will remain clear
during the time it takes to look behind the car, enter, start, and
begin moving backward.

I am not surprised that the driver stopped the vehicle after hitting
the child. The way the story is written, it seems that the bystander
was responsible for stopping the car. I doubt that. Most drivers stop
their vehicles after experiencing an unexpected bump. I'd bet he felt
the first bump and stopped immediately. I'd also bet that the bystander
was yelling for the driver to stop. Do we know where she was standing?
If the driver was looking where he was going (I assume he was), the
bystander could only have signaled him if she were standing somewhere
behind his vehicle. I find that to be far-fetched. If I had hit
something, my first reaction would be to stop, my second would be to
open the window or door to find out what I had hit. My third would be
to move my vehicle appropriately to alleviate the situation.

So, to answer your question, do I think that stopping after hitting a
child and pulling forward a bit under the instructions of a bystander
to be fishy? No.

I am glad you conceded my point about suicidal pedestrians. Now take a
moment to think about how fast someone on a bicycle (even a child) can
move. Add in the poor decision to ride into the path of a moving
vehicle. Add in the complication of the vehicle moving backward and the
driver having limited visibility. Ignore the fact that there was a
bystander as she had no way of controlling the vehicle and her
perspective was different. She could see what was about to happen but
could do nothing to prevent it. She could see that he was moving along
one path and a child was moving along an intersecting path. If you
assume that the driver's focus was on her, then you assume he was
blindly backing the vehicle. Give him the benefit of the doubt before
you blithely place all of the blame on him.

-Buck

[nash]

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> nash wrote:
>> Shouldn't people in Florida honk the horn when they back up especially
>> when
>> you cannot see what is behind you. The eight year old would have known
>> then
>> what to do. Otherwise she does not have a chance in hell.
>
> If the child is not capable of avoiding a vehicle that is slowly
> backing up, then he or she should not be left unsupervised. The
> adult(s) responsible for the child at the time are the ones at moral
> fault.

Who says the truck was Slowly backing up

> This 8-year old child could potentially have caused an injury to a
> legally operating cyclist. Hitting even a small child can potentially
> cause serious injury or death to a cyclist, if the cyclist goes over
> the handlebars from the impact.
>
The eight year old was on a three year olds bike which means a tricycle.
And it was not on the road. How does a cyclist not avoid that? Pretty
stupid if you do not give good clearance to an unknown hazard.
I do think though that the parents should have told her of the hazards of
going behind parked vehicles. Same as never stand behind a horse. I guess
she will now have to live with it.
I would call it 50/50 at fault if I had my say.

> Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
>

[tim]

Actually, I don't believe that children are supposed to be riding in
the street, are they? Also, the original thread states an earlier
accident in Florida- the author didn't say whether this particular one
happened there too.

Pat in TX wrote:
> >>It is possible the court will find the
> >>failure to wear a helmet contributed to the severity of the accident,
> >>but it cannot have contributed to the cause of the accident.
> >
> > Failing to wear a helmet goes to the state of negligence on the part of
> > the child or its guardians and could suggest a careless riding style
> > that exceeded what the driver could have reasonably anticipated.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Bart
>
> It makes me wonder if the Florida law includes children on bicycles on
> private property or just out in the street.
>
> Pat in TX

[tim]

Actually, I don't believe that children are supposed to be riding in
the street, are they? Also, the original thread states an earlier
accident in Florida- the author didn't say whether this particular one
happened there too.

[Tom Keats]

In article om>,
writes:
> I read the earlier posts regarding an eight year old bicyclist and a
> car colliding in Florida. How about this one. The 8 year old was
> riding a 3 year old siblings bike, and went up into a neighbor's
> driveway to go around a backing up truck. The driver could not see the
> bicyclist and the child fell off the bike and driver ran over child.
> The spouse saw it as it was happening, and got the driver to stop and
> go forward, so only one tire hit the child. The bycyclist apologized
> afterwards, but then due to head injuries, child no longer remembers.
> The driver was not ticketed and police told the driver there was no way
> the driver could have seen the bicyclist ( by the way- who was NOT
> wearing a helmet- which is Florida law ). The babysitters were drug
> users, drug dealers, alcoholics- and their own children have been seen
> playing with knives and bow and arrows outside, unwatched. Now the
> driver and spouse are being sued for negligence. Who's negligent here?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Depending on what legally constitutes "negligence" in that
jurisdiction, possibly nobody.

As for /fault/ -- I wouldn't be surprised if the judge could
find good reason to bawl out just about everybody involved.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[[email protected]]

tim wrote:
> Actually, I don't believe that children are supposed to be riding in
> the street, are they?

They are.

I've heard of laws permitting young children to ride on sidewalks,
where adults are forbidden. I've never heard of a law forbidding
children riding on streets.

- Frank Krygowski

[Werehatrack]

On 30 Nov 2006 09:49:49 -0800, "tim" > wrote:

>Actually, I don't believe that children are supposed to be riding in
>the street, are they?

In many states, yes. Typically, the legislators in such states have
given themselves a congratulatory pat on the back for making helmets
mandatory for juveniles at the same time that they were tossed off the
sidewalks.



In many localities, that's the only option; sidewalks are far from
universally present in the US...but where they are required, they are
sometimes explicitly off-limits to cyclists of any age. Where
sidewalk usage by bike riders is permitted, using them often imparts
egregious burdens if the rider's intent is to use the bike to go more
than just a block or two.

--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[me]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 06:49:16 -0800, bluesnorman wrote:

> I read the earlier posts regarding an eight year old bicyclist and a
> car colliding in Florida. How about this one. The 8 year old was
> riding a 3 year old siblings bike, and went up into a neighbor's
> driveway to go around a backing up truck. The driver could not see the
> bicyclist and the child fell off the bike and driver ran over child.
> The spouse saw it as it was happening, and got the driver to stop and
> go forward, so only one tire hit the child. The bycyclist apologized
> afterwards, but then due to head injuries, child no longer remembers.
> The driver was not ticketed and police told the driver there was no way
> the driver could have seen the bicyclist ( by the way- who was NOT
> wearing a helmet- which is Florida law ). The babysitters were drug
> users, drug dealers, alcoholics- and their own children have been seen
> playing with knives and bow and arrows outside, unwatched. Now the
> driver and spouse are being sued for negligence. Who's negligent here?
> They have been told that even though they were not negligent, they
> don't stand much of a chance because it's a child involved. Granted,
> the child was only eight, but an intelligent child who made a bad
> judgment call- but why are the driver and spouse negligent when there
> was no way to have seen the child? What about the babysitters? The
> parents? If the child had a helmet on, the injuries would have been
> less severe.

From the description, it sounds to me that the babysitters should be held
accountable, BUT, I wasn't there, I'm going on my opinion from the
description given. 2nd, I don't think the truck driver has much of a
chance of beating it, the insurance will probably settle. They wouldn't
go after the druggies anyway, I mean how much are they gonna be worth?

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

nash wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > nash wrote:
> >> Shouldn't people in Florida honk the horn when they back up especially
> >> when
> >> you cannot see what is behind you. The eight year old would have known
> >> then
> >> what to do. Otherwise she does not have a chance in hell.
> >
> > If the child is not capable of avoiding a vehicle that is slowly
> > backing up, then he or she should not be left unsupervised. The
> > adult(s) responsible for the child at the time are the ones at moral
> > fault.
>
> Who says the truck was Slowly backing up

Was there any indication that it was going fast?

> > This 8-year old child could potentially have caused an injury to a
> > legally operating cyclist. Hitting even a small child can potentially
> > cause serious injury or death to a cyclist, if the cyclist goes over
> > the handlebars from the impact.
> >
> The eight year old was on a three year olds bike which means a tricycle.
> And it was not on the road. How does a cyclist not avoid that? Pretty
> stupid if you do not give good clearance to an unknown hazard.

The child could ride out into the road between parked cars that were
taller than she/he was, leaving the legally operating cyclist a poor
chance at successfully performing an avoidance maneuver.

> I do think though that the parents should have told her of the hazards of
> going behind parked vehicles. Same as never stand behind a horse. I guess
> she will now have to live with it.
> I would call it 50/50 at fault if I had my say.

>From my observations of children in the US, I would expect that in most
accidents involving child cyclists, the BEHAVIOR of the child was at
fault (with the real fault belonging to the child's parent(s)/guardians
for not teaching proper behavior).

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Werehatrack wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2006 06:49:16 -0800, wrote:
>
> >I read the earlier posts regarding an eight year old bicyclist and a
> >car colliding in Florida. How about this one. The 8 year old was
> >riding a 3 year old siblings bike, and went up into a neighbor's
> >driveway to go around a backing up truck. The driver could not see the
> >bicyclist and the child fell off the bike and driver ran over child.
> >The spouse saw it as it was happening, and got the driver to stop and
> >go forward, so only one tire hit the child. The bycyclist apologized
> >afterwards, but then due to head injuries, child no longer remembers.
> >The driver was not ticketed and police told the driver there was no way
> >the driver could have seen the bicyclist ( by the way- who was NOT
> >wearing a helmet- which is Florida law ). The babysitters were drug
> >users, drug dealers, alcoholics- and their own children have been seen
> >playing with knives and bow and arrows outside, unwatched. Now the
> >driver and spouse are being sued for negligence. Who's negligent here?
> > They have been told that even though they were not negligent, they
> >don't stand much of a chance because it's a child involved. Granted,
> >the child was only eight, but an intelligent child who made a bad
> >judgment call- but why are the driver and spouse negligent when there
> >was no way to have seen the child? What about the babysitters? The
> >parents? If the child had a helmet on, the injuries would have been
> >less severe.
>
> The practical answer: The jury will decide, and the plaintiffs are
> probably hoping that the defendant will crater and offer a settlement
> to avoid the cost of the trial.
>
> In Florida, this is a common method of making an unethical living.

There is a reason why lawyers make sure that scientists, engineers and
anyone else trained to analyze information and draw conclusions from it
(almost) never get on juries.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

[nash]

Tom S says
This 8-year old child could potentially have caused an injury to a
> > legally operating cyclist. Hitting even a small child can potentially
> > cause serious injury or death to a cyclist, if the cyclist goes over
> > the handlebars from the impact.


>>The child could ride out into the road between parked cars that were
taller than she/he was, leaving the legally operating cyclist a poor
chance at successfully performing an avoidance maneuver.<<


How did you get from triking it on private property to jumping over curbs
between parked cars into the path of a cyclist. Not gonna happen. chasing
a ball yeah alright. playing they are unpredictable and you should be a
metre and a half away from parked cars anyway so you on the bicycle are
wrong and should be sued while you lay in the hospital in a coma. You are
just trying to point to the victim as the cause and projecting on us that
she is a danger to every one, especially us cyclists. haha

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Florida law states that children have to wear a helmet- this was passed
> to prevent injury to the head if they fall, or are in an accident. How
> can that not be important???

It's not important because no court in any state is going to hold an
8-year-old responsible for his/her not wearing a helmet. It's really as
simple as that.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Florida law states that children have to wear a helmet- this was passed
> to prevent injury to the head if they fall, or are in an accident. How
> can that not be important??? And by the way, it was clear before they
> backed up, the child came around AS they were backing up. The police
> said there was no way they could have seen her, but I guess you know
> better than the police who were there at the time.
>
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>> Simple: If you can't see where you're driving, then don't drive there.
>> The
>> driver is supposed to be sure the way is clear before proceeding. The
>> driver is at fault.
>>
>> Whether or not the kid had a helmet on has NOTHING to do with anything,
>> neither does the other stuff you mention.
>>
>> > :: child had a helmet on, the injuries would have been less severe.
>
>

[Buck]

nash wrote:
> Who says the truck was Slowly backing up

And who said it wasn't?


> The eight year old was on a three year olds bike which means a tricycle.

Both of my kids, at three years old, owned and successfully operated
bicycles.

> And it was not on the road.

The incident happened in a driveway, but there is no indication where
the kid was turning from - sidewalk, road, or otherwise.


> How does a cyclist not avoid that? Pretty
> stupid if you do not give good clearance to an unknown hazard.

It is hard to give clearance if a hazard is unknown. There are some
which we anticipate, but sometimes things happen that we cannot
anticipate and cannot avoid. Sometimes we can anticipate that it
*might* happen, but we still can't avoid it when it does. (A certain
incident I had with a dog earlier this year comes to mind....)

You suffer from the same malady that we all do - our own experience
colors our interpretation of what was written. I find that it is always
better to step back and try to objectively understand what was written
- and what wasn't - before I jump to conclusions and start emphatically
defending one side, or the other.

-Buck

[nash]

>>>>The incident happened in a driveway<<

that is my point exactly. It did not happen when she was on the road or
sidewalk

and you say children jump down off curbs between parked car into oncoming
traffic on bicycles. If there are children possibly in the neighbourhood
you are suppose drive more cautiously also, so I do not get why someone
would try to equate it to jumping out from behind parked cars. They would
have to be very short not to be seen behind a car anyway. From a cyclist
point of view if you are careful it would never happen.
That was the view I was trying to cancel out. I was not defending anyone
except the facts. A metre and a half will usually give you enough time. A
dog is not what he wanted to sue anyway.
The brain automatically fills in empty spaces which we are victims to if we
do not step back but I was.

Everybody blames the victim. Maybe everyone should step back on that one.
Honk going backwards and drivers would cover their asses also. They are the
ones with the killing machines BTW

I stand by my first post.

nash

[Paul Hobson]

nash wrote:
>>>>> The incident happened in a driveway<<
>
> that is my point exactly. It did not happen when she was on the road or
> sidewalk
>
> and you say children jump down off curbs between parked car into oncoming
> traffic on bicycles. If there are children possibly in the neighbourhood
> you are suppose drive more cautiously also, so I do not get why someone
> would try to equate it to jumping out from behind parked cars. They would
> have to be very short not to be seen behind a car anyway.

You don't live where everyone drives a Landrover, Escalade, etc, huh? ;)

\\paul

[Buck]

nash wrote:
> >>>>The incident happened in a driveway<<
>
> that is my point exactly. It did not happen when she was on the road or
> sidewalk

Nash, you are ignoring the fact that it occurred in a driveway, but
there is no mention of what part of the driveway the accident occurred
or where the child was riding *from*. There is no description of the
street. There is no description of the driveway. There is no other
information other than it happened in a driveway. Circumstances can
change drastically when the setting is slightly altered. I'm sure you
have imagined this event in your head and are jumping to your
conclusions based on the imaginary picture you have painted for
yourself. Alter that painting and see if you can imagine where someone
other than the driver was at fault. Maybe a dog ran out in front of the
kid and he swerved up into the driveway where he was run over.


> and you say children jump down off curbs between parked car into oncoming
> traffic on bicycles.


Your reading comprehension is a bit lacking here. I neither "said" nor
wrote what you have attributed to me. However, I do agree with Tom
Sherman's statement. You will also note that he wrote "parked cars" but
made no mention of a curb. On many streets, two cars parked in the
street on either side of a driveway act as an effective screen.

I would also like to point out your written statement about cyclists
and avoiding situations: "And it was not on the road. How does a
cyclist not avoid that? Pretty stupid if you do not give good
clearance to an unknown hazard."

By your own words, you agree that the child's actions were "pretty
stupid." It was pretty stupid of the kid, riding a bicycle, to enter a
driveway where a vehicle was backing.


> If there are children possibly in the neighbourhood
> you are suppose drive more cautiously also, so I do not get why someone
> would try to equate it to jumping out from behind parked cars. They would

Tom's point was that unexpected things occur and we cannot always avoid
them. He was trying to get you to see it from an adult cyclist's
perspective. Kids randomly moving about the street can be quite
dangerous to themselves as well as to a cyclist riding down the street.
This is one reason they need training and supervision. I admit that my
friends and I are lucky to be here today with the things we did roaming
around the neighborhood on my bicycle. I distinctly remember an
incident involving a steep yard, a small ramp, and the thrill of
jumping out into the street on a bmx bike. We just happened to set it
up where there was space - between two parked cars....


> have to be very short not to be seen behind a car anyway. From a cyclist
> point of view if you are careful it would never happen.

A full-size truck can easily hide an adult. A tall one at that. It
doesn't take much to hide a child. Cyclists have the advantage in that
the speeds they travel are relatively low. But as they always say,
never say never.


> That was the view I was trying to cancel out. I was not defending anyone
> except the facts. A metre and a half will usually give you enough time. A
> dog is not what he wanted to sue anyway.


You are coloring the facts with your perpsective. You suggested that
the driver was quickly backing up. You also suggested that the child
was never in the street and stated that the child was riding a
tricycle.


> The brain automatically fills in empty spaces which we are victims to if we
> do not step back but I was.

I will attempt to rewrite this sentence so your intentions are more
clear:

The brain automatically fills in empty spaces [within a story]. We are
all quilty of this if we do not step back and assess the facts. I
(nash) was attempting to bring clarity to the story by stepping back
and assessing the facts.

You are as guilty of filling in empty spaces as the rest of us, even
when you stepped back to assess the facts. There was no mention of a
tricyle. You ASSUMED there was because the bicycle mentioned by the
original poster belonged to a three-year-old. You ASSUMED that the
driver was backing quickly when there was no mention of his speed. You
ASSUMED the child was a girl (you used the feminine pronoun) when there
is no mention of the child's sex in the original post. You ASSUMED that
people in Florida don't honk before backing and that there was no
back-up alarm on the vehicle. (I'd like to make the assumption that the
witness was probably screaming at them both to stop, but I have no
evidence of that).


> Everybody blames the victim. Maybe everyone should step back on that one.


There are plenty of cyclists who are quick to blame the driver without
further consideration of the situation. There was a thread some time
ago where one poster was willing to blame the driver when a child
jumped a bicycle off a ramp into the street in front of a car (I
believe it was just a hypothetical situation, but it goes to show how
adamant some cyclists can be when placing the blame). While I disagree
with your first proclamation, I agree with part of your second.
Everyone does need to "step back" and reassess the facts.


> Honk going backwards and drivers would cover their asses also. They are the
> ones with the killing machines BTW

While this is a nice thought, it is unlikely that honking either before
or during backing will make that much difference. Requiring back-up
alarms for all vehicles would make a bigger difference. But it will
never be perfect. With all of the iPods around, I wouldn't be surprised
if many kids (and adults) couldn't hear the alarm.

-Buck

[nash]

Well, Buck
You prove that you did not get what I said at all.
After someone else posted and made up the facts I just tried to turn it
around and say from the lack of facts it could also be judged another way.

the stepping back idea was his and accusing me of not doing so along with
every one else. Big statement for a little man.

the female pronoun was because someone posted it was a female.

So everything you accuse me of BS Get out of my life. Plonked

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

nash ? wrote:
> >>>>The incident happened in a driveway<<

PROPER
ATTRIBUTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> that is my point exactly. It did not happen when she was on the road or
> sidewalk
>
> and you say children jump down off curbs between parked car into oncoming
> traffic on bicycles. If there are children possibly in the neighbourhood
> you are suppose drive more cautiously also, so I do not get why someone
> would try to equate it to jumping out from behind parked cars. They would
> have to be very short not to be seen behind a car anyway.

Preschool age children are generally rather short (compared to adults)
and can easily have a lower overall height on a bicycle than an average
car, not to mention minivans and light trucks.

> From a cyclist point of view if you are careful it would never happen.

11 kph (~7 mph) is about 3 meters per second (!10 feet per second), so
a child moving at this easily attainable speed can go from behind a
vehicle into driving lane in less than 0.5 seconds. This is not much
time for avoidance.

> That was the view I was trying to cancel out. I was not defending anyone
> except the facts. A metre and a half will usually give you enough time.

Less than 0.5 second for a child moving at realistic speeds.

> A dog is not what he wanted to sue anyway.
> The brain automatically fills in empty spaces which we are victims to if we
> do not step back but I was.

You "was" what?

> Everybody blames the victim.

Argumentative.

> Maybe everyone should step back on that one.
> Honk going backwards and drivers would cover their asses also. They are the
> ones with the killing machines BTW
>
> I stand by my first post.

Since children are in general so irresponsible, the burden off proof
should be to prove the child was NOT at fault, not the reverse.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

nash ? wrote:
> Tom S says
> This 8-year old child could potentially have caused an injury to a
> > > legally operating cyclist. Hitting even a small child can potentially
> > > cause serious injury or death to a cyclist, if the cyclist goes over
> > > the handlebars from the impact.
>
>
> >>The child could ride out into the road between parked cars that were
> taller than she/he was, leaving the legally operating cyclist a poor
> chance at successfully performing an avoidance maneuver.<<
>
>
> How did you get from triking it on private property to jumping over curbs
> between parked cars into the path of a cyclist. Not gonna happen.

Really? I am aware of actual accidents caused by children entering the
street where they were screened from view by parked cars that resulted
in injury to legally operating cyclists and damage to the cyclist's
bicycle.

This is no different than letting a dog run loose - well actually it
is. An adult dog typically has more sense than a human 3 year old.

> chasing
> a ball yeah alright. playing they are unpredictable and you should be a
> metre and a half away from parked cars anyway so you on the bicycle are
> wrong and should be sued while you lay in the hospital in a coma. You are
> just trying to point to the victim as the cause and projecting on us that
> she is a danger to every one, especially us cyclists. haha

I was not commenting at all on who was at fault in the accident
referenced in the original post of this thread, which should be obvious
upon cursory reading of my post. I was, of course, commenting on the
lack of responsibility of the parent(s)/guardian(s) of the 3 year old
for not providing her (him?) with proper supervision.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

[nash]

You misconstrued what I said.
The brain automatically fills in empty spaces which we are victims to if we
> do not step back but I was.

I was stepping back. And agreeing that people should. I already explained
that.

I still do not see how a child would jump off a curb into traffic in .05
seconds or even 2 secs.

8 yr olds do not jump off curbs. That was my point. Read it carefully for
my meaning. I have repeated 3 times already.
Your imagination has gone wild which is my point because you did not
understand what I was saying.
If I was eight, when I got my first bike, I would certainly not have done
it. They tell you too not to walk out from behind a parked car as well. So
that is it again you project your negative behavior on every child. forget
it you are useless
Why compare the accident to that.

Then you state at the end.
Since children are in general so irresponsible, the burden off proof
should be to prove the child was NOT at fault, not the reverse.

So why are you arguing with me if you are agreeing anyway? You must read
about every third word when you are online.

[tim]

> Were the police there when this happened? Were you there? If so, why didn't
> they or you get the child out of the way? The police aren't lawyers either.
> if the driver got in the car, he/she should have noticed if someone could
> *potentially* get in they way of backing up and taken that into account
> before backing up. One has the responsibility of being sure of conditions
> before moving the car. Sorry, but that they way it is and should be.
> Someone moving from a stopped position has the best chance of avoiding an
> accident.



1. Do you actually think people, including the police, stood by and
watched it happen without doing anything?
2. As far as ' noticing if someone could potentially get in the way'
anyone within 50 feet of anyone backing up, or going forward, 'could
potentially get in the way'.

[nash]

>>>Since children are in general so irresponsible, the burden off proof
should be to prove the child was NOT at fault, not the reverse.


Double negatives. Your bad

[nash]

>>>I was not commenting at all on who was at fault in the accident
referenced in the original post of this thread, which should be obvious

then why did you say burden of proof is on the child not being at fault.
They are not old enough. It is 8 not 3 BTW

[brink]

"Buck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I am glad you conceded my point about suicidal pedestrians. Now take a
> moment to think about how fast someone on a bicycle (even a child) can
> move. Add in the poor decision to ride into the path of a moving
> vehicle. Add in the complication of the vehicle moving backward and the
> driver having limited visibility. Ignore the fact that there was a
> bystander as she had no way of controlling the vehicle and her
> perspective was different. She could see what was about to happen but
> could do nothing to prevent it. She could see that he was moving along
> one path and a child was moving along an intersecting path. If you
> assume that the driver's focus was on her, then you assume he was
> blindly backing the vehicle. Give him the benefit of the doubt before
> you blithely place all of the blame on him.

I think you raise good points, but I tend to place the majority of
responsibility on drivers. I have a large RV that of course has horrible
vision to the rear. So the manufacturer installed a camera which actually
gives me better vision behind me than I'd have in a car and *certainly* in a
truck or SUV.

But there's a saying with RVs and I'm sure with big trucks, too... if you
can't see where you're driving, DON'T. Even with my rear-view camera, I'll
utilize the services of a "spotter" anytime I have to back up in any sort of
tricky circumstances -- people around (especially kids), obstacles, traffic,
whatever. The reason being, especially in dynamic situations like moving
cars and people, even if another driver *can* and "should" see me and avoid
me, I'm not going to assume they will. It's my responsibility to make sure
I don't hit anything. Really, when driving, that's rule #1 -- DON'T hit
anything. Period.

Short of people *intentionally* hitting my vehicle, I have a hard time
imagining a scenario where circumstances absolve me of responsibility for
rule #1.

When cycling, I definitely don't take for granted that drivers are making
Rule #1 their #1 priority though... doubt I have to explain why... ;-)

brink

[[email protected]]

Kid's and parents fault for riding on sidewalk. Poor parents always
blame others when their kids get hurt. That's how you tell a good
parent from a breeder.

Roger Zoul wrote:
> Simple: If you can't see where you're driving, then don't drive there. The
> driver is supposed to be sure the way is clear before proceeding. The
> driver is at fault.
>
> Whether or not the kid had a helmet on has NOTHING to do with anything,
> neither does the other stuff you mention.
>
> wrote:
> :: I read the earlier posts regarding an eight year old bicyclist and a
> :: car colliding in Florida. How about this one. The 8 year old was
> :: riding a 3 year old siblings bike, and went up into a neighbor's
> :: driveway to go around a backing up truck. The driver could not see
> :: the bicyclist and the child fell off the bike and driver ran over
> :: child. The spouse saw it as it was happening, and got the driver to
> :: stop and go forward, so only one tire hit the child. The bycyclist
> :: apologized afterwards, but then due to head injuries, child no
> :: longer remembers. The driver was not ticketed and police told the
> :: driver there was no way the driver could have seen the bicyclist (
> :: by the way- who was NOT wearing a helmet- which is Florida law ).
> :: The babysitters were drug users, drug dealers, alcoholics- and their
> :: own children have been seen playing with knives and bow and arrows
> :: outside, unwatched. Now the driver and spouse are being sued for
> :: negligence. Who's negligent here? They have been told that even
> :: though they were not negligent, they don't stand much of a chance
> :: because it's a child involved. Granted, the child was only eight,
> :: but an intelligent child who made a bad judgment call- but why are
> :: the driver and spouse negligent when there was no way to have seen
> :: the child? What about the babysitters? The parents? If the
> :: child had a helmet on, the injuries would have been less severe.

[[email protected]]

Kid's and parents fault for riding on sidewalk. Poor parents always
blame others when their kids get hurt. That's how you tell a good
parent from a breeder.

Roger Zoul wrote:
> Simple: If you can't see where you're driving, then don't drive there. The
> driver is supposed to be sure the way is clear before proceeding. The
> driver is at fault.
>
> Whether or not the kid had a helmet on has NOTHING to do with anything,
> neither does the other stuff you mention.
>
> wrote:
> :: I read the earlier posts regarding an eight year old bicyclist and a
> :: car colliding in Florida. How about this one. The 8 year old was
> :: riding a 3 year old siblings bike, and went up into a neighbor's
> :: driveway to go around a backing up truck. The driver could not see
> :: the bicyclist and the child fell off the bike and driver ran over
> :: child. The spouse saw it as it was happening, and got the driver to
> :: stop and go forward, so only one tire hit the child. The bycyclist
> :: apologized afterwards, but then due to head injuries, child no
> :: longer remembers. The driver was not ticketed and police told the
> :: driver there was no way the driver could have seen the bicyclist (
> :: by the way- who was NOT wearing a helmet- which is Florida law ).
> :: The babysitters were drug users, drug dealers, alcoholics- and their
> :: own children have been seen playing with knives and bow and arrows
> :: outside, unwatched. Now the driver and spouse are being sued for
> :: negligence. Who's negligent here? They have been told that even
> :: though they were not negligent, they don't stand much of a chance
> :: because it's a child involved. Granted, the child was only eight,
> :: but an intelligent child who made a bad judgment call- but why are
> :: the driver and spouse negligent when there was no way to have seen
> :: the child? What about the babysitters? The parents? If the
> :: child had a helmet on, the injuries would have been less severe.

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

nash ? wrote:
> You misconstrued what I said.
> The brain automatically fills in empty spaces which we are victims to if we
> > do not step back but I was.
>
> I was stepping back. And agreeing that people should. I already explained
> that.
>
> I still do not see how a child would jump off a curb into traffic in .05
> seconds or even 2 secs.

Changing 0.5 seconds to 0.05 seconds to misconstrue what I wrote?

If you have not seen children ride bicycles off of curbs into streets;
you obviously do not get out into residential areas very much.

> 8 yr olds do not jump off curbs.

Citation?

Changing 3 year olds to 8 year olds now???

> That was my point. Read it carefully for
> my meaning. I have repeated 3 times already.
> Your imagination has gone wild which is my point because you did not
> understand what I was saying.

Sorry, I have witnessed children riding out between parked vehicles
and/or off of curbs into the traffic lane of public streets.

> If I was eight, when I got my first bike, I would certainly not have done
> it.

Again, how did 3 years old suddenly become 8 years old???

An 8 year old may well be old enough to be a responsible cyclist. A 3
year old is decidedly not, unless he or she is abnormally precocious.

Do you ("nash") represent the behavior of ALL children? Is "nash" the
prototype by which all human behavior can now be predicted?

> They tell you too not to walk out from behind a parked car as well. So
> that is it again you project your negative behavior on every child. forget
> it you are useless

Who is "they"? INDEFINITE PRONOUN ALERT!

A child not listening to his/her parents! That is unheard of!
[Sarcasm, pun and ending preposition all intentional.]

> Why compare the accident to that.

See previous posting. I was commenting on the level of responsibility
of the child's parent(s)/guardian(s), not on the particular accident.

> Then you state at the end.
> Since children are in general so irresponsible, the burden off proof
> should be to prove the child was NOT at fault, not the reverse.
>
> So why are you arguing with me if you are agreeing anyway? You must read
> about every third word when you are online.

[YAWN]

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

[nash]

Brink you are No.1

"brink" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Buck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> I am glad you conceded my point about suicidal pedestrians. Now take a
>> moment to think about how fast someone on a bicycle (even a child) can
>> move. Add in the poor decision to ride into the path of a moving
>> vehicle. Add in the complication of the vehicle moving backward and the
>> driver having limited visibility. Ignore the fact that there was a
>> bystander as she had no way of controlling the vehicle and her
>> perspective was different. She could see what was about to happen but
>> could do nothing to prevent it. She could see that he was moving along
>> one path and a child was moving along an intersecting path. If you
>> assume that the driver's focus was on her, then you assume he was
>> blindly backing the vehicle. Give him the benefit of the doubt before
>> you blithely place all of the blame on him.
>
> I think you raise good points, but I tend to place the majority of
> responsibility on drivers. I have a large RV that of course has horrible
> vision to the rear. So the manufacturer installed a camera which actually
> gives me better vision behind me than I'd have in a car and *certainly* in
> a truck or SUV.
>
> But there's a saying with RVs and I'm sure with big trucks, too... if you
> can't see where you're driving, DON'T. Even with my rear-view camera,
> I'll utilize the services of a "spotter" anytime I have to back up in any
> sort of tricky circumstances -- people around (especially kids),
> obstacles, traffic, whatever. The reason being, especially in dynamic
> situations like moving cars and people, even if another driver *can* and
> "should" see me and avoid me, I'm not going to assume they will. It's my
> responsibility to make sure I don't hit anything. Really, when driving,
> that's rule #1 -- DON'T hit anything. Period.
>
> Short of people *intentionally* hitting my vehicle, I have a hard time
> imagining a scenario where circumstances absolve me of responsibility for
> rule #1.
>
> When cycling, I definitely don't take for granted that drivers are making
> Rule #1 their #1 priority though... doubt I have to explain why... ;-)
>
> brink
>

[nash]

Have you looked at the Subject yet TS
It is 8 not three always has been.
You must not read anything then. plonked

[Roger Zoul]

"brink" > wrote in message
:: But there's a saying with RVs and I'm sure with big
:: trucks, too... if you can't see where you're driving,
:: DON'T.

Bingo! It's a simple concept that all drivers should adopt rather than
expecting to be forgiven for being human (after maiming or killing someone).



Even with my rear-view camera, I'll utilize the
:: services of a "spotter" anytime I have to back up in any
:: sort of tricky circumstances -- people around
:: (especially kids), obstacles, traffic, whatever. The
:: reason being, especially in dynamic situations like
:: moving cars and people, even if another driver *can* and
:: "should" see me and avoid me, I'm not going to assume
:: they will. It's my responsibility to make sure I don't
:: hit anything. Really, when driving, that's rule #1 --
:: DON'T hit anything. Period.
::
:: Short of people *intentionally* hitting my vehicle, I
:: have a hard time imagining a scenario where
:: circumstances absolve me of responsibility for rule #1.
::
:: When cycling, I definitely don't take for granted that
:: drivers are making Rule #1 their #1 priority though...
:: doubt I have to explain why... ;-)
::
:: brink

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

nash who? wrote:
> Have you looked at the Subject yet TS
> It is 8 not three always has been.
> You must not read anything then. plonked

Waaaaaaaah!!!

My heart is broken.

Waaaaaaaaaah!!!

When will "nash" learn to use punctuation and proper grammar?

8 or 3, looks the same when I am sleepy and the screen is not in focus.

The point stands that pre-teen children are for the most part too
irresponsible to be left unsupervised.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

wrote:
> Kid's and parents fault for riding on sidewalk. Poor parents always
> blame others when their kids get hurt. That's how you tell a good
> parent from a breeder.

This may be a first, but I agree with "big jim backpacker".

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

nash who? wrote:
> >>>I was not commenting at all on who was at fault in the accident
> referenced in the original post of this thread, which should be obvious
>
> then why did you say burden of proof is on the child not being at fault.
> They are not old enough. It is 8 not 3 BTW

Eight, three who cares - the children are still immature and
irresponsible.

"nash" is right on one account, they (the children) are not old enough
to be out on the street unsupervised, so if a legally operating driver
hits a child, it is the child's parent(s)/guardian(s) fault for not
providing proper supervision.

Then there is the argument that "thinning the herd" would have positive
benefits for the overall intelligence of the population.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

[Roger Zoul]

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" >
wrote in message
ups.com
:: nash who? wrote:
:::::: I was not commenting at all on who was at fault in
:::::: the accident
::: referenced in the original post of this thread, which
::: should be obvious
:::
::: then why did you say burden of proof is on the child
::: not being at fault. They are not old enough. It is 8
::: not 3 BTW
::
:: Eight, three who cares - the children are still immature
:: and irresponsible.
::
:: "nash" is right on one account, they (the children) are
:: not old enough to be out on the street unsupervised, so
:: if a legally operating driver hits a child, it is the
:: child's parent(s)/guardian(s) fault for not providing
:: proper supervision.
::

What is a "legally operating driver"?

I agree that a child should not be unsupervised in the streets.

However, a driver could be operating a car in a legal fashion and still be
inattentive. It is not illegal to do a zillion other things while driving a
car. Just because one can find no obvious fault with a driver doesn't mean
a driver isn't at fault.

:: Then there is the argument that "thinning the herd"
:: would have positive benefits for the overall
:: intelligence of the population.
::

Are you seriously making this comment in reference to an 8-year old kid
getting run over?

:: --
:: Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" >
> wrote in message
> ups.com
>
> :: "nash" is right on one account, they (the children) are
> :: not old enough to be out on the street unsupervised, so
> :: if a legally operating driver hits a child, it is the
> :: child's parent(s)/guardian(s) fault for not providing
> :: proper supervision.
> ::
>
> What is a "legally operating driver"?
>
> I agree that a child should not be unsupervised in the streets.
>
> However, a driver could be operating a car in a legal fashion and still be
> inattentive. It is not illegal to do a zillion other things while driving a
> car. Just because one can find no obvious fault with a driver doesn't mean
> a driver isn't at fault.

Legal operation includes not hitting others who have the right of way.
The motorist proceeding in a legal manner on a street has the right of
way over a child who enters the street from a driveway or over the curb
in the middle of the street, since these are not cross-walks (marked or
implied). While the motorist does has a duty to make reasonable
attempts to avoid a collision with those violating his/her right of
way, the burden of proof would be to demonstrate the motorist was
inattentive or deliberately did not take evasive action. If the
available facts do not lead to a positive conclusion, the default
determination should be that the child was at fault, since he or she
did not have the right of way.

Of course, in the real world (and with real world jurors [1]), emotions
of liking children override logical judgment.

> :: Then there is the argument that "thinning the herd"
> :: would have positive benefits for the overall
> :: intelligence of the population.
> ::
>
> Are you seriously making this comment in reference to an 8-year old kid
> getting run over?

It has been well demonstrated in studies that predation leads to an
overall prey species population that is healthier and more capable, as
the least fit are eliminated. It is only logical that measures in human
populations that protect the least fit will lead to a lower quality
population. This may be the better overall choice for a society to
make, but its negative consequences should not be discounted.

[1] Hence the rule of thumb for lawyers: If the client is right, have a
bench trial. If the client is wrong, have a jury trial and exclude
those with training and practice in analysis from serving on the jury.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

[Roger Zoul]

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" >
wrote in message
ups.com
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" >
::: wrote in message
::: ups.com
:::
::::: "nash" is right on one account, they (the children)
::::: are not old enough to be out on the street
::::: unsupervised, so if a legally operating driver hits a
::::: child, it is the child's parent(s)/guardian(s) fault
::::: for not providing proper supervision.
:::::
:::
::: What is a "legally operating driver"?
:::
::: I agree that a child should not be unsupervised in the
::: streets.
:::
::: However, a driver could be operating a car in a legal
::: fashion and still be inattentive. It is not illegal to
::: do a zillion other things while driving a car. Just
::: because one can find no obvious fault with a driver
::: doesn't mean a driver isn't at fault.
::
:: Legal operation includes not hitting others who have the
:: right of way. The motorist proceeding in a legal manner
:: on a street has the right of way over a child who enters
:: the street from a driveway or over the curb in the
:: middle of the street, since these are not cross-walks
:: (marked or implied). While the motorist does has a duty
:: to make reasonable attempts to avoid a collision with
:: those violating his/her right of way, the burden of
:: proof would be to demonstrate the motorist was
:: inattentive or deliberately did not take evasive action.
:: If the available facts do not lead to a positive
:: conclusion, the default determination should be that the
:: child was at fault, since he or she did not have the
:: right of way.
::
:: Of course, in the real world (and with real world jurors
:: [1]), emotions of liking children override logical
:: judgment.

It's a good think that most people have enough sense to ignore legal BS.

Frankly, I don't remember ever reading where a moterist have the right of
way over any ped on any street. Many streets don't have any kind of marked
crosswalks whatsoever and certainly most can't be implied.

Are you a lawyer of some type?

::
::::: Then there is the argument that "thinning the herd"
::::: would have positive benefits for the overall
::::: intelligence of the population.
:::::
:::
::: Are you seriously making this comment in reference to
::: an 8-year old kid getting run over?
::
:: It has been well demonstrated in studies that predation
:: leads to an overall prey species population that is
:: healthier and more capable, as the least fit are
:: eliminated.

What studies demonstrate this for human populations? Are we now drawing from
animal studies in reference to human behavor, Tom?

It is only logical that measures in human
:: populations that protect the least fit will lead to a
:: lower quality population.

Nonsense. You're making this up.

This may be the better overall
:: choice for a society to make, but its negative
:: consequences should not be discounted.
::
:: [1] Hence the rule of thumb for lawyers: If the client
:: is right, have a bench trial. If the client is wrong,
:: have a jury trial and exclude those with training and
:: practice in analysis from serving on the jury.
::

Perhaps so, but that doesn't make your case.


:: --
:: Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" >
> wrote in message
> ups.com
> :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> ::: "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" >
> ::: wrote in message
> ::: ups.com
> :::
> ::::: "nash" is right on one account, they (the children)
> ::::: are not old enough to be out on the street
> ::::: unsupervised, so if a legally operating driver hits a
> ::::: child, it is the child's parent(s)/guardian(s) fault
> ::::: for not providing proper supervision.
> :::::
> :::
> ::: What is a "legally operating driver"?
> :::
> ::: I agree that a child should not be unsupervised in the
> ::: streets.
> :::
> ::: However, a driver could be operating a car in a legal
> ::: fashion and still be inattentive. It is not illegal to
> ::: do a zillion other things while driving a car. Just
> ::: because one can find no obvious fault with a driver
> ::: doesn't mean a driver isn't at fault.
> ::
> :: Legal operation includes not hitting others who have the
> :: right of way. The motorist proceeding in a legal manner
> :: on a street has the right of way over a child who enters
> :: the street from a driveway or over the curb in the
> :: middle of the street, since these are not cross-walks
> :: (marked or implied). While the motorist does has a duty
> :: to make reasonable attempts to avoid a collision with
> :: those violating his/her right of way, the burden of
> :: proof would be to demonstrate the motorist was
> :: inattentive or deliberately did not take evasive action.
> :: If the available facts do not lead to a positive
> :: conclusion, the default determination should be that the
> :: child was at fault, since he or she did not have the
> :: right of way.
> ::
> :: Of course, in the real world (and with real world jurors
> :: [1]), emotions of liking children override logical
> :: judgment.
>
> It's a good think that most people have enough sense to ignore legal BS.

Decisions made by dispassionate analysis are better than those made by
"bleeding heart" emotion.

> Frankly, I don't remember ever reading where a moterist have the right of
> way over any ped on any street. Many streets don't have any kind of marked
> crosswalks whatsoever and certainly most can't be implied.

A crosswalk is implied at all at-grade intersections that lack traffic
signals and painted markings. Vehicular traffic (motorized and human
powered) is required to yield to pedestrians in an implied crosswalk.

> Are you a lawyer of some type?

No, I am an engineer, and therefore I approach problems by looking
first at the available data, then drawing a conclusion based on
rational analysis.

> ::::: Then there is the argument that "thinning the herd"
> ::::: would have positive benefits for the overall
> ::::: intelligence of the population.
> :::::
> :::
> ::: Are you seriously making this comment in reference to
> ::: an 8-year old kid getting run over?
> ::
> :: It has been well demonstrated in studies that predation
> :: leads to an overall prey species population that is
> :: healthier and more capable, as the least fit are
> :: eliminated.
>
> What studies demonstrate this for human populations? Are we now drawing from
> animal studies in reference to human behavor, Tom?

The last time I checked we were animals. The taxonomic distinction
between hominids and hominoids is an artificial one, based on religious
belief, not biology.

> It is only logical that measures in human
> :: populations that protect the least fit will lead to a
> :: lower quality population.
>
> Nonsense. You're making this up.

Are hominids exempt from the rules of natural selection? That view does
not make sense, unless one believes in some sort of divine intervention
(e.g. "intelligent design") superseding the consensus of biologists
over the last century.

> This may be the better overall
> :: choice for a society to make, but its negative
> :: consequences should not be discounted.
> ::
> :: [1] Hence the rule of thumb for lawyers: If the client
> :: is right, have a bench trial. If the client is wrong,
> :: have a jury trial and exclude those with training and
> :: practice in analysis from serving on the jury.
> ::
>
> Perhaps so, but that doesn't make your case.

Do you happen to like children enough that this colors your view (a
very common case)?

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

[Tom Keats]

In article m>,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" > writes:
>
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>
>> ::::: Then there is the argument that "thinning the herd"
>> ::::: would have positive benefits for the overall
>> ::::: intelligence of the population.
>> :::::
>> :::
>> ::: Are you seriously making this comment in reference to
>> ::: an 8-year old kid getting run over?
>> ::
>> :: It has been well demonstrated in studies that predation
>> :: leads to an overall prey species population that is
>> :: healthier and more capable, as the least fit are
>> :: eliminated.
>>
>> What studies demonstrate this for human populations? Are we now drawing from
>> animal studies in reference to human behavor, Tom?
>
> The last time I checked we were animals. The taxonomic distinction
> between hominids and hominoids is an artificial one, based on religious
> belief, not biology.

I guess hominoids predate hominids.

Bad puns aside, prey animals don't usually prey on their
own kind (eating their own young and other forms of
cannibalism notwithstanding.)

So I don't think humans killing humans works the same way
as, say, wolves culling caribou herds. And I doubt it's
the stupid caribous that get taken out (and the smart
ones left alone,) so much as the physically weak and
infirm ones.

Besides, if it worked, why are there still so many
stupid people around?

>> It is only logical that measures in human
>> :: populations that protect the least fit will lead to a
>> :: lower quality population.
>>
>> Nonsense. You're making this up.
>
> Are hominids exempt from the rules of natural selection?

Chas. Darwin's description of "natural selection" gave me
the impression he was talking about selecting mates with
which to optimally combine genes for posterity and possibly
originating new species, not selecting from nature's menu.

> That view does
> not make sense, unless one believes in some sort of divine intervention
> (e.g. "intelligent design") superseding the consensus of biologists
> over the last century.

This is getting uncomfortably close to being a discussion
of eugenics.

Ob bike: if the streets weren't snow & slush & icebound,
I could've bee-lined to my favourite indy coffee shop for
a breakfast of tiramisu (the first, freshest serving of
the day) and a 2-shot americaino. And another one. So
it's toast and home-perked for me this Sunday morning.
How pedestrian.

Bicycle withdrawal sux.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Roger Zoul]

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" >
wrote in message
ps.com
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" >
::: wrote in message
::: ups.com
::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::::: "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
:::::: > wrote in message
:::::: ups.com
::::::
:::::::: "nash" is right on one account, they (the children)
:::::::: are not old enough to be out on the street
:::::::: unsupervised, so if a legally operating driver
:::::::: hits a child, it is the child's
:::::::: parent(s)/guardian(s) fault for not providing
:::::::: proper supervision.
::::::::
::::::
:::::: What is a "legally operating driver"?
::::::
:::::: I agree that a child should not be unsupervised in
:::::: the streets.
::::::
:::::: However, a driver could be operating a car in a legal
:::::: fashion and still be inattentive. It is not illegal
:::::: to do a zillion other things while driving a car.
:::::: Just because one can find no obvious fault with a
:::::: driver doesn't mean a driver isn't at fault.
:::::
::::: Legal operation includes not hitting others who have
::::: the right of way. The motorist proceeding in a legal
::::: manner on a street has the right of way over a child
::::: who enters the street from a driveway or over the
::::: curb in the middle of the street, since these are not
::::: cross-walks (marked or implied). While the motorist
::::: does has a duty to make reasonable attempts to avoid
::::: a collision with those violating his/her right of
::::: way, the burden of proof would be to demonstrate the
::::: motorist was inattentive or deliberately did not take
::::: evasive action. If the available facts do not lead to
::::: a positive conclusion, the default determination
::::: should be that the child was at fault, since he or
::::: she did not have the right of way.
:::::
::::: Of course, in the real world (and with real world
::::: jurors [1]), emotions of liking children override
::::: logical judgment.
:::
::: It's a good think that most people have enough sense to
::: ignore legal BS.
::
:: Decisions made by dispassionate analysis are better than
:: those made by "bleeding heart" emotion.

I would say "mostly". Not in every case.

::
::: Frankly, I don't remember ever reading where a moterist
::: have the right of way over any ped on any street. Many
::: streets don't have any kind of marked crosswalks
::: whatsoever and certainly most can't be implied.
::
:: A crosswalk is implied at all at-grade intersections
:: that lack traffic signals and painted markings.
:: Vehicular traffic (motorized and human powered) is
:: required to yield to pedestrians in an implied
:: crosswalk.

Does this imply, then, that traffic is not required to yield to peds under
any other conditions, and if it doesn't than the driver is not a fault?

::
::: Are you a lawyer of some type?
::
:: No, I am an engineer, and therefore I approach problems
:: by looking first at the available data, then drawing a
:: conclusion based on rational analysis.
::

Please. Your being an engineering doesn't imply that you (or any engineer)
will draw any conclusions based on rational analysis. Some will, some won't.
Whether one does depends on more than simply being an engineer.

:::::::: Then there is the argument that "thinning the herd"
:::::::: would have positive benefits for the overall
:::::::: intelligence of the population.
::::::::
::::::
:::::: Are you seriously making this comment in reference to
:::::: an 8-year old kid getting run over?
:::::
::::: It has been well demonstrated in studies that
::::: predation leads to an overall prey species population
::::: that is healthier and more capable, as the least fit
::::: are eliminated.
:::
::: What studies demonstrate this for human populations?
::: Are we now drawing from animal studies in reference to
::: human behavor, Tom?
::
:: The last time I checked we were animals. The taxonomic
:: distinction between hominids and hominoids is an
:: artificial one, based on religious belief, not biology.

Nonetheless, we function at levels that other animals do not, hence we are
different. We have the ability to look out for the weakness among us, for
example. Your flat view of humans as simply animals is proof that your
analysis is lacking on this point.

::
::: It is only logical that measures in human
::::: populations that protect the least fit will lead to a
::::: lower quality population.
:::
::: Nonsense. You're making this up.
::
:: Are hominids exempt from the rules of natural selection?

To some degree, yes. Natural selection is just a theory, you know. As such,
it cannot be proven or even assumed to apply always, without exception.

:: That view does not make sense, unless one believes in
:: some sort of divine intervention (e.g. "intelligent
:: design") superseding the consensus of biologists over
:: the last century.

That is simply a point of view.

::
::: This may be the better overall
::::: choice for a society to make, but its negative
::::: consequences should not be discounted.
:::::
::::: [1] Hence the rule of thumb for lawyers: If the client
::::: is right, have a bench trial. If the client is wrong,
::::: have a jury trial and exclude those with training and
::::: practice in analysis from serving on the jury.
:::::
:::
::: Perhaps so, but that doesn't make your case.
::
:: Do you happen to like children enough that this colors
:: your view (a very common case)?
::

I have no children and I can't say that I particularly like them. However, I
do have a good sense of what ought to be right and wrong.

Where cars are concerned, people need to be held to a high level of
responsibility than is presently the case in most of these Unitied States.
Anyone driving a car in a neighborhood ought to be aware that kids could be
around doing unexpected things.

[Roger Zoul]

"tim" > wrote in message
ups.com
::: Were the police there when this happened? Were you
::: there? If so, why didn't they or you get the child out
::: of the way? The police aren't lawyers either. if the
::: driver got in the car, he/she should have noticed if
::: someone could *potentially* get in they way of backing
::: up and taken that into account before backing up. One
::: has the responsibility of being sure of conditions
::: before moving the car. Sorry, but that they way it is
::: and should be. Someone moving from a stopped position
::: has the best chance of avoiding an accident.
::
::
::
:: 1. Do you actually think people, including the police,
:: stood by and watched it happen without doing anything?

No. My point is that they weren't around and thus could not make any
statement about what a driver could or could not have seen.

:: 2. As far as ' noticing if someone could potentially
:: get in the way' anyone within 50 feet of anyone backing
:: up, or going forward, 'could potentially get in the way'.

Which means that the driver has a responsibility to not run over any of
those people.

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" >
> wrote in message
> ps.com
> :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> ::: "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" >
> ::: wrote in message
> ::: ups.com
> ::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
> :::::: "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
> :::::: > wrote in message
> :::::: ups.com
> ::::::
> :::::::: "nash" is right on one account, they (the children)
> :::::::: are not old enough to be out on the street
> :::::::: unsupervised, so if a legally operating driver
> :::::::: hits a child, it is the child's
> :::::::: parent(s)/guardian(s) fault for not providing
> :::::::: proper supervision.
> ::::::::
> ::::::
> :::::: What is a "legally operating driver"?
> ::::::
> :::::: I agree that a child should not be unsupervised in
> :::::: the streets.
> ::::::
> :::::: However, a driver could be operating a car in a legal
> :::::: fashion and still be inattentive. It is not illegal
> :::::: to do a zillion other things while driving a car.
> :::::: Just because one can find no obvious fault with a
> :::::: driver doesn't mean a driver isn't at fault.
> :::::
> ::::: Legal operation includes not hitting others who have
> ::::: the right of way. The motorist proceeding in a legal
> ::::: manner on a street has the right of way over a child
> ::::: who enters the street from a driveway or over the
> ::::: curb in the middle of the street, since these are not
> ::::: cross-walks (marked or implied). While the motorist
> ::::: does has a duty to make reasonable attempts to avoid
> ::::: a collision with those violating his/her right of
> ::::: way, the burden of proof would be to demonstrate the
> ::::: motorist was inattentive or deliberately did not take
> ::::: evasive action. If the available facts do not lead to
> ::::: a positive conclusion, the default determination
> ::::: should be that the child was at fault, since he or
> ::::: she did not have the right of way.
> :::::
> ::::: Of course, in the real world (and with real world
> ::::: jurors [1]), emotions of liking children override
> ::::: logical judgment.
> :::
> ::: It's a good think that most people have enough sense to
> ::: ignore legal BS.
> ::
> :: Decisions made by dispassionate analysis are better than
> :: those made by "bleeding heart" emotion.
>
> I would say "mostly". Not in every case.

Of course it is possible for an analysis to be wrong, and, based on
probability for the emotional decision to be the correct one. One can
also come to the correct decision in some cases by flipping coins or
rolling dice.

> ::: Frankly, I don't remember ever reading where a moterist
> ::: have the right of way over any ped on any street. Many
> ::: streets don't have any kind of marked crosswalks
> ::: whatsoever and certainly most can't be implied.
> ::
> :: A crosswalk is implied at all at-grade intersections
> :: that lack traffic signals and painted markings.
> :: Vehicular traffic (motorized and human powered) is
> :: required to yield to pedestrians in an implied
> :: crosswalk.
>
> Does this imply, then, that traffic is not required to yield to peds under
> any other conditions, and if it doesn't than the driver is not a fault?

The motor vehicle operator is required to pay attention to his/her
surroundings and make reasonable attempts not to hit pedestrians or
other vehicles violating his/her right of way. However, when a
collision occurs where the motorist has the right of way, it is at
least partially the fault of the other party, and completely the fault
of the other party if it can not be proved that the motorist did NOT
take evasive action.

A jury composed of parents who empathize with a child being struck by a
vehicle as possibly their own child but not with the driver (having the
arrogance to believe that they would have avoided the child) will
likely come to the incorrect decision.

> ::: Are you a lawyer of some type?
> ::
> :: No, I am an engineer, and therefore I approach problems
> :: by looking first at the available data, then drawing a
> :: conclusion based on rational analysis.
> ::
>
> Please. Your being an engineering doesn't imply that you (or any engineer)
> will draw any conclusions based on rational analysis. Some will, some won't.
> Whether one does depends on more than simply being an engineer.

But it means that I have no realistic chance of getting on a jury.

> :::::::: Then there is the argument that "thinning the herd"
> :::::::: would have positive benefits for the overall
> :::::::: intelligence of the population.
> ::::::::
> ::::::
> :::::: Are you seriously making this comment in reference to
> :::::: an 8-year old kid getting run over?
> :::::
> ::::: It has been well demonstrated in studies that
> ::::: predation leads to an overall prey species population
> ::::: that is healthier and more capable, as the least fit
> ::::: are eliminated.
> :::
> ::: What studies demonstrate this for human populations?
> ::: Are we now drawing from animal studies in reference to
> ::: human behavor, Tom?
> ::
> :: The last time I checked we were animals. The taxonomic
> :: distinction between hominids and hominoids is an
> :: artificial one, based on religious belief, not biology.
>
> Nonetheless, we function at levels that other animals do not, hence we are
> different. We have the ability to look out for the weakness among us, for
> example. Your flat view of humans as simply animals is proof that your
> analysis is lacking on this point.

Looking out for other members of the group is not unique to humans.

We also have the ability to exploit other humans, which is commonly
done.

> ::: It is only logical that measures in human
> ::::: populations that protect the least fit will lead to a
> ::::: lower quality population.
> :::
> ::: Nonsense. You're making this up.
> ::
> :: Are hominids exempt from the rules of natural selection?
>
> To some degree, yes. Natural selection is just a theory, you know. As such,
> it cannot be proven or even assumed to apply always, without exception.

Please provide alternatives to natural selection that have similar
backing and consensus among the scientific community.

> :: That view does not make sense, unless one believes in
> :: some sort of divine intervention (e.g. "intelligent
> :: design") superseding the consensus of biologists over
> :: the last century.
>
> That is simply a point of view.

If you wish to bring in alternatives outside of accepted science
without providing support for the hypotheses, then further discussion
is pointless, since it would merely be conflicting statements of belief
of things that are not provable.

> ::: This may be the better overall
> ::::: choice for a society to make, but its negative
> ::::: consequences should not be discounted.
> :::::
> ::::: [1] Hence the rule of thumb for lawyers: If the client
> ::::: is right, have a bench trial. If the client is wrong,
> ::::: have a jury trial and exclude those with training and
> ::::: practice in analysis from serving on the jury.
> :::::
> :::
> ::: Perhaps so, but that doesn't make your case.
> ::
> :: Do you happen to like children enough that this colors
> :: your view (a very common case)?
> ::
>
> I have no children and I can't say that I particularly like them. However, I
> do have a good sense of what ought to be right and wrong.

Do you disagree that children are less responsible and more mistake
prone than adults?

If the parent(s)/guardian(s) of the child do not provide proper
supervision, are they not the ones primarily at fault when the child is
the cause of an accident?

> Where cars are concerned, people need to be held to a high level of
> responsibility than is presently the case in most of these Unitied States.
> Anyone driving a car in a neighborhood ought to be aware that kids could be
> around doing unexpected things.

This is a decision based on social values, not logic. If the burden is
not to be placed on the responsible party in all instances, then that
should be codified into law, rather than letting emotional jurors
pervert the law as it is actually written. That latter is not justice,
but mob rule.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article m>,
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" > writes:
> >
> > Roger Zoul wrote:
> >
> >> ::::: Then there is the argument that "thinning the herd"
> >> ::::: would have positive benefits for the overall
> >> ::::: intelligence of the population.
> >> :::::
> >> :::
> >> ::: Are you seriously making this comment in reference to
> >> ::: an 8-year old kid getting run over?
> >> ::
> >> :: It has been well demonstrated in studies that predation
> >> :: leads to an overall prey species population that is
> >> :: healthier and more capable, as the least fit are
> >> :: eliminated.
> >>
> >> What studies demonstrate this for human populations? Are we now drawing from
> >> animal studies in reference to human behavor, Tom?
> >
> > The last time I checked we were animals. The taxonomic distinction
> > between hominids and hominoids is an artificial one, based on religious
> > belief, not biology.
>
> I guess hominoids predate hominids.

Carl Linnaeus admitted he made the distinction on religious grounds,
not biological. Genetically, the difference is so small that the
distinction should NOT be made.

> Bad puns aside, prey animals don't usually prey on their
> own kind (eating their own young and other forms of
> cannibalism notwithstanding.)
>
> So I don't think humans killing humans works the same way
> as, say, wolves culling caribou herds. And I doubt it's
> the stupid caribous that get taken out (and the smart
> ones left alone,) so much as the physically weak and
> infirm ones.
>
> Besides, if it worked, why are there still so many
> stupid people around?

The consensus of studies is that the more educated people become (which
does have a correlation with intelligence) the fewer children they
have.

Of course, in society, intelligence is not an advantage for many, since
class rules and class opportunities do not allow those born to the
lower classes to pursue occupations where intelligence is an advantage
(with the better careers increasing survival rates due to better diet
and medical care). In most societies, persons born into the lower
classes will have the highest survival rates if they are resistant to
disease and physical overwork. Conversely, the upper classes have the
resources to have most of their children survive, regardless of
defects.

A mechanism that creates a higher death rate (prior to breeding) among
the less intelligent should increase the overall intelligence of a
population.

> >> It is only logical that measures in human
> >> :: populations that protect the least fit will lead to a
> >> :: lower quality population.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. You're making this up.
> >
> > Are hominids exempt from the rules of natural selection?
>
> Chas. Darwin's description of "natural selection" gave me
> the impression he was talking about selecting mates with
> which to optimally combine genes for posterity and possibly
> originating new species, not selecting from nature's menu.

While Darwin's idea of evolutionary development has been shown by
further study to be generally correct, the science has advanced since
his time. Conscious selection of superior mates is not required for the
evolutionary process to work.

> > That view does
> > not make sense, unless one believes in some sort of divine intervention
> > (e.g. "intelligent design") superseding the consensus of biologists
> > over the last century.
>
> This is getting uncomfortably close to being a discussion
> of eugenics.

A significant proportion of the US population believes that eugenics is
being performed by a single, omniscient and omnipotent being.

I see no harm in DISCUSSING eugenics, as pretending something does not
exist will not make it go away.

> Ob bike: if the streets weren't snow & slush & icebound,
> I could've bee-lined to my favourite indy coffee shop for
> a breakfast of tiramisu (the first, freshest serving of
> the day) and a 2-shot americaino. And another one. So
> it's toast and home-perked for me this Sunday morning.
> How pedestrian.
>
> Bicycle withdrawal sux.

A sensible government would offer tax incentives for workplace showers
and secure parking for bicycles and velomobiles, instead of subsidizing
individualized motorized transport in urban areas.

Cold wind, slush and ice would not bother me much if I was riding one
of these: <http://www.leitra.dk/>.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

[Roger Zoul]

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" >
wrote in message
ups.com
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" >
::: wrote in message
::: ps.com
::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::::: "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
:::::: > wrote in message
:::::: ups.com
:::::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
::::::::: "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
::::::::: > wrote in message
::::::::: ups.com
:::::::::
::::::::::: "nash" is right on one account, they (the
::::::::::: children) are not old enough to be out on the
::::::::::: street unsupervised, so if a legally operating
::::::::::: driver hits a child, it is the child's
::::::::::: parent(s)/guardian(s) fault for not providing
::::::::::: proper supervision.
:::::::::::
:::::::::
::::::::: What is a "legally operating driver"?
:::::::::
::::::::: I agree that a child should not be unsupervised in
::::::::: the streets.
:::::::::
::::::::: However, a driver could be operating a car in a
::::::::: legal fashion and still be inattentive. It is not
::::::::: illegal to do a zillion other things while
::::::::: driving a car. Just because one can find no
::::::::: obvious fault with a driver doesn't mean a driver
::::::::: isn't at fault.
::::::::
:::::::: Legal operation includes not hitting others who
:::::::: have the right of way. The motorist proceeding in
:::::::: a legal manner on a street has the right of way
:::::::: over a child who enters the street from a driveway
:::::::: or over the curb in the middle of the street,
:::::::: since these are not cross-walks (marked or
:::::::: implied). While the motorist does has a duty to
:::::::: make reasonable attempts to avoid a collision with
:::::::: those violating his/her right of way, the burden
:::::::: of proof would be to demonstrate the motorist was
:::::::: inattentive or deliberately did not take evasive
:::::::: action. If the available facts do not lead to a
:::::::: positive conclusion, the default determination
:::::::: should be that the child was at fault, since he or
:::::::: she did not have the right of way.
::::::::
:::::::: Of course, in the real world (and with real world
:::::::: jurors [1]), emotions of liking children override
:::::::: logical judgment.
::::::
:::::: It's a good think that most people have enough sense
:::::: to ignore legal BS.
:::::
::::: Decisions made by dispassionate analysis are better
::::: than those made by "bleeding heart" emotion.
:::
::: I would say "mostly". Not in every case.
::
:: Of course it is possible for an analysis to be wrong,
:: and, based on probability for the emotional decision to
:: be the correct one. One can also come to the correct
:: decision in some cases by flipping coins or rolling dice.
::
:::::: Frankly, I don't remember ever reading where a
:::::: moterist have the right of way over any ped on any
:::::: street. Many streets don't have any kind of marked
:::::: crosswalks whatsoever and certainly most can't be
:::::: implied.
:::::
::::: A crosswalk is implied at all at-grade intersections
::::: that lack traffic signals and painted markings.
::::: Vehicular traffic (motorized and human powered) is
::::: required to yield to pedestrians in an implied
::::: crosswalk.
:::
::: Does this imply, then, that traffic is not required to
::: yield to peds under any other conditions, and if it
::: doesn't than the driver is not a fault?
::
:: The motor vehicle operator is required to pay attention
:: to his/her surroundings and make reasonable attempts not
:: to hit pedestrians or other vehicles violating his/her
:: right of way.

Exactly. And in day-to-day goingsabout, it is very possible that a driver
can be inattentive long enough to allow an accident to happened for reasons
can boil down to irresponsibility. Is it always reasonable to use a cell
phone or drink coffee or tune the radio while driving a car? What about
driving with too little sleep or being ****ed because of an argument with
your spouse? These things are difficult to prove or nail down but have
significant impacts on humans.

However, when a collision occurs where the
:: motorist has the right of way, it is at least partially
:: the fault of the other party,

Perhaps. What if someone comes to the aid of another on a section of road
in a blind curve while an inattentive driver doesn't slow enough to allow
sufficient time to stop upon finding them there?

:: and completely the fault
:: of the other party if it can not be proved that the
:: motorist did NOT take evasive action.

So, according to you, fault lies with what can be proven? If that's the
case, then drivers have an open field day on anyone not in a car and us
cyclists should bide are time....

::
:: A jury composed of parents who empathize with a child
:: being struck by a vehicle as possibly their own child
:: but not with the driver (having the arrogance to believe
:: that they would have avoided the child) will likely come
:: to the incorrect decision.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Using your logic, perhaps yes.

::
:::::: Are you a lawyer of some type?
:::::
::::: No, I am an engineer, and therefore I approach
::::: problems by looking first at the available data, then
::::: drawing a conclusion based on rational analysis.
:::::
:::
::: Please. Your being an engineering doesn't imply that
::: you (or any engineer) will draw any conclusions based
::: on rational analysis. Some will, some won't. Whether
::: one does depends on more than simply being an engineer.
::
:: But it means that I have no realistic chance of getting
:: on a jury.

Same here. I take advantage of that.


::
::::::::::: Then there is the argument that "thinning the
::::::::::: herd" would have positive benefits for the
::::::::::: overall intelligence of the population.
:::::::::::
:::::::::
::::::::: Are you seriously making this comment in
::::::::: reference to an 8-year old kid getting run over?
::::::::
:::::::: It has been well demonstrated in studies that
:::::::: predation leads to an overall prey species
:::::::: population that is healthier and more capable, as
:::::::: the least fit are eliminated.
::::::
:::::: What studies demonstrate this for human populations?
:::::: Are we now drawing from animal studies in reference
:::::: to human behavor, Tom?
:::::
::::: The last time I checked we were animals. The taxonomic
::::: distinction between hominids and hominoids is an
::::: artificial one, based on religious belief, not
::::: biology.
:::
::: Nonetheless, we function at levels that other animals
::: do not, hence we are different. We have the ability to
::: look out for the weakness among us, for example. Your
::: flat view of humans as simply animals is proof that
::: your analysis is lacking on this point.
::
:: Looking out for other members of the group is not unique
:: to humans.

Ah, but if you're old and helpless in the animal kingdom, you are left to
die. Only those who are young and will propagate the species are protected.
However, there are various other examples of why humans are unique animals.

::
:: We also have the ability to exploit other humans, which
:: is commonly done.

Certainly. As we have the ability to kill or maim due to convenience.

::
:::::: It is only logical that measures in human
:::::::: populations that protect the least fit will lead
:::::::: to a lower quality population.
::::::
:::::: Nonsense. You're making this up.
:::::
::::: Are hominids exempt from the rules of natural
::::: selection?
:::
::: To some degree, yes. Natural selection is just a
::: theory, you know. As such, it cannot be proven or even
::: assumed to apply always, without exception.
::
:: Please provide alternatives to natural selection that
:: have similar backing and consensus among the scientific
:: community.

Why? I'm simply pointing out to you that you're standing on a point of
reasoning that is not foolproof.

::
::::: That view does not make sense, unless one believes in
::::: some sort of divine intervention (e.g. "intelligent
::::: design") superseding the consensus of biologists over
::::: the last century.
:::
::: That is simply a point of view.
::
:: If you wish to bring in alternatives outside of accepted
:: science without providing support for the hypotheses,
:: then further discussion is pointless, since it would
:: merely be conflicting statements of belief of things
:: that are not provable.

I don't believe I brought in any alternatives. It is not necessary to do
that to say that being "rational" is not some type of absolute standard that
will always lead to the correct or even the same conclusion. If reason and
rational thinking alone always ruled the day than we'd have little need for
the courts.

::
:::::: This may be the better overall
:::::::: choice for a society to make, but its negative
:::::::: consequences should not be discounted.
::::::::
:::::::: [1] Hence the rule of thumb for lawyers: If the
:::::::: client is right, have a bench trial. If the client
:::::::: is wrong, have a jury trial and exclude those with
:::::::: training and practice in analysis from serving on
:::::::: the jury.
::::::::
::::::
:::::: Perhaps so, but that doesn't make your case.
:::::
::::: Do you happen to like children enough that this colors
::::: your view (a very common case)?
:::::
:::
::: I have no children and I can't say that I particularly
::: like them. However, I do have a good sense of what
::: ought to be right and wrong.
::
:: Do you disagree that children are less responsible and
:: more mistake prone than adults?

No. And that is what a reasonable and rational person would expect.

::
:: If the parent(s)/guardian(s) of the child do not provide
:: proper supervision, are they not the ones primarily at
:: fault when the child is the cause of an accident?
::

A child riding in a driveway cannot solely be the cause of an accident. It
also takes a driver of an automobile. How can you be sure that the parents
did not act in a reasonable manner to keep the child safe? Can you hold them
to a higher standard of perfection than you can one who drives a car?


::: Where cars are concerned, people need to be held to a
::: high level of responsibility than is presently the case
::: in most of these Unitied States. Anyone driving a car
::: in a neighborhood ought to be aware that kids could be
::: around doing unexpected things.
::
:: This is a decision based on social values, not logic.

Are you saying that it is not within the domain of logic to expect drivers
in a neighborhood to not be aware that irresponsible kids might be playing
there? We don't expect to see kids playing or riding bikes on controlled
access roads, do we?

If
:: the burden is not to be placed on the responsible party
:: in all instances, then that should be codified into law,
:: rather than letting emotional jurors pervert the law as
:: it is actually written. That latter is not justice, but
:: mob rule.

I'm suggesting exactly what you are saying here. The burden should be placed
in most cases on the driver, especially so in cases where one could expect
unexpected happenings. In most cases laziness and a willingness to
undervalue human life is causing us to be too slack while behind the wheel.
That's why almost everyone is more interested in talking on the phone than
paying attention while driving.

[nash]

><><>Where cars are concerned, people need to be held to a high level of
responsibility than is presently the case in most of these Unitied
States.
Anyone driving a car in a neighborhood ought to be aware that kids
could be
around doing unexpected things.

Which is why the speed limit is alot slower around playgrounds and
schools.

[nash]

Who here uses perfect grammar punctuation? Most use two fingers.
You are never wrong I guess. You can't see anyway you said so why
should I bother.
I do better than you. If you cannot answer the question in one
paragraph your full of hot air anyway. this thread is too long. Top
posting is nothing compared to this freak show.

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" >
> wrote in message
> ups.com
> :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> ::: "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" >
> ::: wrote in message
> ::: ps.com
> ::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
> :::::: "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
> :::::: > wrote in message
> :::::: ups.com
> :::::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
> ::::::::: "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
> ::::::::: > wrote in message
> ::::::::: ups.com
> :::::::::
> ::::::::::: "nash" is right on one account, they (the
> ::::::::::: children) are not old enough to be out on the
> ::::::::::: street unsupervised, so if a legally operating
> ::::::::::: driver hits a child, it is the child's
> ::::::::::: parent(s)/guardian(s) fault for not providing
> ::::::::::: proper supervision.
> :::::::::::
> :::::::::
> ::::::::: What is a "legally operating driver"?
> :::::::::
> ::::::::: I agree that a child should not be unsupervised in
> ::::::::: the streets.
> :::::::::
> ::::::::: However, a driver could be operating a car in a
> ::::::::: legal fashion and still be inattentive. It is not
> ::::::::: illegal to do a zillion other things while
> ::::::::: driving a car. Just because one can find no
> ::::::::: obvious fault with a driver doesn't mean a driver
> ::::::::: isn't at fault.
> ::::::::
> :::::::: Legal operation includes not hitting others who
> :::::::: have the right of way. The motorist proceeding in
> :::::::: a legal manner on a street has the right of way
> :::::::: over a child who enters the street from a driveway
> :::::::: or over the curb in the middle of the street,
> :::::::: since these are not cross-walks (marked or
> :::::::: implied). While the motorist does has a duty to
> :::::::: make reasonable attempts to avoid a collision with
> :::::::: those violating his/her right of way, the burden
> :::::::: of proof would be to demonstrate the motorist was
> :::::::: inattentive or deliberately did not take evasive
> :::::::: action. If the available facts do not lead to a
> :::::::: positive conclusion, the default determination
> :::::::: should be that the child was at fault, since he or
> :::::::: she did not have the right of way.
> ::::::::
> :::::::: Of course, in the real world (and with real world
> :::::::: jurors [1]), emotions of liking children override
> :::::::: logical judgment.
> ::::::
> :::::: It's a good think that most people have enough sense
> :::::: to ignore legal BS.
> :::::
> ::::: Decisions made by dispassionate analysis are better
> ::::: than those made by "bleeding heart" emotion.
> :::
> ::: I would say "mostly". Not in every case.
> ::
> :: Of course it is possible for an analysis to be wrong,
> :: and, based on probability for the emotional decision to
> :: be the correct one. One can also come to the correct
> :: decision in some cases by flipping coins or rolling dice.
> ::
> :::::: Frankly, I don't remember ever reading where a
> :::::: moterist have the right of way over any ped on any
> :::::: street. Many streets don't have any kind of marked
> :::::: crosswalks whatsoever and certainly most can't be
> :::::: implied.
> :::::
> ::::: A crosswalk is implied at all at-grade intersections
> ::::: that lack traffic signals and painted markings.
> ::::: Vehicular traffic (motorized and human powered) is
> ::::: required to yield to pedestrians in an implied
> ::::: crosswalk.
> :::
> ::: Does this imply, then, that traffic is not required to
> ::: yield to peds under any other conditions, and if it
> ::: doesn't than the driver is not a fault?
> ::
> :: The motor vehicle operator is required to pay attention
> :: to his/her surroundings and make reasonable attempts not
> :: to hit pedestrians or other vehicles violating his/her
> :: right of way.
>
> Exactly. And in day-to-day goingsabout, it is very possible that a driver
> can be inattentive long enough to allow an accident to happened for reasons
> can boil down to irresponsibility. Is it always reasonable to use a cell
> phone or drink coffee or tune the radio while driving a car?

The three items are very different in the amount of attention they
take, with cell phone usage being the greatest and changing radio
stations (assuming presets or an easily found knob the least).

> What about
> driving with too little sleep or being ****ed because of an argument with
> your spouse? These things are difficult to prove or nail down but have
> significant impacts on humans.

Yes, but let us get back to the point. Are young children responsible
for their actions, and if not, should others be held at fault because
of a child's irresponsibility?

> However, when a collision occurs where the
> :: motorist has the right of way, it is at least partially
> :: the fault of the other party,
>
> Perhaps. What if someone comes to the aid of another on a section of road
> in a blind curve while an inattentive driver doesn't slow enough to allow
> sufficient time to stop upon finding them there?

What does this have to do with children operating bicycles in an
irresponsible manner on public roads?

> :: and completely the fault
> :: of the other party if it can not be proved that the
> :: motorist did NOT take evasive action.
>
> So, according to you, fault lies with what can be proven? If that's the
> case, then drivers have an open field day on anyone not in a car and us
> cyclists should bide are time....

Not at all. A presumption can be made that an adult cyclist will take
reasonable precautions to insure his/her survival. The same presumption
can not be reasonably made for children.

> :: A jury composed of parents who empathize with a child
> :: being struck by a vehicle as possibly their own child
> :: but not with the driver (having the arrogance to believe
> :: that they would have avoided the child) will likely come
> :: to the incorrect decision.
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not. Using your logic, perhaps yes.
>
> ::
> :::::: Are you a lawyer of some type?
> :::::
> ::::: No, I am an engineer, and therefore I approach
> ::::: problems by looking first at the available data, then
> ::::: drawing a conclusion based on rational analysis.
> :::::
> :::
> ::: Please. Your being an engineering doesn't imply that
> ::: you (or any engineer) will draw any conclusions based
> ::: on rational analysis. Some will, some won't. Whether
> ::: one does depends on more than simply being an engineer.
> ::
> :: But it means that I have no realistic chance of getting
> :: on a jury.
>
> Same here. I take advantage of that.
>
>
> ::
> ::::::::::: Then there is the argument that "thinning the
> ::::::::::: herd" would have positive benefits for the
> ::::::::::: overall intelligence of the population.
> :::::::::::
> :::::::::
> ::::::::: Are you seriously making this comment in
> ::::::::: reference to an 8-year old kid getting run over?
> ::::::::
> :::::::: It has been well demonstrated in studies that
> :::::::: predation leads to an overall prey species
> :::::::: population that is healthier and more capable, as
> :::::::: the least fit are eliminated.
> ::::::
> :::::: What studies demonstrate this for human populations?
> :::::: Are we now drawing from animal studies in reference
> :::::: to human behavor, Tom?
> :::::
> ::::: The last time I checked we were animals. The taxonomic
> ::::: distinction between hominids and hominoids is an
> ::::: artificial one, based on religious belief, not
> ::::: biology.
> :::
> ::: Nonetheless, we function at levels that other animals
> ::: do not, hence we are different. We have the ability to
> ::: look out for the weakness among us, for example. Your
> ::: flat view of humans as simply animals is proof that
> ::: your analysis is lacking on this point.
> ::
> :: Looking out for other members of the group is not unique
> :: to humans.
>
> Ah, but if you're old and helpless in the animal kingdom, you are left to
> die. Only those who are young and will propagate the species are protected.
> However, there are various other examples of why humans are unique animals.

Some primates will take care of older and infirm members of the group.

> :: We also have the ability to exploit other humans, which
> :: is commonly done.
>
> Certainly. As we have the ability to kill or maim due to convenience.

But generally for gain beyond that needed for survival.

> :::::: It is only logical that measures in human
> :::::::: populations that protect the least fit will lead
> :::::::: to a lower quality population.
> ::::::
> :::::: Nonsense. You're making this up.
> :::::
> ::::: Are hominids exempt from the rules of natural
> ::::: selection?
> :::
> ::: To some degree, yes. Natural selection is just a
> ::: theory, you know. As such, it cannot be proven or even
> ::: assumed to apply always, without exception.
> ::
> :: Please provide alternatives to natural selection that
> :: have similar backing and consensus among the scientific
> :: community.
>
> Why? I'm simply pointing out to you that you're standing on a point of
> reasoning that is not foolproof.
>
> ::
> ::::: That view does not make sense, unless one believes in
> ::::: some sort of divine intervention (e.g. "intelligent
> ::::: design") superseding the consensus of biologists over
> ::::: the last century.
> :::
> ::: That is simply a point of view.
> ::
> :: If you wish to bring in alternatives outside of accepted
> :: science without providing support for the hypotheses,
> :: then further discussion is pointless, since it would
> :: merely be conflicting statements of belief of things
> :: that are not provable.
>
> I don't believe I brought in any alternatives. It is not necessary to do
> that to say that being "rational" is not some type of absolute standard that
> will always lead to the correct or even the same conclusion. If reason and
> rational thinking alone always ruled the day than we'd have little need for
> the courts.

Yes, because a rational person can choose the immoral decision, while
being aware that it is immoral.

> :::::: This may be the better overall
> :::::::: choice for a society to make, but its negative
> :::::::: consequences should not be discounted.
> ::::::::
> :::::::: [1] Hence the rule of thumb for lawyers: If the
> :::::::: client is right, have a bench trial. If the client
> :::::::: is wrong, have a jury trial and exclude those with
> :::::::: training and practice in analysis from serving on
> :::::::: the jury.
> ::::::::
> ::::::
> :::::: Perhaps so, but that doesn't make your case.
> :::::
> ::::: Do you happen to like children enough that this colors
> ::::: your view (a very common case)?
> :::::
> :::
> ::: I have no children and I can't say that I particularly
> ::: like them. However, I do have a good sense of what
> ::: ought to be right and wrong.
> ::
> :: Do you disagree that children are less responsible and
> :: more mistake prone than adults?
>
> No. And that is what a reasonable and rational person would expect.
>
> ::
> :: If the parent(s)/guardian(s) of the child do not provide
> :: proper supervision, are they not the ones primarily at
> :: fault when the child is the cause of an accident?
> ::
>
> A child riding in a driveway cannot solely be the cause of an accident. It
> also takes a driver of an automobile. How can you be sure that the parents
> did not act in a reasonable manner to keep the child safe? Can you hold them
> to a higher standard of perfection than you can one who drives a car?

In the case of the original posting, I do not have enough facts to make
a decision. I was arguing the point [thread drift] that children need
to be supervised, as they pose an accident risk, which could result in
serious injury or even death for a responsible adult cyclist.

> ::: Where cars are concerned, people need to be held to a
> ::: high level of responsibility than is presently the case
> ::: in most of these Unitied States. Anyone driving a car
> ::: in a neighborhood ought to be aware that kids could be
> ::: around doing unexpected things.
> ::
> :: This is a decision based on social values, not logic.
>
> Are you saying that it is not within the domain of logic to expect drivers
> in a neighborhood to not be aware that irresponsible kids might be playing
> there? We don't expect to see kids playing or riding bikes on controlled
> access roads, do we?

Well, I once had to brake hard, then change direction rapidly to avoid
mowing down a group of six children the jumped the barrier and ran
across a controlled access highway.

While the expectation based on observation would lead one to expect a
significant probability of irresponsible children on the streets in
residential neighborhoods, it is a social decision to say that these
children have the right of way regardless of circumstance. To say that
the children DO NOT have the right of way, yet the operator of a
vehicle (human, electric or internal combustion powered) that is
operated in a legal manner involved in an accident with a child
violating right of way is a fault is logically inconsistent.

If society deems that vehicle operators are going to be considered at
fault when involved in collisions with children violating centuries old
rules of the road if it happens in a residential neighborhood, then
that should be codified in law and such neighborhoods clearly marked
with consistent signage.

To leave this up to the emotional crapshoot of how lawyers can
influence a jury (that typically is composed mostly of parents) mocks
the idea of rule by law.

> If
> :: the burden is not to be placed on the responsible party
> :: in all instances, then that should be codified into law,
> :: rather than letting emotional jurors pervert the law as
> :: it is actually written. That latter is not justice, but
> :: mob rule.
>
> I'm suggesting exactly what you are saying here. The burden should be placed
> in most cases on the driver, especially so in cases where one could expect
> unexpected happenings. In most cases laziness and a willingness to
> undervalue human life is causing us to be too slack while behind the wheel.
> That's why almost everyone is more interested in talking on the phone than
> paying attention while driving.

See above. This needs to be a matter of law; otherwise it is a
perversion of justice.

Secondly, ignore the motor vehicle drivers for the moment, and consider
the adult cyclist. Should the adult cyclist be put at risk by
parent(s)/guardian(s) not supervising their children properly?

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

[Tom Keats]

In article om>,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" > writes:

>> This is getting uncomfortably close to being a discussion
>> of eugenics.
>
> A significant proportion of the US population believes that eugenics is
> being performed by a single, omniscient and omnipotent being.

Yabut when H[S]he does it, it's not eugenics; it's natural.

> I see no harm in DISCUSSING eugenics, as pretending something does not
> exist will not make it go away.

There are a few things in life that are really, truly ~Evil~.
Torture is one such thing. Eugenics is another. So is the
deprecation of women as worthwhile citizens in certain societies,
and so is racial apartheid.

it /should/ go away.

Wha'd'ya wanna do -- cull out all the Down's Syndrome newborns,
or all the other folks with oddball chromosome combinations?
I don't think so. I /know/ you have a heart. I think you're
just approaching eugenics in an acedemic, abstract, debating
sort of way. I hope so, anyways

>> Ob bike: if the streets weren't snow & slush & icebound,
>> I could've bee-lined to my favourite indy coffee shop for
>> a breakfast of tiramisu (the first, freshest serving of
>> the day) and a 2-shot americaino. And another one. So
>> it's toast and home-perked for me this Sunday morning.
>> How pedestrian.
>>
>> Bicycle withdrawal sux.
>
> A sensible government would offer tax incentives for workplace showers
> and secure parking for bicycles and velomobiles, instead of subsidizing
> individualized motorized transport in urban areas.

A loving Diety would make it rain so as to wash all the snow &
ice & slush away.

I guess there's no such thing as a sensible government.




--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Zoot Katz]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 22:11:27 -0800, (Tom Keats)
wrote:

>I guess there's no such thing as a sensible government.

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under."
- H.L. Mencken"
--
zk

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article om>,
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" > writes:
>
> >> This is getting uncomfortably close to being a discussion
> >> of eugenics.
> >
> > A significant proportion of the US population believes that eugenics is
> > being performed by a single, omniscient and omnipotent being.
>
> Yabut when H[S]he does it, it's not eugenics; it's natural.
>
> > I see no harm in DISCUSSING eugenics, as pretending something does not
> > exist will not make it go away.
>
> There are a few things in life that are really, truly ~Evil~.
> Torture is one such thing. Eugenics is another. So is the
> deprecation of women as worthwhile citizens in certain societies,
> and so is racial apartheid.

Discussion is not the same as promotion. Setting aside all other
arguments pro and con, eugenics is flawed the same way as the death
penalty (again, setting aside all other arguments, pro and con) in that
is is/would be imposed by fallible humans. End of consideration from a
moral standpoint.

> it /should/ go away.
>
> Wha'd'ya wanna do -- cull out all the Down's Syndrome newborns,
> or all the other folks with oddball chromosome combinations?
> I don't think so. I /know/ you have a heart. I think you're
> just approaching eugenics in an acedemic, abstract, debating
> sort of way. I hope so, anyways

For some, life is rotten, then they die. Why bring a child into this
world that will never have a chance at living a normal, pain free,
fulfilling life? Some (too many) in this world would have been better
off never having been conceived.

> >> Ob bike: if the streets weren't snow & slush & icebound,
> >> I could've bee-lined to my favourite indy coffee shop for
> >> a breakfast of tiramisu (the first, freshest serving of
> >> the day) and a 2-shot americaino. And another one. So
> >> it's toast and home-perked for me this Sunday morning.
> >> How pedestrian.
> >>
> >> Bicycle withdrawal sux.
> >
> > A sensible government would offer tax incentives for workplace showers
> > and secure parking for bicycles and velomobiles, instead of subsidizing
> > individualized motorized transport in urban areas.
>
> A loving Diety would make it rain so as to wash all the snow &
> ice & slush away.
>
> I guess there's no such thing as a sensible government.

Snow is better than the alternative, global warming.

I would love to have a workplace with showers. I could go to sleep in
cycling clothes, crawl out of bed, put on my SPuD shoes, ride to work,
and then take a refreshing shower, followed by dressing in clean
clothes. I am sure I would be much more productive.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

[Tom Keats]

In article . com>,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" > writes:

>> A loving Diety would make it rain so as to wash all the snow &
>> ice & slush away.
>>
>> I guess there's no such thing as a sensible government.
>
> Snow is better than the alternative, global warming.
>
> I would love to have a workplace with showers. I could go to sleep in
> cycling clothes, crawl out of bed, put on my SPuD shoes, ride to work,
> and then take a refreshing shower, followed by dressing in clean
> clothes. I am sure I would be much more productive.

Anyways, the rain is coming, the snow is melting, the sun is in
Sagittarius, life is good, and love is in the air.

I used to have a workplace with a shower -- the basement office/shop
of the rooming house in which I live, which I cajoled outa the
landlady. The basement bathroom ain't heated, but once the hot
water is turned on, it doesn't really matter. That was back when
I was transcribing documentary films. Going to "work" involved
crawling out of bed, slipping on the houseshoes & dressing gown,
descending to the nether regions of the house, fixing up a pot of
coffee, listening to or watching recordings of people talking, and
typing it. The cycling aspect only involved picking-up and cashing
paycheques. Ah, for the good ol' days.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca