Car vs skateboard?

[Badger_South]

Interesting case on 'Judge Judy' today in which a 15 y.o. child was riding
a skateboard in a parking lot and was hit by a female driver who was on a
cellphone and speeding.

I always thought that such an accident would always be resulted in favor of
the pedestrian, but strangely, the judge said the kid shouldn't have been
riding in a parking lot. No evidence that he was tricking - just riding.

According to the diagrams the kid had a lane and was going through an
intersection when the woman hit him and then claimed he hit her. She sued
for damage to her car.

Fortunately for the kid he had a witness, and got his claim for ER charges.
The woman nothing on her car damage (the windshield was shattered). She had
pictures of the repaired vehicle, with arrows pointing to the side panel,
apparently an afterthought to 'strengthen her case'.

The thing that got me is what if it had been a biker? Why is a skateboard
any different? Some people use these as transportation and IMO, have as
much right to the road as a bike, even if not specifically covered by law
like bikes are.

The only thing that got the kid off the hook for damages is not that the
woman hit -him-, not that she was doing by her own admission 20mph in a
5mph zone, but that the witness had seen her on the cellphone during
driving. The judge didn't like this, but was nowhere near stern enough.

The woman kept claiming that the kid hit her, T-boning her left
quarterpanel, which it may had been, but the witness drew it that she hit
the kid. The angle of hitting the windshield seemed to support the kid
getting clipped near but to the side of the headlight.

The woman tried to lie claiming she got out of the car and then returned to
get the cell out of her purse and call 911. The witness and the kid said
she got out of the car waving the cell and screaming at the kid who was
lying in the road bleeding from roadrash to the side of his head that he'd
damaged her car.

Apparently the Judge doesn't think speeding and breaking the law is worthy
of a fine. In fact in every jurisdiction I've seen, going 15 miles over the
limit is reckless driving.

Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to 'second class'
citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!

-B

[AustinMN]

Badger_South wrote:
> Interesting case on 'Judge Judy' today in which a 15 y.o. child was riding
> a skateboard in a parking lot and was hit by a female driver who was on a
> cellphone and speeding.
>
> I always thought that such an accident would always be resulted in favor
of
> the pedestrian, but strangely, the judge said the kid shouldn't have been
> riding in a parking lot. No evidence that he was tricking - just riding.

<snip>

> Apparently the Judge doesn't think speeding and breaking the law is worthy
> of a fine. In fact in every jurisdiction I've seen, going 15 miles over
the
> limit is reckless driving.
>
> Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to 'second class'
> citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!

Important point of information. Judge Judy is not really a court, but a
civil arbitration. She doesn't have the authority to levee fines or impose
jail sentences. She did everything she could, except write a letter to a
DA.

Austin

[Badger_South]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:55:31 GMT, "AustinMN" > wrote:

>Badger_South wrote:
>> Interesting case on 'Judge Judy' today in which a 15 y.o. child was riding
>> a skateboard in a parking lot and was hit by a female driver who was on a
>> cellphone and speeding.
>>
>> I always thought that such an accident would always be resulted in favor
>of
>> the pedestrian, but strangely, the judge said the kid shouldn't have been
>> riding in a parking lot. No evidence that he was tricking - just riding.
>
><snip>
>
>> Apparently the Judge doesn't think speeding and breaking the law is worthy
>> of a fine. In fact in every jurisdiction I've seen, going 15 miles over
>the
>> limit is reckless driving.
>>
>> Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to 'second class'
>> citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!
>
>Important point of information. Judge Judy is not really a court, but a
>civil arbitration. She doesn't have the authority to levee fines or impose
>jail sentences. She did everything she could, except write a letter to a
>DA.
>
>Austin

Well she denied the kid money for 'pain and suffering', and said it was b/c
he had no right to ride in a parking lot, which I'd dispute.

Yeah, I know she's not a real court. My commentary was meant to be also
about societal attitudes that seem to favor automobile drives and disfavor
others, I guess.

-B

[Roger Zoul]

Badger_South wrote:
|| On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:55:31 GMT, "AustinMN" >
|| wrote:
||
||| Badger_South wrote:
|||| Interesting case on 'Judge Judy' today in which a 15 y.o. child
|||| was riding a skateboard in a parking lot and was hit by a female
|||| driver who was on a cellphone and speeding.
||||
|||| I always thought that such an accident would always be resulted in
|||| favor of the pedestrian, but strangely, the judge said the kid
|||| shouldn't have been riding in a parking lot. No evidence that he
|||| was tricking - just riding.
|||
||| <snip>
|||
|||| Apparently the Judge doesn't think speeding and breaking the law
|||| is worthy of a fine. In fact in every jurisdiction I've seen,
|||| going 15 miles over the limit is reckless driving.
||||
|||| Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to 'second
|||| class' citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!
|||
||| Important point of information. Judge Judy is not really a court,
||| but a civil arbitration. She doesn't have the authority to levee
||| fines or impose jail sentences. She did everything she could,
||| except write a letter to a DA.
|||
||| Austin
||
|| Well she denied the kid money for 'pain and suffering', and said it
|| was b/c he had no right to ride in a parking lot, which I'd dispute.
||
|| Yeah, I know she's not a real court. My commentary was meant to be
|| also about societal attitudes that seem to favor automobile drives
|| and disfavor others, I guess.

In that case this all makes perfect sense....obviously you know that most
car drivers think the roads and parking lots are just for cars. Anyone else
on anything else ought not to be on the road....Talk about ignorance....

||
|| -B

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Badger_South > writes:

> Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to 'second class'
> citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!

One becomes used to it.

Then comes the angst.


cheers,
Tom

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

[Leo Lichtman]

Some of those TV judges actually seem to understand the law--Judge Judy is
not one of them. She seems to be most interested in forming personal
opinions about the litigants, and then screaming at them.

[AustinMN]

Badger_South wrote:
<snip>

> Yeah, I know she's not a real court. My commentary was meant to be also
> about societal attitudes that seem to favor automobile drives and disfavor
> others, I guess.

I understand the overall comment, but I've seen Judge Judy tear new ones for
people who let their dogs chase bikes.

She's not anti-bike, necessarily.

Austin

[Zoot Katz]

Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:32:27 -0700, >,
(Tom Keats) wrote:

>> Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to 'second class'
>> citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!
>
>One becomes used to it.
>
>Then comes the angst.
>
.. . .then the powder and then the fuse.
--
zk

[Glm]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:13:27 -0400, Roger Zoul >
wrote:

>
> In that case this all makes perfect sense....obviously you know that most
> car drivers think the roads and parking lots are just for cars. Anyone
> else
> on anything else ought not to be on the road....Talk about ignorance....
>

Quite correct.

Once behind the wheel, car drivers seem to suffer from amnesia regarding
how they got there in the first place...

....Perhaps they stand by the sliding doors of Wal-Mart, concentrate really
hard on the line 'Beam me up, Scottie!" and then, as if by magic, appear
in the seat of their cars?

Because, after all, parking lots are made for cars, are they not?

[dreaded]

>
> In that case this all makes perfect sense....obviously you know that most
> car drivers think the roads and parking lots are just for cars. Anyone
else
> on anything else ought not to be on the road....Talk about ignorance....
>
> ||
> || -B
>
>

the car, like the NG, or anywhere else one can hide without worrying about
being accoutable for one's actions is a place where people exercise their
alter egos. i cant believe how normally rational people become raging
lunatics when behind the wheel - but this behaviour is sanctioned and
condoned because the car is supreme in our society, we are hopelessly tied
to these infernal machines. now bow to the lords of oil -oh holy trinity
exxon mobil bp!

__o
\ <
( ) ( )
~~~~~~~~

[Luigi de Guzman]

Tom Keats wrote:

> In article >,
> Badger_South > writes:
>
>> Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to 'second class'
>> citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!
>
> One becomes used to it.
>
> Then comes the angst.

My Dad was always fond of the whole Hegelian Master/Slave dialectic: In the
beginning there were two men: one became powerful, the other became
afraid. The powerful one became the master, and the fearful one, the
slave. Eventually, the slave was able to overthrow the master, because
only the slave knew and understood fear.

Dad tells the best bedtime stories.

-Luigi

--
www.livejournal.com/users/ouij
Photos, Rants, Raves

[David Reuteler]

Luigi de Guzman > wrote:
> My Dad was always fond of the whole Hegelian Master/Slave dialectic: In the
> beginning there were two men: one became powerful, the other became
> afraid. The powerful one became the master, and the fearful one, the
> slave. Eventually, the slave was able to overthrow the master, because
> only the slave knew and understood fear.
>
> Dad tells the best bedtime stories.

you need to watch more television.
--
david reuteler

[Roger Zoul]

Luigi de Guzman wrote:
|| Tom Keats wrote:
||
||| In article >,
||| Badger_South > writes:
|||
|||| Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to 'second
|||| class' citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!
|||
||| One becomes used to it.
|||
||| Then comes the angst.
||
|| My Dad was always fond of the whole Hegelian Master/Slave dialectic:
|| In the beginning there were two men: one became powerful, the other
|| became afraid. The powerful one became the master, and the fearful
|| one, the slave. Eventually, the slave was able to overthrow the
|| master, because only the slave knew and understood fear.
||
|| Dad tells the best bedtime stories.

That's a good one...

[dreaded]

"Luigi de Guzman" > wrote in message
news:bfxWc.130361$sh.86564@fed1read06...
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Badger_South > writes:
> >
> >> Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to 'second
class'
> >> citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!
> >
> > One becomes used to it.
> >
> > Then comes the angst.
>
> My Dad was always fond of the whole Hegelian Master/Slave dialectic: In
the
> beginning there were two men: one became powerful, the other became
> afraid. The powerful one became the master, and the fearful one, the
> slave. Eventually, the slave was able to overthrow the master, because
> only the slave knew and understood fear.
>
> Dad tells the best bedtime stories.
>
> -Luigi
>
> --
> www.livejournal.com/users/ouij
> Photos, Rants, Raves
>
>

camus wrote a great essay on this called "the rebel". ...but he doesnt talk
about bicycles at all.
-- a

"""""
x x
>
V

[Tom Keats]

In article <bfxWc.130361$sh.86564@fed1read06>,
Luigi de Guzman > writes:

> My Dad was always fond of the whole Hegelian Master/Slave dialectic: In the
> beginning there were two men: one became powerful, the other became
> afraid. The powerful one became the master, and the fearful one, the
> slave. Eventually, the slave was able to overthrow the master, because
> only the slave knew and understood fear.
>
> Dad tells the best bedtime stories.

Better than DonQuijote1954, anyways, with his
lions and monkeys and dinosaurs.

I think I've seen some Twilight Zone episodes
written around that theme.

Good thing for the slave that the master didn't
just run him over with his car.


cheers,
Tom

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

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
"Roger Zoul" > wrote:

> Badger_South wrote:
> || On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:55:31 GMT, "AustinMN" >
> || wrote:
> ||
> ||| Badger_South wrote:
> |||| Interesting case on 'Judge Judy' today in which a 15 y.o. child
> |||| was riding a skateboard in a parking lot and was hit by a female
> |||| driver who was on a cellphone and speeding.
> ||||
> |||| I always thought that such an accident would always be resulted in
> |||| favor of the pedestrian, but strangely, the judge said the kid
> |||| shouldn't have been riding in a parking lot. No evidence that he
> |||| was tricking - just riding.
> |||
> ||| <snip>
> |||
> |||| Apparently the Judge doesn't think speeding and breaking the law
> |||| is worthy of a fine. In fact in every jurisdiction I've seen,
> |||| going 15 miles over the limit is reckless driving.
> ||||
> |||| Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to 'second
> |||| class' citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!
> |||
> ||| Important point of information. Judge Judy is not really a court,
> ||| but a civil arbitration. She doesn't have the authority to levee
> ||| fines or impose jail sentences. She did everything she could,
> ||| except write a letter to a DA.
> |||
> ||| Austin
> ||
> || Well she denied the kid money for 'pain and suffering', and said it
> || was b/c he had no right to ride in a parking lot, which I'd dispute.
> ||
> || Yeah, I know she's not a real court. My commentary was meant to be
> || also about societal attitudes that seem to favor automobile drives
> || and disfavor others, I guess.
>
> In that case this all makes perfect sense....obviously you know that most
> car drivers think the roads and parking lots are just for cars. Anyone else
> on anything else ought not to be on the road....Talk about ignorance....

But, on the point of the law, she's right.

Let's be clear here: in almost every jurisdiction on the planet,
bicycles are vehicles with road rights, except where explicitly barred.
Remember, critical mass, we are traffic, etc.

Also, in almost every jurisdiction on the planet, in-line skates and
skateboards are not vehicles with road rights, and the kid probably
isn't supposed to be skateboarding in a private parking lot, or at best,
is supposed to behave like a pedestrian.

There are plenty of complications here which this analysis isn't picking
up, but the most important distinction is the one I stated first: bikes
are vehicles in the eyes of the law ("think of them as little cars!")
but skateboards are not.

Finally, tort (civil) law is separate from questions of "criminal" (a
term I may be misusing here to describe violations of the traffic code
as well as the criminal code) law. Judge Judy only arbitrates the
former. The rules for what constitutes a tort, and under what
circumstances a person is liable or has a burden of care are not ones I
know much about, and rules tend to differ from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction (Canada and the US, for example, have some important
differences in this realm). Suffice it to say I would bet your outrage
is misplaced, and at best should be directed at civil law precedents.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

[Frank Krygowski]

Luigi de Guzman wrote:

>
>
> My Dad was always fond of the whole Hegelian Master/Slave dialectic: In the
> beginning there were two men: one became powerful, the other became
> afraid. The powerful one became the master, and the fearful one, the
> slave. Eventually, the slave was able to overthrow the master, because
> only the slave knew and understood fear.
>
> Dad tells the best bedtime stories.

Hmmm. This may explain a lot about you, Luigi! ;-)

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

[Automator]

> Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to 'second class'
> citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!
>
> -B

you tell it, B. A couple years ago I had to bike to work along a state
highway. Speed limit 45mph. No shoulder. So, being the safety minded guy I
am ... I ride in the middle of the right lane. Folks didn't take to kindly
to that, doing such things as calling 911. Judges didn't seem to even listen
to the laws relating, such as:

If a bicycle and a car cannot safely share a lane, the bicycle may take a
full lane.
Cars must give 3 feet of clearance to bikes.

So, figuring a width of about 3 feet for me and my bike, 3 feet of
clearance, and an average car width of around 7 feet, for a bike and car to
safely share the lane the lane must be AT LEAST 13 feet -- in this case the
lanes were 12 feet.

Got fined. Paid about 10% of the fine in spare change that I dumped out for
the judge to count. Moved out of state to avoid arrest.

[Leo Lichtman]

"Automator" wrote: (clip) Got fined. Paid about 10% of the fine in spare
change that I dumped out for the judge to count. Moved out of state to avoid
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I knew a sculptor once who paid a traffic fine by making a check out of
concrete--weighed a couple of hundred pounds. The city officials were not
amused, but the press was there, and it made the papers, including
photographs. Due to the publicity, the officials were not able to show
their full displeasure, and he got away with it. Didn't even have to leave
town.

[Mike VM]

Badger_South > wrote in message >...
> Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to 'second class'
> citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!

I don't agree that because a child on a skateboard is not classed as a
vehicle, that you can extrapolate from that to "cycles are second
class".

When driving a car, you inevitably make certain assumptions about what
you see as you drive and manouver.

One of those assumptions is about the rate at which an object may end
up trying to use the same piece of space that you are/intend to use.

We all do this every day. As we look around at various manouvering
points. If we see a person who is not in or on a vehicle, and is a
fair distance away, we make an automatic assumption that they are not
going to get near us very quickly.

If we see a person who is on or in a vehicle, we know we need to make
an assessment of that persons speed and intentions.

The problem with roller skates and skateboards is that the are not
"recognised" as vehicles, either legally, or by our brains as they
scan the vicinity, and as such are "removed from the equation" as we
assess a situation, if they are more than a certain distance away.

Of course, in the quoted case, the issue was complicated by the woman
clearly not paying attention, and lying about what happened. But I
could not fault the "judge" for attributing some proportion of the
blame to the skateboarder for using the device in an inappropriate
place.

In the coming years, I can see that there will be all kinds of
problems caused by the new generation of electric (and occasionally
petrol engined) scooters and skateboards that now seem to be appearing
ever more frequently.

[Gawnsoft]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:48:35 -0700, Ryan Cousineau >
wrote (more or less):

>In article >,
> "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
>
>> Badger_South wrote:
>> || On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:55:31 GMT, "AustinMN" >
>> || wrote:
>> ||
>> ||| Badger_South wrote:
>> |||| Interesting case on 'Judge Judy' today in which a 15 y.o. child
>> |||| was riding a skateboard in a parking lot and was hit by a female
>> |||| driver who was on a cellphone and speeding.
>> ||||
>> |||| I always thought that such an accident would always be resulted in
>> |||| favor of the pedestrian, but strangely, the judge said the kid
>> |||| shouldn't have been riding in a parking lot. No evidence that he
>> |||| was tricking - just riding.
>> |||
>> ||| <snip>
>> |||
>> |||| Apparently the Judge doesn't think speeding and breaking the law
>> |||| is worthy of a fine. In fact in every jurisdiction I've seen,
>> |||| going 15 miles over the limit is reckless driving.
>> ||||
>> |||| Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to 'second
>> |||| class' citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!
>> |||
>> ||| Important point of information. Judge Judy is not really a court,
>> ||| but a civil arbitration. She doesn't have the authority to levee
>> ||| fines or impose jail sentences. She did everything she could,
>> ||| except write a letter to a DA.
>> |||
>> ||| Austin
>> ||
>> || Well she denied the kid money for 'pain and suffering', and said it
>> || was b/c he had no right to ride in a parking lot, which I'd dispute.
>> ||
>> || Yeah, I know she's not a real court. My commentary was meant to be
>> || also about societal attitudes that seem to favor automobile drives
>> || and disfavor others, I guess.
>>
>> In that case this all makes perfect sense....obviously you know that most
>> car drivers think the roads and parking lots are just for cars. Anyone else
>> on anything else ought not to be on the road....Talk about ignorance....
>
>But, on the point of the law, she's right.
>
>Let's be clear here: in almost every jurisdiction on the planet,
>bicycles are vehicles with road rights, except where explicitly barred.
>Remember, critical mass, we are traffic, etc.
>
>Also, in almost every jurisdiction on the planet, in-line skates and
>skateboards are not vehicles with road rights, and the kid probably
>isn't supposed to be skateboarding in a private parking lot, or at best,
>is supposed to behave like a pedestrian.
>
>There are plenty of complications here which this analysis isn't picking
>up, but the most important distinction is the one I stated first: bikes
>are vehicles in the eyes of the law ("think of them as little cars!")
>but skateboards are not.
>
>Finally, tort (civil) law is separate from questions of "criminal" (a
>term I may be misusing here to describe violations of the traffic code
>as well as the criminal code) law. Judge Judy only arbitrates the
>former. The rules for what constitutes a tort, and under what
>circumstances a person is liable or has a burden of care are not ones I
>know much about, and rules tend to differ from jurisdiction to
>jurisdiction (Canada and the US, for example, have some important
>differences in this realm). Suffice it to say I would bet your outrage
>is misplaced, and at best should be directed at civil law precedents.

You saying that a car driver's duty of care does not extend to not
being 300% over the speed limit in a public place where pedestrians
may legitimately be expected to be travelling?


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Roger Zoul]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
:: In article >,
:: "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
::
::: Badger_South wrote:
::::: On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:55:31 GMT, "AustinMN" >
::::: wrote:
:::::
:::::: Badger_South wrote:
::::::: Interesting case on 'Judge Judy' today in which a 15 y.o. child
::::::: was riding a skateboard in a parking lot and was hit by a female
::::::: driver who was on a cellphone and speeding.
:::::::
::::::: I always thought that such an accident would always be resulted
::::::: in favor of the pedestrian, but strangely, the judge said the
::::::: kid shouldn't have been riding in a parking lot. No evidence
::::::: that he was tricking - just riding.
::::::
:::::: <snip>
::::::
::::::: Apparently the Judge doesn't think speeding and breaking the law
::::::: is worthy of a fine. In fact in every jurisdiction I've seen,
::::::: going 15 miles over the limit is reckless driving.
:::::::
::::::: Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to
::::::: 'second class' citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!
::::::
:::::: Important point of information. Judge Judy is not really a
:::::: court, but a civil arbitration. She doesn't have the authority
:::::: to levee fines or impose jail sentences. She did everything she
:::::: could, except write a letter to a DA.
::::::
:::::: Austin
:::::
::::: Well she denied the kid money for 'pain and suffering', and said
::::: it was b/c he had no right to ride in a parking lot, which I'd
::::: dispute.
:::::
::::: Yeah, I know she's not a real court. My commentary was meant to be
::::: also about societal attitudes that seem to favor automobile drives
::::: and disfavor others, I guess.
:::
::: In that case this all makes perfect sense....obviously you know
::: that most car drivers think the roads and parking lots are just for
::: cars. Anyone else on anything else ought not to be on the
::: road....Talk about ignorance....
::
:: But, on the point of the law, she's right.
::
:: Let's be clear here: in almost every jurisdiction on the planet,
:: bicycles are vehicles with road rights, except where explicitly
:: barred. Remember, critical mass, we are traffic, etc.
::
:: Also, in almost every jurisdiction on the planet, in-line skates and
:: skateboards are not vehicles with road rights, and the kid probably
:: isn't supposed to be skateboarding in a private parking lot, or at
:: best, is supposed to behave like a pedestrian.
::
:: There are plenty of complications here which this analysis isn't
:: picking up, but the most important distinction is the one I stated
:: first: bikes are vehicles in the eyes of the law ("think of them as
:: little cars!") but skateboards are not.
::
:: Finally, tort (civil) law is separate from questions of "criminal" (a
:: term I may be misusing here to describe violations of the traffic
:: code as well as the criminal code) law. Judge Judy only arbitrates
:: the former. The rules for what constitutes a tort, and under what
:: circumstances a person is liable or has a burden of care are not
:: ones I know much about, and rules tend to differ from jurisdiction to
:: jurisdiction (Canada and the US, for example, have some important
:: differences in this realm). Suffice it to say I would bet your
:: outrage is misplaced, and at best should be directed at civil law
:: precedents.
::

This seems reasonable. Actually, this is good news, because you're saying
that the rights of bicyclist to use the roads probably would have been
recognized by Judge Judy.

But then again, exactly where is a kid supposed to use a skateboard? Are
you saying the kid didn't act like a pedestrian? A pedestrian might be
running/jogging, etc, in/through a parking lot. The kid could have walked
through that lot, but could not have ridden his stakeboard? Funny laws, if
you ask me.

[Badger_South]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:56:19 -0400, "Roger Zoul" >
wrote:

>
>This seems reasonable. Actually, this is good news, because you're saying
>that the rights of bicyclist to use the roads probably would have been
>recognized by Judge Judy.
>
>But then again, exactly where is a kid supposed to use a skateboard? Are
>you saying the kid didn't act like a pedestrian? A pedestrian might be
>running/jogging, etc, in/through a parking lot. The kid could have walked
>through that lot, but could not have ridden his stakeboard? Funny laws, if
>you ask me.

Both good points, Rog., especially in that a ped might be jogging through a
parkinglot.

In addition how often do you nab a soccer mom actually on the cell during
an accident. I'da thrown the book at her and awarded max bucks to the kid
under pain and suffering, for her yakking while pretending to drive. ;-p

-B

[AustinMN]

"Gawnsoft" > wrote in
message ...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:48:35 -0700, Ryan Cousineau >
> wrote (more or less):
>
> >In article >,
> > "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
> >
> >> Badger_South wrote:
> >> || On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:55:31 GMT, "AustinMN" >
> >> || wrote:
> >> ||
> >> ||| Badger_South wrote:
> >> |||| Interesting case on 'Judge Judy' today in which a 15 y.o. child
> >> |||| was riding a skateboard in a parking lot and was hit by a female
> >> |||| driver who was on a cellphone and speeding.
> >> ||||
> >> |||| I always thought that such an accident would always be resulted in
> >> |||| favor of the pedestrian, but strangely, the judge said the kid
> >> |||| shouldn't have been riding in a parking lot. No evidence that he
> >> |||| was tricking - just riding.
> >> |||
> >> ||| <snip>
> >> |||
> >> |||| Apparently the Judge doesn't think speeding and breaking the law
> >> |||| is worthy of a fine. In fact in every jurisdiction I've seen,
> >> |||| going 15 miles over the limit is reckless driving.
> >> ||||
> >> |||| Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to 'second
> >> |||| class' citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!
> >> |||
> >> ||| Important point of information. Judge Judy is not really a court,
> >> ||| but a civil arbitration. She doesn't have the authority to levee
> >> ||| fines or impose jail sentences. She did everything she could,
> >> ||| except write a letter to a DA.
> >> |||
> >> ||| Austin
> >> ||
> >> || Well she denied the kid money for 'pain and suffering', and said it
> >> || was b/c he had no right to ride in a parking lot, which I'd dispute.
> >> ||
> >> || Yeah, I know she's not a real court. My commentary was meant to be
> >> || also about societal attitudes that seem to favor automobile drives
> >> || and disfavor others, I guess.
> >>
> >> In that case this all makes perfect sense....obviously you know that
most
> >> car drivers think the roads and parking lots are just for cars. Anyone
else
> >> on anything else ought not to be on the road....Talk about
ignorance....
> >
> >But, on the point of the law, she's right.
> >
> >Let's be clear here: in almost every jurisdiction on the planet,
> >bicycles are vehicles with road rights, except where explicitly barred.
> >Remember, critical mass, we are traffic, etc.
> >
> >Also, in almost every jurisdiction on the planet, in-line skates and
> >skateboards are not vehicles with road rights, and the kid probably
> >isn't supposed to be skateboarding in a private parking lot, or at best,
> >is supposed to behave like a pedestrian.
> >
> >There are plenty of complications here which this analysis isn't picking
> >up, but the most important distinction is the one I stated first: bikes
> >are vehicles in the eyes of the law ("think of them as little cars!")
> >but skateboards are not.
> >
> >Finally, tort (civil) law is separate from questions of "criminal" (a
> >term I may be misusing here to describe violations of the traffic code
> >as well as the criminal code) law. Judge Judy only arbitrates the
> >former. The rules for what constitutes a tort, and under what
> >circumstances a person is liable or has a burden of care are not ones I
> >know much about, and rules tend to differ from jurisdiction to
> >jurisdiction (Canada and the US, for example, have some important
> >differences in this realm). Suffice it to say I would bet your outrage
> >is misplaced, and at best should be directed at civil law precedents.
>
> You saying that a car driver's duty of care does not extend to not
> being 300% over the speed limit in a public place where pedestrians
> may legitimately be expected to be travelling?

In this case, not, at least not to where it could be pinned to 300%. "Speed
Limits" in places like parking lots have no legal bearing because they are
not public right-of-ways, they are private property. A speed limit sign (at
least in the US) on private property is legally no more than a courteous
suggestion.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
(Mike VM) writes:
>
> When driving a car, you inevitably make certain assumptions about what
> you see as you drive and manouver.
>
> One of those assumptions is about the rate at which an object may end
> up trying to use the same piece of space that you are/intend to use.
>
> We all do this every day. As we look around at various manouvering
> points. If we see a person who is not in or on a vehicle, and is a
> fair distance away, we make an automatic assumption that they are not
> going to get near us very quickly.

If drivers have to resort to guesswork to try to avoid
clobbering other road users (including non-driving ones,)
they shouldn't be driving at all. The stakes are too high
to risk with somebody's blithe, mental toss of a coin.


cheers,
Tom

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

[AustinMN]

Automator wrote:
> > Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to 'second
class'
> > citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!
> >
> > -B
>
> you tell it, B. A couple years ago I had to bike to work along a state
> highway. Speed limit 45mph. No shoulder. So, being the safety minded guy I
> am ... I ride in the middle of the right lane. Folks didn't take to kindly
> to that, doing such things as calling 911. Judges didn't seem to even
listen
> to the laws relating, such as:
>
> If a bicycle and a car cannot safely share a lane, the bicycle may take a
> full lane.
> Cars must give 3 feet of clearance to bikes.
>
> So, figuring a width of about 3 feet for me and my bike, 3 feet of
> clearance, and an average car width of around 7 feet, for a bike and car
to
> safely share the lane the lane must be AT LEAST 13 feet -- in this case
the
> lanes were 12 feet.
>
> Got fined. Paid about 10% of the fine in spare change that I dumped out
for
> the judge to count. Moved out of state to avoid arrest.

I would have appealed that. In most states, you can insist on appealing to
a jury on traffic citations. The judge might have learned something, too;
most don't know everything, despite attitudes to the contrary.

OTOH, were you in actual violation of the law you were cited for? In many
states (mostly mountainous states in the west), holding up traffic is
something you can be cited for. The most common flavor is that you have to
pull over when 5 or more vehicles are behind you (and it is safe to do so).
It doesn't matter if you are breaking no other law, and in fact still
applies if you are traveling at or above the speed limit.

Austin

[Badger_South]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:11:00 GMT, "AustinMN" > wrote:

>In this case, not, at least not to where it could be pinned to 300%. "Speed
>Limits" in places like parking lots have no legal bearing because they are
>not public right-of-ways, they are private property. A speed limit sign (at
>least in the US) on private property is legally no more than a courteous
>suggestion.
>
>Austin
>--
>I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
>There are no X characters in my address

This is what I've heard also, thus the frequent 'stop sign' shaped signs,
mimicking those on the street. No legal bearing, either.

-B

[AustinMN]

Tom Keats:
> If drivers have to resort to guesswork to try to avoid
> clobbering other road users (including non-driving ones,)
> they shouldn't be driving at all. The stakes are too high
> to risk with somebody's blithe, mental toss of a coin.

This makes for great newsgroup fodder, but all vehicle operators, including
cyclists, do this all the time. Nobody can pay attention to _everything_.
Those that come the closest (ADD/ADHD) make horrible drivers.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"AustinMN" > writes:
> Tom Keats:
>> If drivers have to resort to guesswork to try to avoid
>> clobbering other road users (including non-driving ones,)
>> they shouldn't be driving at all. The stakes are too high
>> to risk with somebody's blithe, mental toss of a coin.
>
> This makes for great newsgroup fodder, but all vehicle operators, including
> cyclists, do this all the time. Nobody can pay attention to _everything_.
> Those that come the closest (ADD/ADHD) make horrible drivers.

As I understood Mike's post, he was not talking so much
about being caught by surprise by the presence of other
road users, but rather dealing with /uncertainty/ with
regard to the speeds, vectors and intentions of road users
who have already been seen.

I figure there are two sides on which to choose to 'err',
and I think the side of caution is the more preferable.
Maybe that's why I've never clobbered any of those squirrely
rollerbladers I sometimes encounter on the streets.

This past Sunday, while riding back home from a seek-&-
destroy mission for a cup of fairly traded coffee, I
came up to a malfunctioning traffic light at a certain
cross-traffic (relative to my direction) street. The light
is normally a flashing green, which indicates the presence
of a pushbutton pedestrian control. But this time it was
flashing yellow. We normally don't have any flashing
yellows here, and the drivers didn't know what to make of
it. So they guessed. Some nonchalantly barged through,
and some screeched to a halt. Of the latter, some
immediately restarted and then treditatiously continued
through the intersection, some restarted and got the heck
out of there, and some wanted to apply 4-way stop rules.

What a mess!

I opted to detour rather than taking my chances among a
bunch of guessing drivers, and having to guess, myself --
should this malfunctioning traffic light have been treated
as non-existant, and 4-way stop rules reverted-to, as when
traffic lights don't work at all? Or as a 2-way stop, since
this was an arterial/secondary street intersection (I was on
the secondary)? Or should the flashing yellow have been taken
at face value?

In British Columbia a flashing yellow means slow down and
proceed only if safe to do so. Anyhow, the obvious confusion
of the drivers clinched my decision to detour to the nearest
arterial/arterial intersection with a good 'ol timed traffic
light. To heck with guessing.


cheers,
Tom

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

[Hunrobe]

>Badger_South

wrote in part:

>The thing that got me is what if it had been a biker? Why is a skateboard
>any different? Some people use these as transportation and IMO, have as
>much right to the road as a bike, even if not specifically covered by law
>like bikes are.
>

Not to dispute that the driver was at fault, but parking lots are not roads.
They are private property much the same as your yard is private property. The
property owners can and often do ban skateboards to avoid having exactly the
type of lawsuit you saw on an entertainment television show wind up in a real
court. That is within their property rights just as you have the right to
refuse to allow anyone to use your yard as a shortcut.
As for the rights of skateboarders to use the public roadways for
transportation, if local ordinance or State statute prohibits that use then
your opinion or mine makes absolutely no difference. I'd tell any skateboarder
complaining that such discrimination is unfair, "Life is unfair. Either change
the law or buy a bike."

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Curtis L. Russell]

On 24 Aug 2004 16:22:28 GMT, (Hunrobe) wrote:

>Not to dispute that the driver was at fault, but parking lots are not roads.
>They are private property much the same as your yard is private property. The
>property owners can and often do ban skateboards to avoid having exactly the
>type of lawsuit you saw on an entertainment television show wind up in a real
>court. That is within their property rights just as you have the right to
>refuse to allow anyone to use your yard as a shortcut.

Not completely true in many jurisdictions. In order to be in business
or build/expand, many businesses have to accept certain rules and
conditions concerning parking lots. There are several access suits
going through the courts, for instance, in the area of bus stops.
IIRC, one is a civil suit against a mall owner for prohibiting a bus
stop near the mall, using the roadways within the parking lot, and the
person was injured or killed crossing a dangerous road to a relocated
bus stop. Others are specifically to force malls that have parking
lots per zoning requirements to yield to public access rules.

Whether bikes or skateboards would fall into a protected class if this
prevails is a different issue. It will be interesting. Of course, if
it all stays local/state, it won't mean a heck of a lot.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Badger_South]

On 24 Aug 2004 16:22:28 GMT, (Hunrobe) wrote:

>>Badger_South
>
>wrote in part:
>
>>The thing that got me is what if it had been a biker? Why is a skateboard
>>any different? Some people use these as transportation and IMO, have as
>>much right to the road as a bike, even if not specifically covered by law
>>like bikes are.
>>
>
>Not to dispute that the driver was at fault, but parking lots are not roads.
>They are private property much the same as your yard is private property. The
>property owners can and often do ban skateboards to avoid having exactly the
>type of lawsuit you saw on an entertainment television show wind up in a real
>court. That is within their property rights just as you have the right to
>refuse to allow anyone to use your yard as a shortcut.
>As for the rights of skateboarders to use the public roadways for
>transportation, if local ordinance or State statute prohibits that use then
>your opinion or mine makes absolutely no difference. I'd tell any skateboarder
>complaining that such discrimination is unfair, "Life is unfair. Either change
>the law or buy a bike."
>
>Regards,
>Bob Hunt

If this is true, what right did the 'Judge' have saying 'you shouldn't have
been riding your skateboard there'? None at all, appararently, until she
ascertained that it was specifically prohibited.

-B

[AustinMN]

Badger_South wrote:

> >Not to dispute that the driver was at fault, but parking lots are not
roads.
> >They are private property much the same as your yard is private property.
The
> >property owners can and often do ban skateboards to avoid having exactly
the
> >type of lawsuit you saw on an entertainment television show wind up in a
real
> >court. That is within their property rights just as you have the right to
> >refuse to allow anyone to use your yard as a shortcut.
> >As for the rights of skateboarders to use the public roadways for
> >transportation, if local ordinance or State statute prohibits that use
then
> >your opinion or mine makes absolutely no difference. I'd tell any
skateboarder
> >complaining that such discrimination is unfair, "Life is unfair. Either
change
> >the law or buy a bike."
> >
> >Regards,
> >Bob Hunt
>
> If this is true, what right did the 'Judge' have saying 'you shouldn't
have
> been riding your skateboard there'? None at all, appararently, until she
> ascertained that it was specifically prohibited.

Be assured, not all of the evidence makes it onto the show. Judges
routinely look things up, make phone calls, etc. If there was a 'yes there
was/no there wasn't' exchange about whether skateboards were prohibited,
'Judge' Judy may well have called the lot owner and asked. It may not have
made it to the show at all (IMHO, an editing mistake), but would still be
considered in the 'Judge's' decision and in the lambasting the young man
got.

Austin

[loki]

"Ryan Cousineau" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
[...]
> > In that case this all makes perfect sense....obviously you know that
most
> > car drivers think the roads and parking lots are just for cars. Anyone
else
> > on anything else ought not to be on the road....Talk about ignorance....
>
> But, on the point of the law, she's right.
>
> Let's be clear here: in almost every jurisdiction on the planet,
> bicycles are vehicles with road rights, except where explicitly barred.
> Remember, critical mass, we are traffic, etc.
>
> Also, in almost every jurisdiction on the planet, in-line skates and
> skateboards are not vehicles with road rights, and the kid probably
> isn't supposed to be skateboarding in a private parking lot, or at best,
> is supposed to behave like a pedestrian.
[...]

I try to skim a thread to make sure no one has responded as I want to.
Congratulationss. You just summed up how I thought about the case.

I did see that Judge Judy show but was only half paying attention whilst on
the computer. I would add that JJ seemed to be making an assumption [unfair?
I dunno] that the kid was probaably doing stunts or otherwise acting in a
risky manner and ruled accordingly.
I can't say as I disagree with her decision.

--
'I may crack
But I'll never shatter' -meredith brooks

[Badger_South]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:35:48 GMT, "loki" > wrote:

>
>"Ryan Cousineau" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
>[...]
>> > In that case this all makes perfect sense....obviously you know that
>most
>> > car drivers think the roads and parking lots are just for cars. Anyone
>else
>> > on anything else ought not to be on the road....Talk about ignorance....
>>
>> But, on the point of the law, she's right.
>>
>> Let's be clear here: in almost every jurisdiction on the planet,
>> bicycles are vehicles with road rights, except where explicitly barred.
>> Remember, critical mass, we are traffic, etc.
>>
>> Also, in almost every jurisdiction on the planet, in-line skates and
>> skateboards are not vehicles with road rights, and the kid probably
>> isn't supposed to be skateboarding in a private parking lot, or at best,
>> is supposed to behave like a pedestrian.
>[...]
>
> I try to skim a thread to make sure no one has responded as I want to.
>Congratulationss. You just summed up how I thought about the case.
>
> I did see that Judge Judy show but was only half paying attention whilst on
>the computer. I would add that JJ seemed to be making an assumption [unfair?
>I dunno] that the kid was probaably doing stunts or otherwise acting in a
>risky manner and ruled accordingly.
> I can't say as I disagree with her decision.

Well let's be sure not to lose sight of the fact that beyotch on cell phone
speeding at least 15mph over the posted quasi-legal limit hits a
teenybopper innocently tooling along on his board, and gets she away with a
wrist slap!

-B
Of course the kid had some nerve being in the way on her asphault, eh? ;-)

[Dave Pushee]

Mike VM wrote:
>
.... snip

>
> We all do this every day. As we look around at various manouvering
> points. If we see a person who is not in or on a vehicle, and is a
> fair distance away, we make an automatic assumption that they are not
> going to get near us very quickly.
>
.... snip again
>
> In the coming years, I can see that there will be all kinds of
> problems caused by the new generation of electric (and occasionally
> petrol engined) scooters and skateboards that now seem to be appearing
> ever more frequently.
>

I had a surprise tonight on my (bicycle) commute home. I was coming off
a fast downhill and probably still doing about 35mph when I spotted what
I thought was a pedestrian coming my way. We were both on a paved
shoulder 4 or 5 feet wide. I checked back in preparation to moving into
the traffic lane. About the time I started to move left, the
"pedestrian" also moved into the traffic lane, and the distance was
closing really fast. It was two kids on a motorized skateboard or
something doing about 25mph. I ducked back right onto the shoulder
again and they crossed diagonally over to the other (their right) side
just in front of a line of traffic. Those fools are lucky to be alive.
I'm just glad they didn't take me with them.

- Dave

[Hunrobe]

>Badger_South

wrote:

>This is what I've heard also, thus the frequent 'stop sign' shaped signs,
>mimicking those on the street. No legal bearing, either.

Don't bet on it, at least not in the Chicago area. Every major shopping mall
I'm aware of- and since I'm married to a world class shopper that is most of
them for a 30 mile radius- has an agreement with the municipality they are
located in that makes local traffic laws enforceable on mall property so while
running a stop sign won't get the violator a citation under *State* law it will
earn them an ordinance ticket. Just FYI.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[dreaded]

"Dave Pushee" > wrote in message
...
> Mike VM wrote:
> >
> ... snip
>
> >
> > We all do this every day. As we look around at various manouvering
> > points. If we see a person who is not in or on a vehicle, and is a
> > fair distance away, we make an automatic assumption that they are not
> > going to get near us very quickly.
> >
> ... snip again
> >
> > In the coming years, I can see that there will be all kinds of
> > problems caused by the new generation of electric (and occasionally
> > petrol engined) scooters and skateboards that now seem to be appearing
> > ever more frequently.
> >
>
> I had a surprise tonight on my (bicycle) commute home. I was coming off
> a fast downhill and probably still doing about 35mph when I spotted what
> I thought was a pedestrian coming my way. We were both on a paved
> shoulder 4 or 5 feet wide. I checked back in preparation to moving into
> the traffic lane. About the time I started to move left, the
> "pedestrian" also moved into the traffic lane, and the distance was
> closing really fast. It was two kids on a motorized skateboard or
> something doing about 25mph. I ducked back right onto the shoulder
> again and they crossed diagonally over to the other (their right) side
> just in front of a line of traffic. Those fools are lucky to be alive.
> I'm just glad they didn't take me with them.
>
> - Dave
>

ya i saw the damndest thing too the other day. it was a little tiny
motorcycle. like a baby crotch rocket type. the driver was so low it looked
like he was on one of those land-luge things and he was weaving in and out
of traffic that likely had no idea he was there because he wasnt even as
high as the windows on a normal car!
-alan

[Hunrobe]

>Curtis L. Russell

wrote:

>(Hunrobe) wrote:
>
>>Not to dispute that the driver was at fault, but parking lots are not roads.
>>They are private property much the same as your yard is private property.
>The
>>property owners can and often do ban skateboards to avoid having exactly the
>>type of lawsuit you saw on an entertainment television show wind up in a
>real
>>court. That is within their property rights just as you have the right to
>>refuse to allow anyone to use your yard as a shortcut.
>
>Not completely true in many jurisdictions. In order to be in business
>or build/expand, many businesses have to accept certain rules and
>conditions concerning parking lots. There are several access suits
>going through the courts, for instance, in the area of bus stops.
>IIRC, one is a civil suit against a mall owner for prohibiting a bus
>stop near the mall, using the roadways within the parking lot, and the
>person was injured or killed crossing a dangerous road to a relocated
>bus stop. Others are specifically to force malls that have parking
>lots per zoning requirements to yield to public access rules.
>
>Whether bikes or skateboards would fall into a protected class if this
>prevails is a different issue. It will be interesting. Of course, if
>it all stays local/state, it won't mean a heck of a lot.

Not to nitpick but when you purchase property and build a house you have to
comply with permit and building code requirements because no rights are
absolute. The law applies and rights accrue equally (but not identically) to
both commercial and residential property owners.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Hunrobe]

>Badger_South

wrote:

>
>If this is true, what right did the 'Judge' have saying 'you shouldn't have
>been riding your skateboard there'? None at all, appararently, until she
>ascertained that it was specifically prohibited.

"Judge Judy" et al are *television shows* designed to entertain. They bear
little resemblance to real courts. Just as the "loser" in the trial doesn't
have to actually fork over any of THEIR money to the winner (You do know that
the TV show pays all the "judgements", right?), the "judge" doesn't have to
abide by statute, precedent, or anything except the Nielson ratings.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Pete]

"dreaded" > wrote
>
> ya i saw the damndest thing too the other day. it was a little tiny
> motorcycle. like a baby crotch rocket type. the driver was so low it
looked
> like he was on one of those land-luge things and he was weaving in and out
> of traffic that likely had no idea he was there because he wasnt even as
> high as the windows on a normal car!
> -alan

Those are the reincarnation of the 'minibikes' of yore. Crotch rocket,
chopper, motocross styles.
ObOldGuy - our minibikes had converted lawnmower engines, minimally
effective brakes (if any), poor or no suspension..
These have converted chainsaw motors and disk brakes.

We used to ride ours on the street. Just as illegally as these fools. But
never on a busy street, in between cars. We weren't THAT dumb.

Pete

[loki]

"Badger_South" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:35:48 GMT, "loki" > wrote:
[...]
> > I did see that Judge Judy show but was only half paying attention whilst
on
> >the computer. I would add that JJ seemed to be making an assumption
[unfair?
> >I dunno] that the kid was probably doing stunts or otherwise acting in a
> >risky manner and ruled accordingly.
> > I can't say as I disagree with her decision.
>
> Well let's be sure not to lose sight of the fact that beyotch on cell
phone
> speeding at least 15mph over the posted quasi-legal limit hits a
> teenybopper innocently tooling along on his board, and gets she away with
a
> wrist slap!

As has been stated: JJ, and the other TV judges, may have been a bona fide
judge and base her decisions [mostly] on the actual relevant laws, the JJ
show is not a real court and certainly not a criminal court. It is private
mediation.

Now she could granted the skateboarder a huge amount for pain and
suffering to punished the cell phone/automobile multitasker but given the
situation, I don't think her ruling putting some responsibility on the kid
was out of line.

--
'I'm a man.
But I can change.
If I have to. -Red Green's
I guess.' The Man's Prayer

[Curtis L. Russell]

On 25 Aug 2004 02:34:55 GMT, (Hunrobe) wrote:

>Not to nitpick but when you purchase property and build a house you have to
>comply with permit and building code requirements because no rights are
>absolute. The law applies and rights accrue equally (but not identically) to
>both commercial and residential property owners.

The set asides and tradeoffs that get codified by most jurisdictions
that require them do speak to accomodation of public traffic and
parking. They are designed to minimize the impact on the surrounding
area (by creating far too much asphalt and 'island in asphalt'
businesses). In most cases it boils down to what is covered in 'public
traffic' or similar term.

Still leaves the excluded cyclist to fight it out one jurisdiction at
a time.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Badger_South > writes:

> Well she denied the kid money for 'pain and suffering', and said it was b/c
> he had no right to ride in a parking lot, which I'd dispute.

I note she did rule more in the kid's favour than the
driver's. Sure, she bawled him out a little, but she
does that to everybody. I wouldn't be surprised if
she denied him 'pain and suffering' because he didn't
have to miss any work or endure any other major sort
of quantifiable lost time because of the incident.

> Yeah, I know she's not a real court. My commentary was meant to be also
> about societal attitudes that seem to favor automobile drives and disfavor
> others, I guess.

FWIW, I think you're perception is right on the mark.
In this case though, the driver got stuck with her own
repair bills and the kid's ER bills. I doubt JJ had
the authority to find against the driver for 'driving
without due care and attention' or whatever legalese
they use there for yacking on the phone while speeding
and driving into people.

I think this case was too important to be played with in
TV court. It should have gone to the real authorities.
People getting run-over is serious business, and society
is just too accepting of it.

Perhaps that this case was lumped in with more trivial things,
like claims over bad fence repair jobs, or former couples'
arguments over who owns what furniture, is most telling.


cheers,
Tom

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

[Roger Zoul]

Hunrobe wrote:
::: Badger_South
::
:: wrote:
::
:::
::: If this is true, what right did the 'Judge' have saying 'you
::: shouldn't have been riding your skateboard there'? None at all,
::: appararently, until she ascertained that it was specifically
::: prohibited.
::
:: "Judge Judy" et al are *television shows* designed to entertain.
:: They bear little resemblance to real courts. Just as the "loser" in
:: the trial doesn't have to actually fork over any of THEIR money to
:: the winner (You do know that the TV show pays all the "judgements",
:: right?), the "judge" doesn't have to abide by statute, precedent,
:: or anything except the Nielson ratings.

So, since the loser doesn't lose anything and the winner can only win, they
split the money and get to be on TV and probably get put up in a hotel for a
night. That explains a lot!

[Hunrobe]

>Curtis L. Russell

wrote:
>
>The set asides and tradeoffs that get codified by most jurisdictions
>that require them do speak to accomodation of public traffic and
>parking. They are designed to minimize the impact on the surrounding
>area (by creating far too much asphalt and 'island in asphalt'
>businesses). In most cases it boils down to what is covered in 'public
>traffic' or similar term.
>
>Still leaves the excluded cyclist to fight it out one jurisdiction at
>a time.

Agreed. Just a non-scientific personal observation... while I've heard of
individual cyclists being denied access to mall parking lots I can't say I
have ever seen it happen except in instances where the cyclist was using the
lot as a playground.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[AustinMN]

Tom Keats wrote:
> I think this case was too important to be played with in
> TV court. It should have gone to the real authorities.
> People getting run-over is serious business, and society
> is just too accepting of it.
>
> Perhaps that this case was lumped in with more trivial things,
> like claims over bad fence repair jobs, or former couples'
> arguments over who owns what furniture, is most telling.

Sometimes, a lawyer is your friend. If you want "pain and suffering" in
most states, you can't get it in small claims court, and all of JJ's cases
come out of small claims court.

I once saw a woman attempt to sue due to disfigurement. Her face was fairly
badly scarred. She ended up on "The People's Court." She was trying to get
$3,000. If she'd been in the right court (with a lawyer), she would have
got at least ten times that amount (probably more). But because she filed
in small claims court, had to file a continuance, didn't know what she was
doing and re-filed incorrectly, the statute of limitations had expired. Her
case was not heard, and she got nothing.

I know if I were a lawyer for the kid, it wouldn't have been settled in
"Judge" Judy's forum.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

[R15757]

Austin MN wrote in part:

<< I know if I were a lawyer for the kid, it wouldn't have been settled in
"Judge" Judy's forum. >>


Seein' dollar signs eh?

What's really scary is that so
many people seem to believe that
getting grazed in a traffic accident
constitutes pain and suffering.
These people have completely lost
touch with reality.

Robert

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"AustinMN" > writes:

> I know if I were a lawyer for the kid, it wouldn't have been settled in
> "Judge" Judy's forum.

You raise some very good points. But I sure hope a lawyer
for the kid could actually get a higher venue for the case.
Trouble is, people getting hit by cars is such an everyday
thing that society has become desensitized to it. Maybe
if he was killed it would have been treated more seriously.
Or maybe not?


cheers,
Tom

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

[AustinMN]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article >,
> "AustinMN" > writes:
>
>> I know if I were a lawyer for the kid, it wouldn't have been settled in
>> "Judge" Judy's forum.
>
> You raise some very good points. But I sure hope a lawyer
> for the kid could actually get a higher venue for the case.
> Trouble is, people getting hit by cars is such an everyday
> thing that society has become desensitized to it. Maybe
> if he was killed it would have been treated more seriously.
> Or maybe not?

When I lived in Boston, murder was sufficiently commonplace that it was
hardly ever reported on the evening news. When I moved to the Twin Cities
area, it took a while to get used to all the murder on the news. I finally
figured out that murder wasn't news in Boston.

Traffic fatalities were even lower on the feeding chain. It took 2-3 dead
children before most stations would even mention traffic fatalities. They
would quickly report on the hours-long traffic tie-ups, and _might_ say that
it was due to a fatal crash.

Kid on skateboard gets bumped by a car? Forget it. No big deal.

Austin
--
You programmed with 1s and 0s? We only had 0s!
There are no X characters in my address

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
(R15757) writes:
> Austin MN wrote in part:
>
> << I know if I were a lawyer for the kid, it wouldn't have been settled in
> "Judge" Judy's forum. >>
>
>
> Seein' dollar signs eh?
>
> What's really scary is that so
> many people seem to believe that
> getting grazed in a traffic accident
> constitutes pain and suffering.
> These people have completely lost
> touch with reality.

What's really, really scary is that so many drivers can
inattentively clobber people with near impunity.
The 'collateral damage' incurred by motor vehicles.


cheers,
Tom

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

[R15757]

Tom Keats wrote:

<< You raise some very good points. But I sure hope a lawyer
for the kid could actually get a higher venue for the case.
Trouble is, people getting hit by cars is such an everyday
thing that society has become desensitized to it. Maybe
if he was killed it would have been treated more seriously.
Or maybe not? >>

Tom,

I agree that society is too nonchalant about
driving and running people over.

However, if someone emerges virtually
unscathed after a collision, they have
ALREADY been given the best birthday
present they could possibly get and this
should be a time of rejoicing, giving humble
thanks, counting lucky stars, not
a time to grub for cash like a pig snorting
around for truffles.

There may be a time when these crybabies
with skinned knees encounter some actual
pain and suffering as only traffic can dish out,
in which case their previous history as a
litigious money grubber will not look so good
in front of judge and jury.

Robert

[AustinMN]

R15757 wrote:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
> << You raise some very good points. But I sure hope a lawyer
> for the kid could actually get a higher venue for the case.
> Trouble is, people getting hit by cars is such an everyday
> thing that society has become desensitized to it. Maybe
> if he was killed it would have been treated more seriously.
> Or maybe not? >>
>
> Tom,
>
> I agree that society is too nonchalant about
> driving and running people over.
>
> However, if someone emerges virtually
> unscathed after a collision, they have
> ALREADY been given the best birthday
> present they could possibly get and this
> should be a time of rejoicing, giving humble
> thanks, counting lucky stars, not
> a time to grub for cash like a pig snorting
> around for truffles.
>
> There may be a time when these crybabies
> with skinned knees encounter some actual
> pain and suffering as only traffic can dish out,
> in which case their previous history as a
> litigious money grubber will not look so good
> in front of judge and jury.

I don't think the point is to reward victims, but to inflict some "pain and
suffering" of a financial nature on the perpetrator, to make it expensive to
make the kind of mistake they made. The next victim may not get off so
lucky. IMHO, insurance surcharges for bad drivers are no where near high
enough.

Austin

[R15757]

Tom Keats wrote:

<< What's really, really scary is that so many drivers can
inattentively clobber people with near impunity.
The 'collateral damage' incurred by motor vehicles. >>

Agreed. Traffic deaths and injuries are
acceptable as the cost of doing business.

I think the casual atmosphere you describe
has one of its manifestations in cyclists who
feel entitled to cash prizes after being
grazed by cars. The propensity toward
litigation is a sign that the real dangers
go unappreciated.

Robert

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
(R15757) wrote:

> Tom Keats wrote:
>
> << What's really, really scary is that so many drivers can
> inattentively clobber people with near impunity.
> The 'collateral damage' incurred by motor vehicles. >>
>
> Agreed. Traffic deaths and injuries are
> acceptable as the cost of doing business.

One reason they are acceptable is because they're so good at what they
do. They're the fastest, most versatile widely-used form of private
transport ever. On a per-mile basis, they're probably safer than horses
(but more dangerous than carriages?).

> I think the casual atmosphere you describe
> has one of its manifestations in cyclists who
> feel entitled to cash prizes after being
> grazed by cars. The propensity toward
> litigation is a sign that the real dangers
> go unappreciated.

The propensity toward litigation is a sign that we have a system for
"making right", which is the philosophical basis of tort law. This is
not a bad thing. It's not "cash prizes," it's a recognition that when a
car hits a cyclist, a lot of damage is done to the cyclist, not to
mention the bicycle.

But unmentioned here is that most car-bike accidents are _not_ fatal.
For all the flak we give cars, the vast majority of cyclists die in
their sleep, or of heart attacks.

I don't know any of the numbers for cyclists, but among motorcyclists,
the risk factors for a motorcycle fatality are quite interesting: if you
wear a helmet, aren't drunk, and have a motorcycle license, your chances
of dying in a motorcycle crash are drastically reduced. The advantage of
being sober is patently obvious, and helmets surely mitigate some
injuries, but the big advantage may be that avoiding these three things
means you are also the kind of person who doesn't put yourself in the
sort of bad situations that a person willing to ride a motorcycle
despite being drunk and not having a license might be willing to ride
into.

I have my suspicion that you could make a similar finding that cyclists
who use helmets, lights, and don't ride on the sidewalk (most of us
here, for an example) have a far smaller chance of being hurt or killed
on a bicycle (at least on a per-mile basis) than the average DUI-rider.

As for the danger, the real dangers of life do go unappreciated. Like
sitting on the couch, or eating too many doughnuts, or not drinking
enough red wine. That last being primarily an aesthetic danger, of
course.

In general, people are very bad at instinctively perceiving risks, even
though actuaries can tell us a lot about actual risks. I think there are
a couple of reasons, the most important of which is that except for the
most extremely risky "normal" activities, the risk on a per-incident
basis is still very low. This leads us to believe that some highly risky
activity is mostly safe, even if any failure would have catastrophic
consequences.

Everybody thinks they're a pretty good driver. Even the worst driver you
know probably doesn't get in one accident per year (I'm pretty bad, and
my crash rate is lower than that). So even that very bad driver gets
used to the idea that of the 200-400 car trips they make each year, far
less than 1% end in tears.

Unfortunately, just like with computers, nobody should brag about 99%
reliability in driving.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
(R15757) writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
> << What's really, really scary is that so many drivers can
> inattentively clobber people with near impunity.
> The 'collateral damage' incurred by motor vehicles. >>
>
> Agreed. Traffic deaths and injuries are
> acceptable as the cost of doing business.
>
> I think the casual atmosphere you describe
> has one of its manifestations in cyclists who
> feel entitled to cash prizes after being
> grazed by cars. The propensity toward
> litigation is a sign that the real dangers
> go unappreciated.

Well, I concur with both you and AustinMN. Diving-4-dollars
doesn't help matters, but I'm thinking more in terms of
penalizing the transgressors than rewarding the 'victims'.

But I really need to get at least another cup of coffee down
my neck before I can articulate any further about it.

Maybe certain of those purportedly bike-friendly European
countries are on the right track -- I'm not talking about
the bike lane stuff, but the severe penalties levied against
drivers who hit people.


cheers,
Tom

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

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:09:26 GMT, "AustinMN" >
wrote:

> once saw a woman attempt to sue due to disfigurement. Her face was fairly
>badly scarred. She ended up on "The People's Court." She was trying to get
>$3,000. If she'd been in the right court (with a lawyer), she would have
>got at least ten times that amount (probably more). But because she filed
>in small claims court, had to file a continuance, didn't know what she was
>doing and re-filed incorrectly, the statute of limitations had expired. Her
>case was not heard, and she got nothing.

Then it is different than most TV courts. Issues of time statutes and
jurisdiction are moot because both parties agree that the case can be
heard and decided by the court. It is not a court, it is a mutually
agreed arbitrator.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Badger_South]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:00:10 -0700, (Tom Keats) wrote:

>In article >,
> (R15757) writes:
>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>
>> << What's really, really scary is that so many drivers can
>> inattentively clobber people with near impunity.
>> The 'collateral damage' incurred by motor vehicles. >>
>>
>> Agreed. Traffic deaths and injuries are
>> acceptable as the cost of doing business.
>>
>> I think the casual atmosphere you describe
>> has one of its manifestations in cyclists who
>> feel entitled to cash prizes after being
>> grazed by cars. The propensity toward
>> litigation is a sign that the real dangers
>> go unappreciated.
>
>Well, I concur with both you and AustinMN. Diving-4-dollars
>doesn't help matters, but I'm thinking more in terms of
>penalizing the transgressors than rewarding the 'victims'.

Not to belabor the issue, but in many cases there is no 'making whole' of
the victim. My wife's lawyer said 'you takes what you can gets and be
happy; why do you think they call them "victims"'. (no joke).

>But I really need to get at least another cup of coffee down
>my neck before I can articulate any further about it.
>
>Maybe certain of those purportedly bike-friendly European
>countries are on the right track -- I'm not talking about
>the bike lane stuff, but the severe penalties levied against
>drivers who hit people.

Care to give a sample penalty? I've not heard of this, but sounds like a
good idea.

-B

>
>cheers,
> Tom

[the black rose]

Badger_South wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:00:10 -0700, (Tom Keats) wrote:
>>Maybe certain of those purportedly bike-friendly European
>>countries are on the right track -- I'm not talking about
>>the bike lane stuff, but the severe penalties levied against
>>drivers who hit people.
>
>
> Care to give a sample penalty? I've not heard of this, but sounds like a
> good idea.

I'm curious as well (and I also think it's a great idea). I've heard
that in Germany, if you're caught driving drunk, you lose your license,
period, end of game. Curiously, they have much less trouble with drunk
drivers than we do. So if driving drunk gets you that, I have to wonder
what hitting someone gets you.

-km

--
the black rose
proud to be owned by a yorkie
http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Badger_South > writes:

> Care to give a sample penalty? I've not heard of this, but sounds like a
> good idea.

www.penbiped.org/puchertq.pdf

Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe
-- John Pucher and Lewis Dijkstra

Traffic Regulations and Enforcement (Page 25)

This paper is quite politically charged, portraying
cycling as a 'dangerous' activity (especially in North
America, as compared to Europe), presumably to promote
bike lanes. Take it with a grain or two of salt.


cheers,
Tom

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

[Hunrobe]

>"Roger Zoul"

wrote:

>So, since the loser doesn't lose anything and the winner can only win, they
>split the money and get to be on TV and probably get put up in a hotel for a
>night. That explains a lot!


The only "loss" any of the purported litigants can suffer is an embarrassing
few moments on television. That's hardly enough to deter a significant portion
of the public. If anyone needs proof of that they can just tune in to Jerry
Springer. "Whoeeee! This hotel is the nicest place I ever seen. Why, a
cheeseburger costs $12 and they bring it right to the room! All this *and* I
get to be on the TV and all I got to do is admit on the show that I had sex
with my wife's girlfriend's brother and his pet goat? Dang, sign me up for a
return appearance!".
What it doesn't explain though is the widespread appeal of all these shows and
the misplaced faith many have that they are something other than
"entertainment" as if they accurately reflect the way US courts work and what
the law is.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Pete]

"Hunrobe" > wrote

> What it doesn't explain though is the widespread appeal of all these shows
and

Laughing at the more unfortunate/unlucky, and being very glad that we (the
Royal 'we') aren't that screwed up.

Pete

[Hunrobe]

>"Pete"

wrote:

>"Hunrobe" > wrote
>
>> What it doesn't explain though is the widespread appeal of all these shows
>and
>
>Laughing at the more unfortunate/unlucky, and being very glad that we (the
>Royal 'we') aren't that screwed up.
>
>

I was trying to be charitable to those shows' viewers. <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Claire Petersky]

"Tom Keats" > wrote in message
...
> The light
> is normally a flashing green, which indicates the presence
> of a pushbutton pedestrian control.

I really don't get the flashing green thing at all. It always freaks me out
when I go up north, and I've finally decided to just treat it like a steady
green.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

[Claire Petersky]

"Tom Keats" > wrote in message
...
> The light
> is normally a flashing green, which indicates the presence
> of a pushbutton pedestrian control.

I really don't get the flashing green thing at all. It always freaks me out
when I go up north, and I've finally decided to just treat it like a steady
green.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky