View Single Post
  #936  
Old February 5th 19, 02:03 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On 2/4/2019 6:38 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:39:38 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/3/2019 5:26 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 10:50:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/2/2019 7:03 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 12:14:10 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/1/2019 7:41 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

But if a car hits a bike isn't that a violation in itself? I would
think that if a car hits a bike it would be a bit redundant to say
that he violated the 3 foot law in doing so?

To illustrate the problem: Maybe 75 miles from here a couple of years
ago, a northbound driver in a pickup truck tried turning left into
another road. He ran head-on into a pack of road cyclists on a downhill.
Two cyclists died.

His defense: The sun was glaring in his eyes, so he didn't see them.

He was acquitted.

https://www.cleveland.com/brecksvill..._not_guil.html

The fact that the U.S. (or States therein) fails to treat malfeasance
as a crime is simply one more example of what one might say a lack of
moral fiber. In another message you comment on the possibility of an
office not being re-elected if he were to enforce a law. What's next?
A ten dollar fine for murder?

I'd say that's entirely possible, if the murderer has the foresight to
use his car as the murder weapon. But he does have to remember to say "I
didn't see him." :-/

I find some things somewhat mystifying. For example the law regarding
manslaughter dates back to the 13th century but now, in a more modern
age, seems to be ignored and the term "accident" now used in its
place.

"Involuntary manslaughter is the homicide of a human being without
intent of doing so, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished
from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention."


I agree. I know of cycling advocates who are trying to stop the use of
the term "accident" in car-bike crashes. Call them "crashes" or
something that doesn't make them sound like uncontrollable acts of God.

They'd also like to replace phrases like "...the car went through the
red light..." with "... the driver ignored the red light and drove
through..." Make it clear that the human being was responsible.


Logically, the human is nearly always in command and responsible and
it wasn't that long ago when the law agreed. When I was in high school
my brother, with a number of other kids in the car, hit a telephone
pole. He had somehow moved enough right that the R.H front tire
dropped off the edge of the pavement and in swerving back lost
control, shot across the road and hit the pole.

After the collision the car was stopped and the whole group got out to
look at things and only then the pole fell over, hit my brother's
girlfriend an killed her.

The next time the Grand Jury met it was considered whether he should
be charged with manslaughter, or not. As, they decided, the death
occurred after the crash and some time after the car was stopped that
there was no case to answer.

The point is that, perhaps 60 years ago, if you killed someone as the
result of a car "accident" it was initially deemed to be a crime.
Today it seems to be, from all I read, is apparently a misdemeanor, at
worst.

Is this progress?

By the way, the news this morning has it that your President gets up
late like you do and rolls into work about 11:00


I think I'd rather he started work at, oh, 11:15 and quit for the day at
11:16. And if he'd set the same schedule for his staff. It might
minimize the damage.


--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home