|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 5:04:39 PM UTC-5, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 15:58:01 -0800 (PST), I wrote: "The police and prosecutors do not want to ruin someone's life just for killing a cyclist, so they accept "I didn't see" him or her as a valid defense (instead of the admission of negligence that it really is. " Most of us drive too. It is damned easy not to see a cyclist. With the exception of the dark-clothed cyclist with no lights at night (which is something I see with depressive regularity around here, as well as dark-clothed pedestrians at night), it's not that hard to see bicyclists. On my bike I am taller than most cars. In most cass "I didn't see" is either a lie or an admission of negligence. Your opinion. I think it is wrong, but okay. Other than a persecution complex, there is no reason to conclude "just a cyclist" as some kind of motive, when the easier explanation is that mere negligence is a just a civil case and there is simply insufficient evidence to prove a crime. When every juror is going to hear the facts and think "there but for the grace of god go I", there is basically no way it can constitute gross negligence and therefore isn't a crime. The prejudice of the jury doesn't determine what laws apply to what situations. There are conditions under which negligence is a crime in all 50 states in the US, and should be prosecuted under criminal laws and not in civil court. If negligence results in the death of another person, that is IMHO not a civil matter in most cases. Of course the ADA handling the matter has to consider the jury. [S]he looks to see if there is sufficient evidence that a jury will convict. Not enough evidence = no case. The fact that you think death makes it a criminal, not civil, does not make it the criminal law. Negligence that causes the death of another is ALWAYS a civil matter. It is only criminal if there is a much higher level of negligence. This is from the model penal code (just because it was easy to find online) "A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation." Commonly called gross negligence. If it is just an accident, it isn't a crime. No matter how much you might wish otherwise. And folks continually saying it is a crime on the web is misinformation. I just don't see the point of the many internet whines (and posting of newspaper articles) that a cyclist got hit and died, so there must have been a crime that isn't being punished. No. That is an unsupportable leap. You need more for it to be a crime. And there frequently is. That is the point. Drivers are frequently distracted on their cell phones (talking, texting, looking at maps, etc.), eating, reading books or magazines, arguing with passengers, looking in the back seat, picking something up from the floor, intoxicated... I have personally seen all of those scenarios multiple times while driving on the highways as well as riding my bike on the roads around here. That is enough for striking a bicyclist (or a pedestrian or another car) to be a crime. "Gross deviation" from normal behavior is what makes it criminal (as opposed to perhaps a traffic offense.) You says it happens all the time. Thus, based on your own experience, is probably not a gross deviation. So, not a crime. Now, if the cyclist runs a stop sign or a red light, is riding the wrong way down a one way street, is riding erratically and unpredictably- all of which I have witnessed as well- then I think it's likely to be a very different story. Even if the driver was distracted or inattentive, the cyclist has some share in the burden of responsibility. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
On 2/10/2018 5:22 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 20:12:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/8/2018 6:13 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: How are most cyclists injured or killed in accidents? They are struck from behind by an overtaking motor vehicle. Sorry, that's not true. See https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE...f/swless04.pdf snip 11. The most frequent parallel-path crashes were motorist turn/merge into bicyclist’s path (12.2 percent), motorist overtaking the bicyclist (8.6 percent), and bicyclist turn/merge into motorist’s path (7.3 percent). Do you know if the first type were exclusively drivers and cyclists traveling in opposite drections? Or does this include situations where the driver had passed the cyclist and then turned, cutting the cyclist off? I would include that scenario in my original statement as they were struck by a vehicle coming from behind. Not that it would be likely to move that into the majority. Perhaps my information is out of date, past research had indicated being struck by a vehicle traveling in the same direction caused more fatalities. The most frequent crossing path crashes were motorist failed to yield to bicyclist (21.7 percent), bicyclist failed to yield at an intersection (16.8 percent), and bicyclist failed to yield midblock (11.8 percent). In what scenario does a vehicle turning or entering the road in the middle of the block have the right of way? The PDF has illustrative diagrams of several common crash types. These six individual crash types accounted for almost 80 percent of all bicycle-motor vehicle crashes." What are the other 20+%? Bicycists hitting parked cars? Every examination of crash types I've read always had a sizeable "other" category. I've assumed this is because many bicyclists find very creative ways to get in trouble. So motorist overtaking were just 8.6 percent of the total. And I'd bet that a majority of those were of two types: Totally Unlit cyclists at night, which legal lighting would prevent; and "I think I can squeeze by" events, which would have been averted by lane control by the cyclist. I strongly suspect that 8.6% is a gross underestimate and that the real number is at least double that. It doesn't pass the smell test. IIRC, various studies have given different percentages to the relative crash types. This one from North Carolina http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat_nc/...types08-12.pdf says hits from behind are about 17%. An Orlando study ("Orlando Area Bicyclist Crash Study: A Role-Based Approach to Crash Countermeasures") says motorist overtaking accounted for 8.2%. Carol Tan's "Crash Type Manual" https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publication...pedbike/96104/ lists five sub-categories of crashes caused by "motorist overtaking." They total 8.6%, but maybe that's using the same data as the other study I linked. The Kenneth Cross study from the 1970s said "motorist collided with rear of cyclist" comprised 4.17% of crashes. It's at http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm Whatever the percentage, it seems hits-from-behind are a pretty small percentage of crash types. And it's been noted that many of those that do occur are rural, unlit cyclists riding at night. Now granted, when it does happen, it's a very bad thing. It's responsible for a disproportionate number of fatalities - but again, not "most" of fatalities, IIRC. It's a crash type that is excessively feared. There are more important things to watch out for. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 3:02:37 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:26:20 -0800 (PST), wrote: "Gross deviation" from normal behavior is what makes it criminal (as opposed to perhaps a traffic offense.) You says it happens all the time. Thus, based on your own experience, is probably not a gross deviation. So, not a crime. This is the gist of your argument and it is complete bull****. You are claiming that crime is mitigated by the frequency with which it is committed. Grossly dangerous behavior cannot be normalized; if we allow that to be, there would ultimately be no point whatsoever to having laws to govern human behavior. An example is a local case being prosecuted criminally which is one of the very examples I gave- being distracted by the cell phone resulting in the driver striking and killing one person and permanently disabling another in the car that she hit. Even though distracted driving happens all the time, it does rise to the level of gross negligence. What if the call on the cell-phone had been from an ER, telling the driver his baby son was being resuscitated. What if he had dropped hot coffee in his lap. What if, what if . . . Drivers have been distracted every since there were cars. Yes, its worse now with cellphones, and a legislature certainly could make it criminal to cause an injury while using a cellphone in a car. A lot of car-related conduct already is criminal, but making every negligent car accident a crime would be bizarre -- and would clog up the criminal docket. And why stop with cars. What about medical malpractice? Personally, I'm for capital punishment for people who get into the quick check line with more than nine items. I would like to criminalize super-bright lights on bikes in bike lanes, and while I'm at it . . . -- Jay Beattie. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 6:02:37 PM UTC-5, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:26:20 -0800 (PST), wrote: "Gross deviation" from normal behavior is what makes it criminal (as opposed to perhaps a traffic offense.) You says it happens all the time. Thus, based on your own experience, is probably not a gross deviation. So, not a crime. This is the gist of your argument and it is complete bull****. You are claiming that crime is mitigated by the frequency with which it is committed. Grossly dangerous behavior cannot be normalized; if we allow that to be, there would ultimately be no point whatsoever to having laws to govern human behavior. An example is a local case being prosecuted criminally which is one of the very examples I gave- being distracted by the cell phone resulting in the driver striking and killing one person and permanently disabling another in the car that she hit. Even though distracted driving happens all the time, it does rise to the level of gross negligence. You remind me of a friend who moonlights as a landlord. He refuses to hire a lawyer when he needs to evict a non-paying tenant. But, every time he goes to Court he gets twisted in circles by tenants because he confuses what he thinks the law should be with what it actually is. He refuses to listen to anyone who tries to explain, so he is convinced that the Court is completely biased against him. fini |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 3:02:37 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote: On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:26:20 -0800 (PST), wrote: "Gross deviation" from normal behavior is what makes it criminal (as opposed to perhaps a traffic offense.) You says it happens all the time. Thus, based on your own experience, is probably not a gross deviation. So, not a crime. This is the gist of your argument and it is complete bull****. You are claiming that crime is mitigated by the frequency with which it is committed. Grossly dangerous behavior cannot be normalized; if we allow that to be, there would ultimately be no point whatsoever to having laws to govern human behavior. An example is a local case being prosecuted criminally which is one of the very examples I gave- being distracted by the cell phone resulting in the driver striking and killing one person and permanently disabling another in the car that she hit. Even though distracted driving happens all the time, it does rise to the level of gross negligence. What if the call on the cell-phone had been from an ER, telling the driver his baby son was being resuscitated. What if he had dropped hot coffee in his lap. What if, what if . . . Drivers have been distracted every since there were cars. Yes, its worse now with cellphones, and a legislature certainly could make it criminal to cause an injury while using a cellphone in a car. A lot of car-related conduct already is criminal, but making every negligent car accident a crime would be bizarre -- and would clog up the criminal docket. And why stop with cars. What about medical malpractice? Personally, I'm for capital punishment for people who get into the quick check line with more than nine items. I would like to criminalize super-bright lights on bikes in bike lanes, and while I'm at it . . . -- Jay Beattie. There should be a distinction between taking a call and texting. Or googling. Or catching the latest Game of Thrones episode. -- duane |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
On 2/11/2018 8:37 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 3:02:37 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote: On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:26:20 -0800 (PST), wrote: "Gross deviation" from normal behavior is what makes it criminal (as opposed to perhaps a traffic offense.) You says it happens all the time. Thus, based on your own experience, is probably not a gross deviation. So, not a crime. This is the gist of your argument and it is complete bull****. You are claiming that crime is mitigated by the frequency with which it is committed. Grossly dangerous behavior cannot be normalized; if we allow that to be, there would ultimately be no point whatsoever to having laws to govern human behavior. An example is a local case being prosecuted criminally which is one of the very examples I gave- being distracted by the cell phone resulting in the driver striking and killing one person and permanently disabling another in the car that she hit. Even though distracted driving happens all the time, it does rise to the level of gross negligence. What if the call on the cell-phone had been from an ER, telling the driver his baby son was being resuscitated. What if he had dropped hot coffee in his lap. What if, what if . . . Drivers have been distracted every since there were cars. Yes, its worse now with cellphones, and a legislature certainly could make it criminal to cause an injury while using a cellphone in a car. A lot of car-related conduct already is criminal, but making every negligent car accident a crime would be bizarre -- and would clog up the criminal docket. And why stop with cars. What about medical malpractice? Personally, I'm for capital punishment for people who get into the quick check line with more than nine items. I would like to criminalize super-bright lights on bikes in bike lanes, and while I'm at it . . . Jay, it's 2018. We don't have satire or parody any longer: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ampaign =1490 -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Dickens:"The law is a ass."
On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 11:48:49 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucke...anks-lax-laws/ -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 my favorite line when I played Mr. Bumble in sixth grade, getting to shout out the word ass in front of all the parents and teachers. IF I kill someone through my own negligence, then haven't I commited a crime? Where does the line of premeditation get drawn to say that the real crime was being negligent? After that, then make me responsible for the result of my negligence. Yes, the law is an ASS in the way drivers vs bicyclists are treated when responsibility is assigned and adjudicated. Been on the short end of crooked ticketing getting blamed for what the cop called failure to keep right, on a shoulderless narrow lane two lane road in Hillsborough NJ when a car pulling a trailer of lawn mowers came up and declared its god given right to pass a bicycle despite an oncoming car quickly showing up around a bend on a crest of a slight rise. Trailer's wheel grabbed the frame of my Paramount throwing me up in the air like a baseball pitching machine, landing me sideways into a tumble that cracked my helmet in half. One memory from laying there on the roadway half numb half excruciating general pain was seeing the shine of sunlight off the driver's NJ state PBS card in the cop's hand. Yes the law was an ass then and still is. Three years ago Alan Brumm was killed by an oncoming driver passing a bicyclist going the opposition direction, driver claiming they were asserting their right according to state law to pass a bicyclist across the center line if there isn't oncoming traffic. Well dammit isn't a bicyclist considered an oncoming vehicle? The CHP said no and the murderer walked away free. For bicyclists when it comes to car collisions Yes the law is an ASS. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"John "Cho" Gilmer keeps publishing his "Manifesto" over and over." | Hoodini | Racing | 0 | April 23rd 07 12:38 AM |
Vandeman calls mountain bikers "liars" and "criminals" then surprised by hate mail! | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 0 | June 1st 06 08:15 PM |
Vandeman calls mountain bikers "liars" and "criminals" then surprisedby hate mail! | ChainSmoker | Mountain Biking | 0 | May 27th 06 05:39 PM |
Vandeman calls mountain bikers "liars" and "criminals" then surprised by hate mail! | tom | Mountain Biking | 0 | May 16th 06 04:22 AM |
R.I.P. Jim Price (aka. "biker_billy", "sydney", "Boudreaux") | spin156 | Techniques | 15 | November 28th 05 07:21 PM |