Fla. 8-Year-Old Gets Traffic Ticket For Bike Mishap (irresponsible idiot parents refuse to pay)

"Chalo" wrote

How about a society safe for kids in self-propelled howitzers? The
two _are_ mutually exclusive. We have a society that is safe for
cars, and therefore unsafe for kids.

Kids that try to exist in the same space as is used by larger, faster
vehicles.

Let's venture, shall we, to your mythical car-free place.
A place inhabited by people on bikes. But also buses, to transport those who
have too far to go, or cannot ride a bike. A place also inhabited by trucks
to deliver goods.

What would your thoughts be if this kid had done exactly the same thing,
except instead of a car, he jumped out in front of a bus transporting happy
workers on their way home?

Cars exist. Humans, young and old, have to deal with that

Pete

Pete wrote:
"Chalo" wrote

How about a society safe for kids in self-propelled howitzers? The
two _are_ mutually exclusive. We have a society that is safe for
cars, and therefore unsafe for kids.


Kids that try to exist in the same space as is used by larger, faster
vehicles.

Let's venture, shall we, to your mythical car-free place.
A place inhabited by people on bikes. But also buses, to transport those who
have too far to go, or cannot ride a bike. A place also inhabited by trucks
to deliver goods.

What would your thoughts be if this kid had done exactly the same thing,
except instead of a car, he jumped out in front of a bus transporting happy
workers on their way home?

Cars exist. Humans, young and old, have to deal with that

At first, I thought Chalo's remarks were hopelessly radical. But on
reflection:

I recall reading this, in _The End Of The Road_ by W. Zuckermann*: "The
idea of calming a street started in Holland about thirty yuears ago.
After the third child had been run over in a resicential neighborhood of
Delft, and after the authorities refused to take action, local residents
took matters into their own hands. They organized a night raid with
picks and shovels to reconstruct their street in line with a new idea,
the concept of a _Woonerf_ (literally, a "living-yard"). When the
authorities arrived with police and bulldozers to reconstruct the
street, the residents stood their ground and protected their new
layout." Eventually, what they did was made legal and duplicated widely.

The idea is that in residential neighborhoods, pedestrians and cyclists
should have great priority over cars passing through. Speed limits
should be _very_ low, and enforced not by cops and radar, but by
structural changes and obstacles, so drivers _must_ go very slow.

This makes sense to me - perhaps partly because I live on a street that
is sometimes used as a fast cut-through when the main road backs up.
There are many little kids in our neighborhood, and since it's normally
quite quiet, the kids do play catch, ride bikes, and run over to their
friends' houses on the streets.

When the main road backs up, should these kids lose their right to that
space? Granted, they do now, by virtue of the traffic laws. The cars
have right of way; kids playing catch must stop and step aside;
five-year-olds must stop and look both ways in case someone is driving
at 40 mph on our 25 mph street.

But I'd prefer to see a different set of laws. Residents could still
get to their drives even if speed humps, etc. meant they had to do 15
mph for the last 1/4 mile. And cut-through drivers can take an extra 60
seconds to get to where they're going.

Why _should_ the entire world be made more convenient for people
operating dangerous machinery? Why shouldn't residential neighborhoods
be made pleasant and safe for the residents?



* Chelsea Green Publishing Co., 1991. ISBN 0-930031-46-6 Subtitle:
"The World Car Crisis and How We Can Solve It." A good read, I thought.

--
Frank Krygowski

Sat, 01 Nov 2003 00:56:18 GMT,
, "Pete" wrote:

What would your thoughts be if this kid had done exactly the same thing,
except instead of a car, he jumped out in front of a bus transporting happy
workers on their way home?

Cars exist. Humans, young and old, have to deal with that

Pete

Then kids wouldn't have to be playing in the close proximity of buses
or freight trucks which have no place driving on residential streets.

Buses and freight trucks are driven by professionals who, hopefully,
may be just a bit more attentive than the average stunned junk-jockey.
--
zk

"frkrygowHALTSPAM" wrote

At first, I thought Chalo's remarks were hopelessly radical. But on
reflection:

I recall reading this, in _The End Of The Road_ by W. Zuckermann*: "The
idea of calming a street started in Holland about thirty yuears ago.
After the third child had been run over in a resicential neighborhood of
Delft, and after the authorities refused to take action, local residents
took matters into their own hands. They organized a night raid with
picks and shovels to reconstruct their street in line with a new idea,
the concept of a _Woonerf_ (literally, a "living-yard"). When the
authorities arrived with police and bulldozers to reconstruct the
street, the residents stood their ground and protected their new
layout." Eventually, what they did was made legal and duplicated widely.

I know exactly what you mean. I've lived in Germany and Holland ('87-'93),
and saw/lived in the same constructs.

Very, very useful and people friendly, as long as you don't venture out of
that space.

My two oldest were about 8 when we were there. I had zero problem letting
them walk or ride their bikes to the little shopping center around the
corner.

But to venture an extra 50 yards beyond that meant crossing a semi major
road. Now...the intown speed limits, IIRC, were 40 kph. And usually quite
well observed, enforced by the northern European mindset.

25mph is still enough to cause serious damage.

People having the right of way over cars does not remove the duty to not
behave in a dangerous (if only to themselves) manner.

The idea is that in residential neighborhoods, pedestrians and cyclists
should have great priority over cars passing through. Speed limits
should be _very_ low, and enforced not by cops and radar, but by
structural changes and obstacles, so drivers _must_ go very slow.

Exactly. It was a maze to drive through. You had to go very slow, and
generally only to your driveway.

But the kid in this case would have been in the wrong no matter what the
speed of the car. Even at 15mph, a ped or kid that pops out directly in
front of you is hard to avoid.

Chalo seems to blame the car operator no matter what the circumstances.


This makes sense to me - perhaps partly because I live on a street that
is sometimes used as a fast cut-through when the main road backs up.
There are many little kids in our neighborhood, and since it's normally
quite quiet, the kids do play catch, ride bikes, and run over to their
friends' houses on the streets.

Yep. That street should be slowed down in some manner.


When the main road backs up, should these kids lose their right to that
space? Granted, they do now, by virtue of the traffic laws. The cars
have right of way; kids playing catch must stop and step aside;
five-year-olds must stop and look both ways in case someone is driving
at 40 mph on our 25 mph street.

Bust that guy. On my way to work, I go through a very residential area.
25mph. And often, there is a cop on watch. Almost every day, I see someone
get busted along there. But it does seem to be slowing down.

But I'd prefer to see a different set of laws. Residents could still
get to their drives even if speed humps, etc. meant they had to do 15
mph for the last 1/4 mile. And cut-through drivers can take an extra 60
seconds to get to where they're going.

Why _should_ the entire world be made more convenient for people
operating dangerous machinery? Why shouldn't residential neighborhoods
be made pleasant and safe for the residents?

Pleasant and safe does not mean completely free from danger. Even at
15-20mph...a car will still kill a person. Or a person can still make a big
dent in a car.

Pete
Cars, especially in the US, still exist.

Sat, 01 Nov 2003 02:20:28 GMT,
, "Pete"
wrote:

Chalo seems to blame the car operator no matter what the circumstances.

Rightfully so. They made the decision to drive. There's a 40% chance
they were travelling less than two miles anyway.
--
zk

"Zoot Katz" wrote in message
...
Sat, 01 Nov 2003 00:56:18 GMT,
, "Pete" wrote:

What would your thoughts be if this kid had done exactly the same thing,
except instead of a car, he jumped out in front of a bus transporting
happy
workers on their way home?

Cars exist. Humans, young and old, have to deal with that

Pete

Then kids wouldn't have to be playing in the close proximity of buses
or freight trucks which have no place driving on residential streets.

Do we know the exact situations of this street? If it was outlined in this
thread, I must have missed it. Many, many houses are not in closed off
residential areas. They line major streets.

Buses and freight trucks are driven by professionals who, hopefully,
may be just a bit more attentive than the average stunned junk-jockey.

Chalo's car-free utopia does not mean motor vehicle free utopia. People and
goods will still need to get around.

No cars pretty much equals buses in and near residential areas.

And I've had, percentagewise, at least as many run ins with buses as with
cars.

Pete

"Zoot Katz" wrote in message
...
Sat, 01 Nov 2003 02:20:28 GMT,
, "Pete"
wrote:

Chalo seems to blame the car operator no matter what the circumstances.

Rightfully so. They made the decision to drive. There's a 40% chance
they were travelling less than two miles anyway.

Rightfully so? For all we know...the car was driven by a nun at 20 mph on
her way to visit a shut-in.

Leaving aside the rhetoric of a motorist blindy speeding through a
residential area at 60, is there is no circumstance where the ped or cyclist
is in the wrong?

Pete

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"Zoot Katz" wrote in message
...
Sat, 01 Nov 2003 02:20:28 GMT,
, "Pete"
wrote:

Chalo seems to blame the car operator no matter what the circumstances.

Rightfully so. They made the decision to drive. There's a 40% chance
they were travelling less than two miles anyway.

Rightfully so? For all we know...the car was driven by a nun at 20 mph on
her way to visit a shut-in.

Leaving aside the rhetoric of a motorist blindy speeding through a
residential area at 60, is there is no circumstance where the ped or
cyclist
is in the wrong?


Are you looking for the exception by which to make the rule?

Robin Hubert

"Robin Hubert" wrote in message
k.net...

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"Zoot Katz" wrote in message
...
Sat, 01 Nov 2003 02:20:28 GMT,
, "Pete"
wrote:

Chalo seems to blame the car operator no matter what the
circumstances.

Rightfully so. They made the decision to drive. There's a 40% chance
they were travelling less than two miles anyway.

Rightfully so? For all we know...the car was driven by a nun at 20 mph
on
her way to visit a shut-in.

Leaving aside the rhetoric of a motorist blindy speeding through a
residential area at 60, is there is no circumstance where the ped or
cyclist
is in the wrong?


Are you looking for the exception by which to make the rule?

Robin Hubert

No. But some in here are loath to realize that it is not *always* the
motorists fault.
And simply "because they chose to drive" does not automatically make it the
motorists fault either.

Pete
(and a realistic analysis of a typical 25mph residential street would show
that 60mph *is* the exception, not the rule.)

Rick Onanian Said:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 10:16:16 +1100, Arpit
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:41:22 +0200, "Johann S."
wrote:

It's much more
fun than driving miss daisy with a bloody helmet on.

hmm, we dont wear helmets for sex here...yet

No, that was "Driving Miss Daisy Crazy". "Driving Miss Daisy" was a
movie about an elderly lady whose black chauffeur teaches her to
drive, or something.


Something like that. Pretty old movie.

--

QUIPd 1.02: (398 of 671)
- -------- The information went data way
##2523 #'Mandrake Linux.'