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

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 22:48:20 +0000 (UTC), (Steven M.
O'Neill) wrote:
Rick Onanian wrote:
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 01:22:24 -0800, Zoot Katz
wrote:
The current system is not working as a deterrent to reckless and
dangerous driver behaviour.

I don't know if I agree with that, but it certainly isn't working as
a deterrent to reckless and dangerous cyclist behaviour...else the
kid wouldn't have flown out of the sky onto the top of an item
(specifically a car) that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Was the car also speeding?

The article didn't say so, IIRC -- and just as every news article
ever about a bicyclist says whether or not he was wearing a helmet,
every news article ever about a car says whether or not it was
speeding.

However, the outcome would have been _exactly_the_same_ if the car
had been parked, except we wouldn't have this discussion.
--
Rick Onanian

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 16:15:11 -0500, Rick Onanian
wrote:

Vegetarians and other non-cow-eaters will be
eaten by the cows' pets, which will be vegetables.

Did your parents buy you an encyclopedia, or did you have to walk to
school?

--
To absurdity, and beyond.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 23:14:28 GMT, Zippy the Pinhead
wrote:
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 16:15:11 -0500, Rick Onanian
wrote:
Vegetarians and other non-cow-eaters will be
eaten by the cows' pets, which will be vegetables.

Did your parents buy you an encyclopedia, or did you have to walk to
school?

I so wanted to walk, but they wouldn't allow it. I had to take the
bus with all those other assholes.
--
Rick Onanian

Rick Onanian wrote:
: I so wanted to walk, but they wouldn't allow it. I had to take the
: bus with all those other assholes.

the, uhh, short bus?
--
david reuteler

Rick Onanian wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 16:24:21 -0600, Kevan Smith
wrote:
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 15:36:49 -0500, Rick Onanian from The
Esoteric c0wz Society wrote:
tradition includes the right to a license unless you are really
negligent or DO something to deserve to lose it...but a kid on a
bike falling out of the sky onto your hood is no reason to lose
that right.

Yeah, and monkey's fly. C'mon, get real! A kid falling out of the sky on a
bicycle! What? The UFOs just dropped him from a tractor beam?

No, he ran his bike up a ramp. Don't you remember?

Oh, the irony...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Rick Onanian wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 22:48:20 +0000 (UTC), (Steven M.
O'Neill) wrote:
Rick Onanian wrote:
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 01:22:24 -0800, Zoot Katz
wrote:
The current system is not working as a deterrent to reckless and
dangerous driver behaviour.

I don't know if I agree with that, but it certainly isn't working as
a deterrent to reckless and dangerous cyclist behaviour...else the
kid wouldn't have flown out of the sky onto the top of an item
(specifically a car) that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Was the car also speeding?

The article didn't say so, IIRC -- and just as every news article
ever about a bicyclist says whether or not he was wearing a helmet,
every news article ever about a car says whether or not it was
speeding.

However, the outcome would have been _exactly_the_same_ if the car
had been parked, except we wouldn't have this discussion.

So you're saying the driver should get off with a ticket for
parking illegally?

--
Steven O'Neill
www.bridgetolls.org

Zoot Katz

wrote:

Explain how all those people that have been sent to prison for
reckless homicide, vehicular homicide, involuntary manslaughter et al ended
up
there without investigations and prosecutions. Did they *volunteer* to go to
prison?

They're the ones who couldn't hire lawyers slick enough to get them
reduced sentences for acts that were blatantly obvious to multiple
witnesses.

---snip---

Zoot, *defendants* hire lawyers and you can't have defendants without the
prosecutions you claim don't happen.

What percentage of drivers involved in the annual ~5500
pedestrian and cyclist deaths end up doing jail time?

---snip---

What percentage of those fatal crashes are caused by reckless and/or criminally
negligent drivers?

How many
unsolved hit-and-run injuries and deaths are on police files?

Too many I'm sure. Many hit-and-run crashes- especially fatal ones- have no
witnesses. How does that have anything to do with your claim?

The current system is not working as a deterrent to reckless and
dangerous driver behaviour.

If I understand your point correctly then, what you are saying is that since we
can't identify, arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate an acceptably high
percentage of reckless and/or criminally negligent drivers we should simply
assume that all drivers are reckless and/or criminally negligent. That's
somewhat similiar to saying that since too many rapists are not punished for
their crimes we should make up for that by assuming that all sexual intercourse
is rape and incarcerating people for engaging in consentual sex.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

"Robin Hubert"

wrote:

Why don't you boys just take this outside?

I'll admit it. The traits that make me a good detective- persistence and
perseverance (some say I'm just stubborn)- can also make me a PIA. What can I
say besides don't read the thread? I am through with Kev though.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

09 Nov 2003 06:35:28 GMT,
,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

Zoot Katz

wrote:

Explain how all those people that have been sent to prison for
reckless homicide, vehicular homicide, involuntary manslaughter et al ended
up
there without investigations and prosecutions. Did they *volunteer* to go to
prison?

They're the ones who couldn't hire lawyers slick enough to get them
reduced sentences for acts that were blatantly obvious to multiple
witnesses.

---snip---

Zoot, *defendants* hire lawyers and you can't have defendants without the
prosecutions you claim don't happen.

I said, "rarely" happens. Cases are plea bargained down because it's
too difficult to convict on the more serious charges. It's difficult
to convict because jurors are afraid the same might happen to them for
"just an accident".

Sure, some go to court and some get a ticket and just drive home.

What percentage of drivers involved in the annual ~5500
pedestrian and cyclist deaths end up doing jail time?

---snip---

What percentage of those fatal crashes are caused by reckless and/or criminally
negligent drivers?

We'll never know because the investigations aren't diligently
prosecuted. It's too easy to write off a dead homeless pedestrian and
give the suddenly clean-cut, church-going, family-man any benefit of
doubt. It saves the court money. Dead peds and dead cyclists simply
become the cost of doing business. It keeps people from examining the
seriousness of running down another human lest they quit driving,
buying cars and burning gasoline.

How many
unsolved hit-and-run injuries and deaths are on police files?

Too many I'm sure. Many hit-and-run crashes- especially fatal ones- have no
witnesses. How does that have anything to do with your claim?

"rarely is recklessness or criminal negligence,
or even criminal intent, investigated let alone prosecuted."

Without witnesses, there's no investigation, so no prosecution simply
because it would entail too much work. There's no will to pursue it
unless there's sufficient public or political pressure. Without
witnesses, it's too expensive to pursue.

I'd say, based on W.Va. numbers, roughly 17% of injuries and deaths
are caused by hit-and-run

Remember the retired cyclist around Niagara Falls Ontario who was
murdered on his morning ride by a punk in a car? It was filed away as
a "hit-and-run accident" until a witness came forward and confessed he
was in the car. IIRC, the court convicted the driver of manslaughter.
He'll probably be out and driving again in two years unless he gets
tagged a "dangerous offender".

The current system is not working as a deterrent to reckless and
dangerous driver behaviour.

If I understand your point correctly then, what you are saying is that since we
can't identify, arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate an acceptably high
percentage of reckless and/or criminally negligent drivers we should simply
assume that all drivers are reckless and/or criminally negligent.

I'm saying when you load, arm and aim your car, and then launch it
into a public place, you'd best be ready to accept more dire
consequences than what are presently purveyed as some equitable kind
of justice for having a brain fart that kills or cripples somebody.

I'm saying the standard is too low for determining "negligence" when
the driver is willingly, though somewhat idly, engaging in an activity
that is known to regularly kill and maim those around them.

I'm saying there's a cultural prejudice in favour of driving that
effects how law enforcement and the courts handle the cases. It
effects how media reports traffic fatalities which in turn effects how
the masses think (don't think) about the actual and preventable
horror.
--
zk

Buck wrote:

NU design results in homes
which are more expensive, provide less space (both inside the home and
between homes), have street designs which are difficult to navigate in an
auto, provide little or no open space for kids to safely play in, require
greater maintenance, have little space for the urban forest (essential for
attenuating the effects of solar gain in Texas), and are harder to patrol.
They do not provide the sense of community which is something they are
supposed to foster.

I suppose my vision of New Urbanist design may be different than yours.
(And I'm not sure what features would be on the "official list", I
admit.) But I see no reason that the problems you list _must_ exist in
this design scheme. For example, can't open space for kids and presence
of trees be easily designed in? One could call such spaces "parks."
Wouldn't local, walkable schools provide a sense of community, and
wouldn't summer concerts in the parks do the same? They do in my
village... and so on.


As for me, I won't be buying into one....

And I probably won't - but in my case, it's largely because my current
situation has most aspects of that design scheme, as I understand it.
And I like it too much to leave.

Ah well. Perhaps we should get back to talking about cycling.


--
Frank Krygowski