Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: House arrest after killing cyclist in hit and run.
Date: 1 Mar 2025 19:56:14 GMT
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <m2h72uFbv5aU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <vpt415$3qdu0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpt5ma$3qk9t$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpt7tf$3muis$4@dont-email.me>
 <vpthhp$3snkj$1@dont-email.me>
 <vptmng$3tid9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpttij$3ue1j$2@dont-email.me>
 <m2gdhiF88amU1@mid.individual.net>
 <vpvi58$akr9$6@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net C3DguJqtYOol7ZUpXFpcFwvSn2CNeEm5N+uG33sHgY4QxMzlRx
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QNcUhGchAyKH1c3jar4Gj9W0CvU= sha1:2gmFlno5ny9I9+zFgjVzZKYHjk8= sha256:IMijmqyTSm/54yONKnvihP/Q8VppXkf6sbrR4Mopuzo=
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Bytes: 5438

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 3/1/2025 7:40 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2025 8:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/2025 5:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/28/2025 3:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In my view, a person who kills someone with their car should never,
>>>>>>> ever be allowed to drive again.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> First, let's acknowledge that rule will never be implemented in the
>>>>> U.S. But if it were, driver caution would increase many times over.
>>>>> 
>>>>> After the first few "dumbshit walks in front of car" episodes actually
>>>>> resulted in "no more driving" and were publicized, motorists might
>>>>> begin slowing to non-fatal speeds when pedestrians (or bicyclists) are
>>>>> within walk-in- front range.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As I've said here before, if an overhead crane operator killed someone
>>>>> in a factory, I think they'd never be allowed to operate the crane
>>>>> again, no matter what their excuse.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Humans have given up far more than we should have to motordom. Streets
>>>>> and roads were once the domain of pedestrians, of kids playing, of
>>>>> people interacting. Turning them entirely over to motorists was a
>>>>> deliberate campaign goal of the car manufacturers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://marker.medium.com/the-invention-of-jaywalking- afd48f994c05
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I (naively?) assumed you meant 'by negligence or malice' and I was happy
>>>> to agree with that.
>>>> 
>>>> But I can't agree with you here.  Extend that argument and we'll charge
>>>> train operators with murder when jerkoffs drive around the gate.  Or
>>>> auto drivers who hit red light running cyclists for that matter.
>>> 
>>> Given the legal system of the United States, I'd assume that if such a
>>> law were implemented, there would be gaggles of lawyers rushing to any
>>> accused motorist to defend his right to run down anyone who impeded his
>>> speed.
>>> 
>>> So think of my position as an initial step in negotiations. Let it apply
>>> in, say, residential areas, where kids should be able to play in
>>> streets. Or in pedestrian heavy business districts.
>>> 
>>> But as we all know, the present situation is closest to "I didn't see
>>> him!" or "He came out of nowhere!" followed by at most a slap on the
>>> wrist. And any imperfection in the pedestrian's behavior is a coupon for
>>> no motorist penalty at all.
>>> 
>>> Locally, about six months ago we had a young, well loved, well respected
>>> music teacher, church organist killed by a car when walking across a
>>> street. About a week ago, another young man was killed crossing the
>>> plaza-infested five lane at 6 AM. Details on the first are sketchy to me
>>> - it sounds like he was in a legal crosswalk - but cops said the latter
>>> was "not crossing in a designated crosswalk" so the motorist is off
>>> completely free. And in a different city, a young woman I know well was
>>> knocked to the ground and injured while crossing in a crosswalk with a
>>> green "walk" signal.
>>> 
>>> (BTW, Ohio law has a virtual crosswalk at any intersection, whether it's
>>> marked or not. Still, expecting pedestrians to walk an extra half mile
>>> to avoid being called a "jaywalker" seems unfair to me.)
>>> 
>>> I'd like a law that makes motorists think "Holy shit, there's a
>>> pedestrian. I'd better be _really_ careful."
>>> 
>> 
>> Presumed liability with the hierarchy of users, ie the idea that larger
>> vehicles bring the risk associated with travel, which seems fair enough,
>> and thus they have to prove it wasn’t their fault.
>> 
>> Seems to work, though I’ve not looked at it with details..
> 
> When we visited Zurich, we were hosted by a young couple. The four of us 
> walked and biked around town a fair amount. During one of our walks, our 
> hosts said Zurich had recently passed a strict liability law, at least 
> regarding cars vs. pedestrians.
> 
> I don't remember if it applied to cyclists or not, and I never heard the 
> details. But they said it had transformed the experience of walking 
> around the city, making it much better.
> 
To the best of my (limited) knowledge bikes are included ie folks traveling
faster/larger need to take more care around others which seems fairly
reasonable idea really.

Roger Merriman