Car vs skateboard?

[Gawnsoft]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:48:35 -0700, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]>
wrote (more or less):

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Badger_South wrote:
>> || On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:55:31 GMT, "AustinMN" <[email protected]>
>> || wrote:
>> ||
>> ||| Badger_South wrote:
>> |||| Interesting case on 'Judge Judy' today in which a 15 y.o. child
>> |||| was riding a skateboard in a parking lot and was hit by a female
>> |||| driver who was on a cellphone and speeding.
>> ||||
>> |||| I always thought that such an accident would always be resulted in
>> |||| favor of the pedestrian, but strangely, the judge said the kid
>> |||| shouldn't have been riding in a parking lot. No evidence that he
>> |||| was tricking - just riding.
>> |||
>> ||| <snip>
>> |||
>> |||| Apparently the Judge doesn't think speeding and breaking the law
>> |||| is worthy of a fine. In fact in every jurisdiction I've seen,
>> |||| going 15 miles over the limit is reckless driving.
>> ||||
>> |||| Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to 'second
>> |||| class' citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!
>> |||
>> ||| Important point of information. Judge Judy is not really a court,
>> ||| but a civil arbitration. She doesn't have the authority to levee
>> ||| fines or impose jail sentences. She did everything she could,
>> ||| except write a letter to a DA.
>> |||
>> ||| Austin
>> ||
>> || Well she denied the kid money for 'pain and suffering', and said it
>> || was b/c he had no right to ride in a parking lot, which I'd dispute.
>> ||
>> || Yeah, I know she's not a real court. My commentary was meant to be
>> || also about societal attitudes that seem to favor automobile drives
>> || and disfavor others, I guess.
>>
>> In that case this all makes perfect sense....obviously you know that most
>> car drivers think the roads and parking lots are just for cars. Anyone else
>> on anything else ought not to be on the road....Talk about ignorance....
>
>But, on the point of the law, she's right.
>
>Let's be clear here: in almost every jurisdiction on the planet,
>bicycles are vehicles with road rights, except where explicitly barred.
>Remember, critical mass, we are traffic, etc.
>
>Also, in almost every jurisdiction on the planet, in-line skates and
>skateboards are not vehicles with road rights, and the kid probably
>isn't supposed to be skateboarding in a private parking lot, or at best,
>is supposed to behave like a pedestrian.
>
>There are plenty of complications here which this analysis isn't picking
>up, but the most important distinction is the one I stated first: bikes
>are vehicles in the eyes of the law ("think of them as little cars!")
>but skateboards are not.
>
>Finally, tort (civil) law is separate from questions of "criminal" (a
>term I may be misusing here to describe violations of the traffic code
>as well as the criminal code) law. Judge Judy only arbitrates the
>former. The rules for what constitutes a tort, and under what
>circumstances a person is liable or has a burden of care are not ones I
>know much about, and rules tend to differ from jurisdiction to
>jurisdiction (Canada and the US, for example, have some important
>differences in this realm). Suffice it to say I would bet your outrage
>is misplaced, and at best should be directed at civil law precedents.

You saying that a car driver's duty of care does not extend to not
being 300% over the speed limit in a public place where pedestrians
may legitimately be expected to be travelling?


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

[Roger Zoul]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
:: In article <[email protected]>,
:: "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote:
::
::: Badger_South wrote:
::::: On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:55:31 GMT, "AustinMN" <[email protected]>
::::: wrote:
:::::
:::::: Badger_South wrote:
::::::: Interesting case on 'Judge Judy' today in which a 15 y.o. child
::::::: was riding a skateboard in a parking lot and was hit by a female
::::::: driver who was on a cellphone and speeding.
:::::::
::::::: I always thought that such an accident would always be resulted
::::::: in favor of the pedestrian, but strangely, the judge said the
::::::: kid shouldn't have been riding in a parking lot. No evidence
::::::: that he was tricking - just riding.
::::::
:::::: <snip>
::::::
::::::: Apparently the Judge doesn't think speeding and breaking the law
::::::: is worthy of a fine. In fact in every jurisdiction I've seen,
::::::: going 15 miles over the limit is reckless driving.
:::::::
::::::: Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to
::::::: 'second class' citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!
::::::
:::::: Important point of information. Judge Judy is not really a
:::::: court, but a civil arbitration. She doesn't have the authority
:::::: to levee fines or impose jail sentences. She did everything she
:::::: could, except write a letter to a DA.
::::::
:::::: Austin
:::::
::::: Well she denied the kid money for 'pain and suffering', and said
::::: it was b/c he had no right to ride in a parking lot, which I'd
::::: dispute.
:::::
::::: Yeah, I know she's not a real court. My commentary was meant to be
::::: also about societal attitudes that seem to favor automobile drives
::::: and disfavor others, I guess.
:::
::: In that case this all makes perfect sense....obviously you know
::: that most car drivers think the roads and parking lots are just for
::: cars. Anyone else on anything else ought not to be on the
::: road....Talk about ignorance....
::
:: But, on the point of the law, she's right.
::
:: Let's be clear here: in almost every jurisdiction on the planet,
:: bicycles are vehicles with road rights, except where explicitly
:: barred. Remember, critical mass, we are traffic, etc.
::
:: Also, in almost every jurisdiction on the planet, in-line skates and
:: skateboards are not vehicles with road rights, and the kid probably
:: isn't supposed to be skateboarding in a private parking lot, or at
:: best, is supposed to behave like a pedestrian.
::
:: There are plenty of complications here which this analysis isn't
:: picking up, but the most important distinction is the one I stated
:: first: bikes are vehicles in the eyes of the law ("think of them as
:: little cars!") but skateboards are not.
::
:: Finally, tort (civil) law is separate from questions of "criminal" (a
:: term I may be misusing here to describe violations of the traffic
:: code as well as the criminal code) law. Judge Judy only arbitrates
:: the former. The rules for what constitutes a tort, and under what
:: circumstances a person is liable or has a burden of care are not
:: ones I know much about, and rules tend to differ from jurisdiction to
:: jurisdiction (Canada and the US, for example, have some important
:: differences in this realm). Suffice it to say I would bet your
:: outrage is misplaced, and at best should be directed at civil law
:: precedents.
::

This seems reasonable. Actually, this is good news, because you're saying
that the rights of bicyclist to use the roads probably would have been
recognized by Judge Judy.

But then again, exactly where is a kid supposed to use a skateboard? Are
you saying the kid didn't act like a pedestrian? A pedestrian might be
running/jogging, etc, in/through a parking lot. The kid could have walked
through that lot, but could not have ridden his stakeboard? Funny laws, if
you ask me.

 

[Badger_South]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:56:19 -0400, "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>This seems reasonable. Actually, this is good news, because you're saying
>that the rights of bicyclist to use the roads probably would have been
>recognized by Judge Judy.
>
>But then again, exactly where is a kid supposed to use a skateboard? Are
>you saying the kid didn't act like a pedestrian? A pedestrian might be
>running/jogging, etc, in/through a parking lot. The kid could have walked
>through that lot, but could not have ridden his stakeboard? Funny laws, if
>you ask me.

Both good points, Rog., especially in that a ped might be jogging through a
parkinglot.

In addition how often do you nab a soccer mom actually on the cell during
an accident. I'da thrown the book at her and awarded max bucks to the kid
under pain and suffering, for her yakking while pretending to drive. ;-p

-B

 

[AustinMN]

"Gawnsoft" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:48:35 -0700, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]>
> wrote (more or less):
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Badger_South wrote:
> >> || On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:55:31 GMT, "AustinMN" <[email protected]>
> >> || wrote:
> >> ||
> >> ||| Badger_South wrote:
> >> |||| Interesting case on 'Judge Judy' today in which a 15 y.o. child
> >> |||| was riding a skateboard in a parking lot and was hit by a female
> >> |||| driver who was on a cellphone and speeding.
> >> ||||
> >> |||| I always thought that such an accident would always be resulted in
> >> |||| favor of the pedestrian, but strangely, the judge said the kid
> >> |||| shouldn't have been riding in a parking lot. No evidence that he
> >> |||| was tricking - just riding.
> >> |||
> >> ||| <snip>
> >> |||
> >> |||| Apparently the Judge doesn't think speeding and breaking the law
> >> |||| is worthy of a fine. In fact in every jurisdiction I've seen,
> >> |||| going 15 miles over the limit is reckless driving.
> >> ||||
> >> |||| Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to 'second
> >> |||| class' citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!
> >> |||
> >> ||| Important point of information. Judge Judy is not really a court,
> >> ||| but a civil arbitration. She doesn't have the authority to levee
> >> ||| fines or impose jail sentences. She did everything she could,
> >> ||| except write a letter to a DA.
> >> |||
> >> ||| Austin
> >> ||
> >> || Well she denied the kid money for 'pain and suffering', and said it
> >> || was b/c he had no right to ride in a parking lot, which I'd dispute.
> >> ||
> >> || Yeah, I know she's not a real court. My commentary was meant to be
> >> || also about societal attitudes that seem to favor automobile drives
> >> || and disfavor others, I guess.
> >>
> >> In that case this all makes perfect sense....obviously you know that
most
> >> car drivers think the roads and parking lots are just for cars. Anyone
else
> >> on anything else ought not to be on the road....Talk about
ignorance....
> >
> >But, on the point of the law, she's right.
> >
> >Let's be clear here: in almost every jurisdiction on the planet,
> >bicycles are vehicles with road rights, except where explicitly barred.
> >Remember, critical mass, we are traffic, etc.
> >
> >Also, in almost every jurisdiction on the planet, in-line skates and
> >skateboards are not vehicles with road rights, and the kid probably
> >isn't supposed to be skateboarding in a private parking lot, or at best,
> >is supposed to behave like a pedestrian.
> >
> >There are plenty of complications here which this analysis isn't picking
> >up, but the most important distinction is the one I stated first: bikes
> >are vehicles in the eyes of the law ("think of them as little cars!")
> >but skateboards are not.
> >
> >Finally, tort (civil) law is separate from questions of "criminal" (a
> >term I may be misusing here to describe violations of the traffic code
> >as well as the criminal code) law. Judge Judy only arbitrates the
> >former. The rules for what constitutes a tort, and under what
> >circumstances a person is liable or has a burden of care are not ones I
> >know much about, and rules tend to differ from jurisdiction to
> >jurisdiction (Canada and the US, for example, have some important
> >differences in this realm). Suffice it to say I would bet your outrage
> >is misplaced, and at best should be directed at civil law precedents.
>
> You saying that a car driver's duty of care does not extend to not
> being 300% over the speed limit in a public place where pedestrians
> may legitimately be expected to be travelling?

In this case, not, at least not to where it could be pinned to 300%. "Speed
Limits" in places like parking lots have no legal bearing because they are
not public right-of-ways, they are private property. A speed limit sign (at
least in the US) on private property is legally no more than a courteous
suggestion.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

 

[AustinMN]

"Gawnsoft" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:48:35 -0700, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]>
> wrote (more or less):
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Badger_South wrote:
> >> || On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:55:31 GMT, "AustinMN" <[email protected]>
> >> || wrote:
> >> ||
> >> ||| Badger_South wrote:
> >> |||| Interesting case on 'Judge Judy' today in which a 15 y.o. child
> >> |||| was riding a skateboard in a parking lot and was hit by a female
> >> |||| driver who was on a cellphone and speeding.
> >> ||||
> >> |||| I always thought that such an accident would always be resulted in
> >> |||| favor of the pedestrian, but strangely, the judge said the kid
> >> |||| shouldn't have been riding in a parking lot. No evidence that he
> >> |||| was tricking - just riding.
> >> |||
> >> ||| <snip>
> >> |||
> >> |||| Apparently the Judge doesn't think speeding and breaking the law
> >> |||| is worthy of a fine. In fact in every jurisdiction I've seen,
> >> |||| going 15 miles over the limit is reckless driving.
> >> ||||
> >> |||| Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to 'second
> >> |||| class' citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!
> >> |||
> >> ||| Important point of information. Judge Judy is not really a court,
> >> ||| but a civil arbitration. She doesn't have the authority to levee
> >> ||| fines or impose jail sentences. She did everything she could,
> >> ||| except write a letter to a DA.
> >> |||
> >> ||| Austin
> >> ||
> >> || Well she denied the kid money for 'pain and suffering', and said it
> >> || was b/c he had no right to ride in a parking lot, which I'd dispute.
> >> ||
> >> || Yeah, I know she's not a real court. My commentary was meant to be
> >> || also about societal attitudes that seem to favor automobile drives
> >> || and disfavor others, I guess.
> >>
> >> In that case this all makes perfect sense....obviously you know that
most
> >> car drivers think the roads and parking lots are just for cars. Anyone
else
> >> on anything else ought not to be on the road....Talk about
ignorance....
> >
> >But, on the point of the law, she's right.
> >
> >Let's be clear here: in almost every jurisdiction on the planet,
> >bicycles are vehicles with road rights, except where explicitly barred.
> >Remember, critical mass, we are traffic, etc.
> >
> >Also, in almost every jurisdiction on the planet, in-line skates and
> >skateboards are not vehicles with road rights, and the kid probably
> >isn't supposed to be skateboarding in a private parking lot, or at best,
> >is supposed to behave like a pedestrian.
> >
> >There are plenty of complications here which this analysis isn't picking
> >up, but the most important distinction is the one I stated first: bikes
> >are vehicles in the eyes of the law ("think of them as little cars!")
> >but skateboards are not.
> >
> >Finally, tort (civil) law is separate from questions of "criminal" (a
> >term I may be misusing here to describe violations of the traffic code
> >as well as the criminal code) law. Judge Judy only arbitrates the
> >former. The rules for what constitutes a tort, and under what
> >circumstances a person is liable or has a burden of care are not ones I
> >know much about, and rules tend to differ from jurisdiction to
> >jurisdiction (Canada and the US, for example, have some important
> >differences in this realm). Suffice it to say I would bet your outrage
> >is misplaced, and at best should be directed at civil law precedents.
>
> You saying that a car driver's duty of care does not extend to not
> being 300% over the speed limit in a public place where pedestrians
> may legitimately be expected to be travelling?

In this case, not, at least not to where it could be pinned to 300%. "Speed
Limits" in places like parking lots have no legal bearing because they are
not public right-of-ways, they are private property. A speed limit sign (at
least in the US) on private property is legally no more than a courteous
suggestion.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Mike VM) writes:
>
> When driving a car, you inevitably make certain assumptions about what
> you see as you drive and manouver.
>
> One of those assumptions is about the rate at which an object may end
> up trying to use the same piece of space that you are/intend to use.
>
> We all do this every day. As we look around at various manouvering
> points. If we see a person who is not in or on a vehicle, and is a
> fair distance away, we make an automatic assumption that they are not
> going to get near us very quickly.

If drivers have to resort to guesswork to try to avoid
clobbering other road users (including non-driving ones,)
they shouldn't be driving at all. The stakes are too high
to risk with somebody's blithe, mental toss of a coin.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Mike VM) writes:
>
> When driving a car, you inevitably make certain assumptions about what
> you see as you drive and manouver.
>
> One of those assumptions is about the rate at which an object may end
> up trying to use the same piece of space that you are/intend to use.
>
> We all do this every day. As we look around at various manouvering
> points. If we see a person who is not in or on a vehicle, and is a
> fair distance away, we make an automatic assumption that they are not
> going to get near us very quickly.

If drivers have to resort to guesswork to try to avoid
clobbering other road users (including non-driving ones,)
they shouldn't be driving at all. The stakes are too high
to risk with somebody's blithe, mental toss of a coin.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[AustinMN]

Automator wrote:
> > Amazing how pedestrians, bikers, boarders are relegated to 'second
class'
> > citizen when faced with the almighty automobile!
> >
> > -B
>
> you tell it, B. A couple years ago I had to bike to work along a state
> highway. Speed limit 45mph. No shoulder. So, being the safety minded guy I
> am ... I ride in the middle of the right lane. Folks didn't take to kindly
> to that, doing such things as calling 911. Judges didn't seem to even
listen
> to the laws relating, such as:
>
> If a bicycle and a car cannot safely share a lane, the bicycle may take a
> full lane.
> Cars must give 3 feet of clearance to bikes.
>
> So, figuring a width of about 3 feet for me and my bike, 3 feet of
> clearance, and an average car width of around 7 feet, for a bike and car
to
> safely share the lane the lane must be AT LEAST 13 feet -- in this case
the
> lanes were 12 feet.
>
> Got fined. Paid about 10% of the fine in spare change that I dumped out
for
> the judge to count. Moved out of state to avoid arrest.

I would have appealed that. In most states, you can insist on appealing to
a jury on traffic citations. The judge might have learned something, too;
most don't know everything, despite attitudes to the contrary.

OTOH, were you in actual violation of the law you were cited for? In many
states (mostly mountainous states in the west), holding up traffic is
something you can be cited for. The most common flavor is that you have to
pull over when 5 or more vehicles are behind you (and it is safe to do so).
It doesn't matter if you are breaking no other law, and in fact still
applies if you are traveling at or above the speed limit.

Austin

 

[Badger_South]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:11:00 GMT, "AustinMN" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In this case, not, at least not to where it could be pinned to 300%. "Speed
>Limits" in places like parking lots have no legal bearing because they are
>not public right-of-ways, they are private property. A speed limit sign (at
>least in the US) on private property is legally no more than a courteous
>suggestion.
>
>Austin
>--
>I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
>There are no X characters in my address

This is what I've heard also, thus the frequent 'stop sign' shaped signs,
mimicking those on the street. No legal bearing, either.

-B

 

[AustinMN]

Tom Keats:
> If drivers have to resort to guesswork to try to avoid
> clobbering other road users (including non-driving ones,)
> they shouldn't be driving at all. The stakes are too high
> to risk with somebody's blithe, mental toss of a coin.

This makes for great newsgroup fodder, but all vehicle operators, including
cyclists, do this all the time. Nobody can pay attention to _everything_.
Those that come the closest (ADD/ADHD) make horrible drivers.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"AustinMN" <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Keats:
>> If drivers have to resort to guesswork to try to avoid
>> clobbering other road users (including non-driving ones,)
>> they shouldn't be driving at all. The stakes are too high
>> to risk with somebody's blithe, mental toss of a coin.
>
> This makes for great newsgroup fodder, but all vehicle operators, including
> cyclists, do this all the time. Nobody can pay attention to _everything_.
> Those that come the closest (ADD/ADHD) make horrible drivers.

As I understood Mike's post, he was not talking so much
about being caught by surprise by the presence of other
road users, but rather dealing with /uncertainty/ with
regard to the speeds, vectors and intentions of road users
who have already been seen.

I figure there are two sides on which to choose to 'err',
and I think the side of caution is the more preferable.
Maybe that's why I've never clobbered any of those squirrely
rollerbladers I sometimes encounter on the streets.

This past Sunday, while riding back home from a seek-&-
destroy mission for a cup of fairly traded coffee, I
came up to a malfunctioning traffic light at a certain
cross-traffic (relative to my direction) street. The light
is normally a flashing green, which indicates the presence
of a pushbutton pedestrian control. But this time it was
flashing yellow. We normally don't have any flashing
yellows here, and the drivers didn't know what to make of
it. So they guessed. Some nonchalantly barged through,
and some screeched to a halt. Of the latter, some
immediately restarted and then treditatiously continued
through the intersection, some restarted and got the heck
out of there, and some wanted to apply 4-way stop rules.

What a mess!

I opted to detour rather than taking my chances among a
bunch of guessing drivers, and having to guess, myself --
should this malfunctioning traffic light have been treated
as non-existant, and 4-way stop rules reverted-to, as when
traffic lights don't work at all? Or as a 2-way stop, since
this was an arterial/secondary street intersection (I was on
the secondary)? Or should the flashing yellow have been taken
at face value?

In British Columbia a flashing yellow means slow down and
proceed only if safe to do so. Anyhow, the obvious confusion
of the drivers clinched my decision to detour to the nearest
arterial/arterial intersection with a good 'ol timed traffic
light. To heck with guessing.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Hunrobe]

>Badger_South [email protected]

wrote in part:

>The thing that got me is what if it had been a biker? Why is a skateboard
>any different? Some people use these as transportation and IMO, have as
>much right to the road as a bike, even if not specifically covered by law
>like bikes are.
>

Not to dispute that the driver was at fault, but parking lots are not roads.
They are private property much the same as your yard is private property. The
property owners can and often do ban skateboards to avoid having exactly the
type of lawsuit you saw on an entertainment television show wind up in a real
court. That is within their property rights just as you have the right to
refuse to allow anyone to use your yard as a shortcut.
As for the rights of skateboarders to use the public roadways for
transportation, if local ordinance or State statute prohibits that use then
your opinion or mine makes absolutely no difference. I'd tell any skateboarder
complaining that such discrimination is unfair, "Life is unfair. Either change
the law or buy a bike."

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On 24 Aug 2004 16:22:28 GMT, [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:

>Not to dispute that the driver was at fault, but parking lots are not roads.
>They are private property much the same as your yard is private property. The
>property owners can and often do ban skateboards to avoid having exactly the
>type of lawsuit you saw on an entertainment television show wind up in a real
>court. That is within their property rights just as you have the right to
>refuse to allow anyone to use your yard as a shortcut.

Not completely true in many jurisdictions. In order to be in business
or build/expand, many businesses have to accept certain rules and
conditions concerning parking lots. There are several access suits
going through the courts, for instance, in the area of bus stops.
IIRC, one is a civil suit against a mall owner for prohibiting a bus
stop near the mall, using the roadways within the parking lot, and the
person was injured or killed crossing a dangerous road to a relocated
bus stop. Others are specifically to force malls that have parking
lots per zoning requirements to yield to public access rules.

Whether bikes or skateboards would fall into a protected class if this
prevails is a different issue. It will be interesting. Of course, if
it all stays local/state, it won't mean a heck of a lot.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Badger_South]

On 24 Aug 2004 16:22:28 GMT, [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:

>>Badger_South [email protected]
>
>wrote in part:
>
>>The thing that got me is what if it had been a biker? Why is a skateboard
>>any different? Some people use these as transportation and IMO, have as
>>much right to the road as a bike, even if not specifically covered by law
>>like bikes are.
>>
>
>Not to dispute that the driver was at fault, but parking lots are not roads.
>They are private property much the same as your yard is private property. The
>property owners can and often do ban skateboards to avoid having exactly the
>type of lawsuit you saw on an entertainment television show wind up in a real
>court. That is within their property rights just as you have the right to
>refuse to allow anyone to use your yard as a shortcut.
>As for the rights of skateboarders to use the public roadways for
>transportation, if local ordinance or State statute prohibits that use then
>your opinion or mine makes absolutely no difference. I'd tell any skateboarder
>complaining that such discrimination is unfair, "Life is unfair. Either change
>the law or buy a bike."
>
>Regards,
>Bob Hunt

If this is true, what right did the 'Judge' have saying 'you shouldn't have
been riding your skateboard there'? None at all, appararently, until she
ascertained that it was specifically prohibited.

-B

 

[AustinMN]

Badger_South wrote:

> >Not to dispute that the driver was at fault, but parking lots are not
roads.
> >They are private property much the same as your yard is private property.
The
> >property owners can and often do ban skateboards to avoid having exactly
the
> >type of lawsuit you saw on an entertainment television show wind up in a
real
> >court. That is within their property rights just as you have the right to
> >refuse to allow anyone to use your yard as a shortcut.
> >As for the rights of skateboarders to use the public roadways for
> >transportation, if local ordinance or State statute prohibits that use
then
> >your opinion or mine makes absolutely no difference. I'd tell any
skateboarder
> >complaining that such discrimination is unfair, "Life is unfair. Either
change
> >the law or buy a bike."
> >
> >Regards,
> >Bob Hunt
>
> If this is true, what right did the 'Judge' have saying 'you shouldn't
have
> been riding your skateboard there'? None at all, appararently, until she
> ascertained that it was specifically prohibited.

Be assured, not all of the evidence makes it onto the show. Judges
routinely look things up, make phone calls, etc. If there was a 'yes there
was/no there wasn't' exchange about whether skateboards were prohibited,
'Judge' Judy may well have called the lot owner and asked. It may not have
made it to the show at all (IMHO, an editing mistake), but would still be
considered in the 'Judge's' decision and in the lambasting the young man
got.

Austin

 

[loki]

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> > In that case this all makes perfect sense....obviously you know that
most
> > car drivers think the roads and parking lots are just for cars. Anyone
else
> > on anything else ought not to be on the road....Talk about ignorance....
>
> But, on the point of the law, she's right.
>
> Let's be clear here: in almost every jurisdiction on the planet,
> bicycles are vehicles with road rights, except where explicitly barred.
> Remember, critical mass, we are traffic, etc.
>
> Also, in almost every jurisdiction on the planet, in-line skates and
> skateboards are not vehicles with road rights, and the kid probably
> isn't supposed to be skateboarding in a private parking lot, or at best,
> is supposed to behave like a pedestrian.
[...]

I try to skim a thread to make sure no one has responded as I want to.
Congratulationss. You just summed up how I thought about the case.

I did see that Judge Judy show but was only half paying attention whilst on
the computer. I would add that JJ seemed to be making an assumption [unfair?
I dunno] that the kid was probaably doing stunts or otherwise acting in a
risky manner and ruled accordingly.
I can't say as I disagree with her decision.

--
'I may crack
But I'll never shatter' -meredith brooks

 

[Badger_South]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:35:48 GMT, "loki" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote:
>[...]
>> > In that case this all makes perfect sense....obviously you know that
>most
>> > car drivers think the roads and parking lots are just for cars. Anyone
>else
>> > on anything else ought not to be on the road....Talk about ignorance....
>>
>> But, on the point of the law, she's right.
>>
>> Let's be clear here: in almost every jurisdiction on the planet,
>> bicycles are vehicles with road rights, except where explicitly barred.
>> Remember, critical mass, we are traffic, etc.
>>
>> Also, in almost every jurisdiction on the planet, in-line skates and
>> skateboards are not vehicles with road rights, and the kid probably
>> isn't supposed to be skateboarding in a private parking lot, or at best,
>> is supposed to behave like a pedestrian.
>[...]
>
> I try to skim a thread to make sure no one has responded as I want to.
>Congratulationss. You just summed up how I thought about the case.
>
> I did see that Judge Judy show but was only half paying attention whilst on
>the computer. I would add that JJ seemed to be making an assumption [unfair?
>I dunno] that the kid was probaably doing stunts or otherwise acting in a
>risky manner and ruled accordingly.
> I can't say as I disagree with her decision.

Well let's be sure not to lose sight of the fact that beyotch on cell phone
speeding at least 15mph over the posted quasi-legal limit hits a
teenybopper innocently tooling along on his board, and gets she away with a
wrist slap!

-B
Of course the kid had some nerve being in the way on her asphault, eh? ;-)

 

[Dave Pushee]

Mike VM wrote:
>
.... snip

>
> We all do this every day. As we look around at various manouvering
> points. If we see a person who is not in or on a vehicle, and is a
> fair distance away, we make an automatic assumption that they are not
> going to get near us very quickly.
>
.... snip again
>
> In the coming years, I can see that there will be all kinds of
> problems caused by the new generation of electric (and occasionally
> petrol engined) scooters and skateboards that now seem to be appearing
> ever more frequently.
>

I had a surprise tonight on my (bicycle) commute home. I was coming off
a fast downhill and probably still doing about 35mph when I spotted what
I thought was a pedestrian coming my way. We were both on a paved
shoulder 4 or 5 feet wide. I checked back in preparation to moving into
the traffic lane. About the time I started to move left, the
"pedestrian" also moved into the traffic lane, and the distance was
closing really fast. It was two kids on a motorized skateboard or
something doing about 25mph. I ducked back right onto the shoulder
again and they crossed diagonally over to the other (their right) side
just in front of a line of traffic. Those fools are lucky to be alive.
I'm just glad they didn't take me with them.

- Dave

 

[Hunrobe]

>Badger_South [email protected]

wrote:

>This is what I've heard also, thus the frequent 'stop sign' shaped signs,
>mimicking those on the street. No legal bearing, either.

Don't bet on it, at least not in the Chicago area. Every major shopping mall
I'm aware of- and since I'm married to a world class shopper that is most of
them for a 30 mile radius- has an agreement with the municipality they are
located in that makes local traffic laws enforceable on mall property so while
running a stop sign won't get the violator a citation under *State* law it will
earn them an ordinance ticket. Just FYI.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[dreaded]

"Dave Pushee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike VM wrote:
> >
> ... snip
>
> >
> > We all do this every day. As we look around at various manouvering
> > points. If we see a person who is not in or on a vehicle, and is a
> > fair distance away, we make an automatic assumption that they are not
> > going to get near us very quickly.
> >
> ... snip again
> >
> > In the coming years, I can see that there will be all kinds of
> > problems caused by the new generation of electric (and occasionally
> > petrol engined) scooters and skateboards that now seem to be appearing
> > ever more frequently.
> >
>
> I had a surprise tonight on my (bicycle) commute home. I was coming off
> a fast downhill and probably still doing about 35mph when I spotted what
> I thought was a pedestrian coming my way. We were both on a paved
> shoulder 4 or 5 feet wide. I checked back in preparation to moving into
> the traffic lane. About the time I started to move left, the
> "pedestrian" also moved into the traffic lane, and the distance was
> closing really fast. It was two kids on a motorized skateboard or
> something doing about 25mph. I ducked back right onto the shoulder
> again and they crossed diagonally over to the other (their right) side
> just in front of a line of traffic. Those fools are lucky to be alive.
> I'm just glad they didn't take me with them.
>
> - Dave
>

ya i saw the damndest thing too the other day. it was a little tiny
motorcycle. like a baby crotch rocket type. the driver was so low it looked
like he was on one of those land-luge things and he was weaving in and out
of traffic that likely had no idea he was there because he wasnt even as
high as the windows on a normal car!
-alan