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



Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Scott Munro

Guest
http://www.local6.com/news/2580655/detail.html

"I'm going to not pay this ticket, and Scott's definitely not going to pay it," said Danielle
McIntosh, the boy's mother. She added the only money her son has is the allowance he has been saving
for a battery-operated miniature truck.

"He's an 8-year-old child. He does not understand what the right of way is," She said.
-----
Gee, I wonder why this kid rides his bike in such an unsafe manner?

--
Conservatism is the ideology of reality.
 
"Scott Munro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.local6.com/news/2580655/detail.html
>
> "I'm going to not pay this ticket, and Scott's definitely not going to pay it," said Danielle
> McIntosh, the boy's mother. She added the only money her son has is the allowance he has been
> saving for a battery-operated miniature truck.
>
> "He's an 8-year-old child. He does not understand what the right of way is," She said.
> -----
> Gee, I wonder why this kid rides his bike in such an unsafe manner?

The parents are dunderheads. They should thank the appropriate diety that their son is alive today,
and thank the cop for caring. At 8, Scott is not too young to learn that behavior has consequencies,
and should pony up his truck money as a way of learning a lesson.
--
reply address: MikeKr at AOL dot COM
 
>Scott Munro [email protected]

wrote in part:
>http://www.local6.com/news/2580655/detail.html
>
>"I'm going to not pay this ticket, and Scott's definitely not going to pay it," said Danielle
>McIntosh, the boy's mother.

It rarely happens but here in Illinois if a child is fined by a judge the parents are held
responsible for payment. Even if the original charge is a non-jailable offense a parent's refusal to
pay (as opposed to inability to pay) can result in a contempt citation and contempt of court *is*
jailable. I doubt it would happen but it could be interesting.

Regards, Bob Hunt
 
here if hes under 10 its his parents responsibility On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 02:20:35 GMT, Scott Munro
<[email protected]> wrote:

>http://www.local6.com/news/2580655/detail.html
>
>"I'm going to not pay this ticket, and Scott's definitely not going to pay it," said Danielle
>McIntosh, the boy's mother. She added the only money her son has is the allowance he has been
>saving for a battery-operated miniature truck.
>
>"He's an 8-year-old child. He does not understand what the right of way is," She said.
>-----
>Gee, I wonder why this kid rides his bike in such an unsafe manner?
 
"Hunrobe" wrote:

> It rarely happens but here in Illinois if a child is fined by a judge the parents are held
> responsible for payment. Even if the original charge is a non-jailable offense a parent's refusal
> to pay (as opposed to inability to
pay)
> can result in a contempt citation and contempt of court *is* jailable. I
doubt
> it would happen but it could be interesting.

In some states, parents are only responsible for the "willful misconduct" of their kids. If the kid
didn't deliberately cause the damge, they're off the hook. (I learned that from watching Judge
Wapner on "The Peoples Court.")

Personally, I think the kid and/or parents should face some consequences.

Art Harris
 
Howdy folks!

I've been a lurker on here for some time, and I've got to chime in here. I absolutely agree with Art
in that the parents should face some consequences. I noted in the writeup that the boy had no helmet
on. An 8yr old out riding a BMX type bike, jumping dirt berms and stuff, and no helmet? That is
inexcusable on the part of the PARENTS to NOT enforce wearing a helmet. To me, it shows
irresponsibility. That kind of laziness may indeed have helped foster the scenario by which this
young boy encountered the 2001 Nissan.

All parties are damned lucky that the boy wasn't hurt, especially if he really was thrown off the
bike. Did anyone else note that the boy indicated after the "incident" occurred, that he bolted the
scene? Why?

I've got two daughters, and from day one since they began riding bikes, they associated helmet
wearing with riding. Now when they ride, they don't even think about it. The helmet gets strapped on
and THEN they ride... ...just like when we're out on the sailboat, the life preservers go on BEFORE
we get underway.

The parents hold responsibility here. Pay the damned ticket and consider yourselves lucky. When it
comes to incidents like this in biking, it is nothign short of divine providence that you get a
second chance to reevaluate your position and make changes for the better.

--
"Sea" ya! --Lars S. Mulford "You can find evil anywhere you look. The question is, why are
you looking?"

"Arthur Harris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Hunrobe" wrote: Personally, I think the kid and/or parents should face some consequences.
>
> Art Harris
 
Arpit Said:

> >"He's an 8-year-old child. He does not understand what the right of way is," She said.
> >-----
> >Gee, I wonder why this kid rides his bike in such an unsafe manner?

You Americans are crazy. (Probably the whole damn world is.) Where are the days where a kid could
just ride his bike and have fun without worrying about helmets and **** like that? Maybe it's too
crowded over there.

When I was a kid, there wasn't any such thing as helmets, and I jumped my BMX over many a dirt heap,
sometimes over a dirt heap and into the neighbours well manicured flowerbed. That was fun, but the
neighbour didn't think so. :)

Had some close encounters with cars too, but those were mostly in my skateboard days. (no
helmet either).

Anyway, I'm very glad I'm not a kid today, and especially in the US (it seems). Must be pretty
boring. Maybe I would have decided to stuff all these rules, and just play playstation. It's much
more fun than driving miss daisy with a bloody helmet on.

PS: I have nothing against helmets, I even own one. (Don't wear it very often though) My point is
with all the rules and regulations these days, it must be boring to be a kid.

--

QUIPd 1.02: (293 of 665) -> A wise man never blows his knows.
##2355 #'Mandrake Linux.'
 
"Johann S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> PS: I have nothing against helmets, I even own one. (Don't wear it very often though) My point is
> with all the rules and regulations these days, it must be boring to be a kid.

Not as boring as being dead.

RichC
 
Rich Clark Said:

>
> "Johann S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > PS: I have nothing against helmets, I even own one. (Don't wear it very often though) My point
> > is with all the rules and regulations these days, it must be boring to be a kid.
>
> Not as boring as being dead.
>

That is true, although I am not convinced of the truth of that, but still, a pity that children
cannot be children anymore. That is why me and the wife decided not to have kids.

Anyway, This is OT, so I'll shut up now.

--

QUIPd 1.02: (550 of 666) -> The quickest way to double your money is to fold it over and put -> it
back in your pocket.
##2358 #'Mandrake Linux.'
 
Johann S. <[email protected]> wrote:
: Anyway, I'm very glad I'm not a kid today, and especially in the US (it seems). Must be
: pretty boring.

nah, we spend most of our time mastering the art of not getting caught. it could probably go w/o
saying how useful that skill is later in life.
--
david reuteler [email protected]
 
"Rich Clark" wrote:

> Not as boring as being dead.

"What is life but an unnecessary interuption to pleasant non-existence?" -- Jean Paul Satre
 
"Johann S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> That is true, although I am not convinced of the truth of that, but still, a pity that children
> cannot be children anymore. That is why me and the wife decided not to have kids.

Well, *those* children certainly can't be children, anyway.

Yet, somehow, my son grew up to be a happy, productive, well-adjusted person with good friends and a
bright future, despite my tyrannical insistence that he learn the rules of the road and wear a
helmet before I would allow him to mix with traffic on his bike.

RichC
 
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:41:22 +0200, Johann S. <[email protected]> wrote:
>Anyway, I'm very glad I'm not a kid today, and especially in the US (it seems). Must be pretty
>boring. Maybe I would have decided to stuff all these rules, and just play playstation. It's
>much more

I have nothing against kids being kids...but if you hit a car and damage it, then you own up to what
you did. If you want to jump off dirt into the street, it's your call. But if you kill someone or
get killed, just remember that it's your fault and not theirs.
 
Lars S. Mulford wrote:
> Howdy folks!
>
> I've been a lurker on here for some time, and I've got to chime in here. I absolutely agree with
> Art in that the parents should face some consequences. I noted in the writeup that the boy had no
> helmet on. An 8yr old out riding a BMX type bike, jumping dirt berms and stuff, and no helmet?

Nice one, Lars! Focus entirely on the helmet. Completely ignore the fact that the kid rode out
directly in front of a car.

This is "Bike Safety, the American version."

--
Frank Krygowski
 
Rich Clark Said:

>
> "Johann S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > That is true, although I am not convinced of the truth of that, but still, a pity that children
> > cannot be children anymore. That is why me and the wife decided not to have kids.
>
> Well, *those* children certainly can't be children, anyway.
>
> Yet, somehow, my son grew up to be a happy, productive, well-adjusted person with good friends and
> a bright future, despite my tyrannical insistence that he learn the rules of the road and wear a
> helmet before I would allow him to mix with traffic on his bike.
>

Yeah, Ok, you win. I knew that from the beginning, I was just feeling out of sorts. (Sorry). Like
the other dude said, you gotta stand by what you did. No matter how young/old you are.

It is just that safety rules are starting to irritate me. At work, safety rules are getting more and
more, and freedom of choice is getting less and less. Damn boring. Ah well. *shrug*

PS: Arthur Harris: I absolutely love that quote:

"What is life but an unnecessary interuption to pleasant non-existence?" -- Jean Paul Satre

--

QUIPd 1.02: (385 of 667) -> Windows: Just another pane in the glass.
##2370 #'Mandrake Linux.'
 
"Johann S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> It is just that safety rules are starting to irritate me. At work, safety rules are getting more
> and more, and freedom of choice is getting less and less. Damn boring. Ah well. *shrug*

I wouldn't argue with the statement that sometimes institutions go to ridiculous lengths to protect
themselves from liability, and also that sometimes people get downright silly in their efforts to
"protect" others.

At the same time, one must allow the principle that people should be accountable for their actions
to extend to everyone. Including people in supervisory or legislative positions who feel responsible
for those whose lives their actions affect.

If I make a rule that the crew repainting an exhibit hall must keep it ventilated and wear masks
when sanding, then when they violate the rule they're accepting responsibility for violating the
rule, and accepting the potential consequences as well. If I don't make the rule, then I am. Well,
no thanks. I can't stop people from doing stupid things, but I can protect myself from their
lawyers. But I'd feel *really* bad if somebody had their lungs damaged because I actually was
negligent in providing a safe work environment. So being "responsible for my own actions" in this
case is to make annoying rules for the workers.

RichC
 
Frank:

If you'd have read my post completely, you'd have seen that it had EVERYTHING to do with the boy
going in front of the car and getting tagged. He's lucky to have a second chance, and with luck
perhaps his parents will see that. Most folks who have encounters like this are not so graced as
this kid seemed to be, to come away completely unscathed.

So Frank, leave your elitism at home.
--
"Sea" ya! --Lars S. Mulford "You can find evil anywhere you look. The question is, why are
you looking?"

"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Nice one, Lars! Focus entirely on the helmet. Completely ignore the fact that the kid rode out
> directly in front of a car.
>
> This is "Bike Safety, the American version."
>
>
> --
> Frank Krygowski
 
"Johann S." wrote:
>
> Arpit Said:
>
> > >"He's an 8-year-old child. He does not understand what the right of way is," She said.

Then he has no business being outside alone.

> > >-----
> > >Gee, I wonder why this kid rides his bike in such an unsafe manner?
>
> You Americans are crazy. (Probably the whole damn world is.) Where are the days where a kid could
> just ride his bike and have fun without worrying about helmets and **** like that? Maybe it's too
> crowded over there.

No matter how uncrowded it is here it's too crowded. The helmet question is irrelevant if your chest
gets run over by a car and too much red wet stuff squirts out.

> When I was a kid, there wasn't any such thing as helmets, and I jumped my BMX over many a dirt
> heap, sometimes over a dirt heap and into the neighbours well manicured flowerbed. That was fun,
> but the neighbour didn't think so. :)

The problem here is that the kid jumped out into traffic, not into your neighbor's flowerbed. An
8-year-old ought to have more sense than that, and giving up his savings and the rest of his
allowance until the ticket is paid off is an especially good way of acquiring some at a fairly
low price.

There's no hope for his mom, though, so I hope that somebody just slaps her silly.

> Had some close encounters with cars too, but those were mostly in my skateboard days. (no helmet
> either).
>
> Anyway, I'm very glad I'm not a kid today, and especially in the US (it seems). Must be pretty
> boring. Maybe I would have decided to stuff all these rules, and just play playstation. It's much
> more fun than driving miss daisy with a bloody helmet on.
>
> PS: I have nothing against helmets, I even own one. (Don't wear it very often though) My point is
> with all the rules and regulations these days, it must be boring to be a kid.

There's a general feeling that it's no longer safe for a kid to play anywhere without an adult in
close attendance. Damn shame, because kids NEED to learn to be alone and unsupervised sometimes. You
ride/drive around in the suburbs and you never see kids out playing. You see lots of gardeners,
people jogging (sometimes pushing a sport-stroller with a kid in it), and a few bicyclists.

It used to be neat to ride out Xmas morning and see all the kids with their new bicycles. Been a
long time since that happened.

--
Cheers, Bev
************************************************************
"Let them eat ****."

-- Marcel Antoinette, Marie's little-known brother
 
David Reuteler wrote:
>
> Johann S. <[email protected]> wrote:
> : Anyway, I'm very glad I'm not a kid today, and especially in the US (it seems). Must be pretty
> : boring.
>
> nah, we spend most of our time mastering the art of not getting caught. it could probably go w/o
> saying how useful that skill is later in life.

But in this case the kid DID get caught. Sensible parents would make him pay restitution, pay
something additional for punishment, and give him some extra punishment for being careless and
getting caught.

Parents just aren't what they used to be...

--
Cheers, Bev
*****************************************
"Don't force it, use a bigger hammer!"

-- M. Irving
 
Status
Not open for further replies.