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

[Frank Krygowski]

Mike Kruger wrote:

> My own subjective rating of "How well do I understand how to raise kids" took a big nose-dive when
> I became a father.
>
> My own parents suddenly seemed a lot smarter, too.

Mark Twain wrote about something like that. I won't be able to quote exactly, but it went something
like this.

"When I was 18, I was convinced my father was the dumbest person on earth. By the time I'd turned
21, I was amazed at how much he had learned."

Actually, Mark (or Samuel) was a pretty bright guy. Most young men don't catch on until
_well_ past 21!

--
Frank Krygowski

 

[Zoot Katz]

Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:37:47 -0500, <[email protected]>, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> My own parents suddenly seemed a lot smarter, too.
>
>Mark Twain wrote about something like that. I won't be able to quote exactly, but it went something
>like this.

"When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man
around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in
seven years."

-attributed by Reader's Digest, Sept. 1937. This quote has been attributed to Mark Twain, but until
the attribution can be verified, the quote should not be regarded as authentic.
--
zk

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 10:16:16 +1100, Arpit <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:41:22 +0200, "Johann S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It's much more fun than driving miss daisy with a bloody helmet on.
>

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.

Of course, I'm probably the only person here who's seen "Driving Miss Daisy Crazy".
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Rick Onanian]

I hope I don't end up in another helmet war, but...

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:52:49 -0500, Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>I repeat: "Bike Safety, the American version." It's all about the hat.

Could be worse. Could be: "Chain of command, Catholic version": It's all about the hat.
--
Rick "Bigger hat == closer to god???" Onanian

 

[Chalo]

"Arthur Harris" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

What a load of ****. Any motorist who can't drive such as to avoid mowing down children should be
stripped of the right, and quickly.

Society has no social contract with 8-year-olds that would oblige them to observe traffic laws. And
do we want a society that's safe for cars, or one that's safe for kids? I know my answer.

Chalo Colina

 

[Sorni]

"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Arthur Harris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Personally, I think the kid and/or parents should face some
consequences.
>
> What a load of ****. Any motorist who can't drive such as to avoid mowing down children should be
> stripped of the right, and quickly.
>
> Society has no social contract with 8-year-olds that would oblige them to observe traffic laws.
> And do we want a society that's safe for cars, or one that's safe for kids? I know my answer.

Nice troll.

So the next time a kid runs out from a hidden driveway or something in front of you on your bike,
you'll take full responsibility for both of your injuries -- AND give up your "right" to ride?!?

Didn't think so.

Bill "mowing down children my ass" S.

 

[Chalo]

[email protected] (sbirn) wrote:

> 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.

Kids on bikes kill no one.

It is unethical and absurd to burden a little child with the responsibility that rightfully belongs
to a car driver.

Cars are deadly, and fallaciously shifting the blame to the victim does not put the victim at fault.
It only indicts your reasoning as broken.

Chalo Colina

 

[Chalo]

The Real Bev <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

Don't know what you mean by "sensible". Parents whose values were not grossly skewed by car-centrism
would be more likely to track down the person whose motor-driven careless disregard nearly killed
their kid, and lay on an ass whipping that would leave him/her somewhere between remorseful and
permanently disabled.

Why would you wish to live in a world where children must pay the price so that adult motorists can
escape the consequences of their actions?

Chalo Colina

 

[Mike Kruger]

"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Parents whose values were not grossly skewed by car-centrism would be more likely to track down
> the person whose motor-driven careless disregard nearly killed their kid, and lay on an ass
> whipping that would leave him/her somewhere between remorseful and permanently disabled.

Troll. Note that it's multiply posted within this thread.

 

[Rich Clark]

"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Society has no social contract with 8-year-olds that would oblige them to observe traffic laws.

Their parents signed the contract.

> And do we want a society that's safe for cars, or one that's safe for kids? I know my answer.

We certainly don't want a society that teaches kids they're not responsible for their actions until
they become adults. Oh, wait, we already have one. The one where metal detectors have to be
installed at school entrances.

RichC

 

[The Real Bev]

Chalo wrote:
>
> The Real Bev <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Don't know what you mean by "sensible". Parents whose values were not grossly skewed by
> car-centrism

Ah, I see, you're here to spew. Third door on the left. You'll be confronting Mr. Jones, who
believes that all bicyclists should be killed. Have a nice day.

> would be more likely to track down the person whose motor-driven careless disregard nearly killed
> their kid, and lay on an ass whipping that would leave him/her somewhere between remorseful and
> permanently disabled.

Their kid intruded into the space reserved for cars. One of the first things you teach a kid is STAY
OUT OF THE STREET unless certain conditions are met. Such conditions vary with the age of the kid.
An 8-year-old ought to know where he can and can't ride his bicycle, and it's the kids' parents'
responsibility to teach him. That's what parents do.

> Why would you wish to live in a world where children must pay the price so that adult motorists
> can escape the consequences of their actions?

God told you to say that, right?

--
Cheers, Bev
==============================================================
"Arguing on the internet is like running a race in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're
still retarded."

 

[Zoot Katz]

Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:57:41 -0800, <[email protected]>, The Real Bev
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Their kid intruded into the space reserved for cars.

Somebody's private garage?
--
zk

 

[Chalo]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > What a load of ****. Any motorist who can't drive such as to avoid mowing down children should
> > be stripped of the right, and quickly.
>
> So the next time a kid runs out from a hidden driveway or something in front of you on your bike,
> you'll take full responsibility for both of your injuries -- AND give up your "right" to ride?!?

If you won't morally distinguish between riding a bike-- which imposes a risk on others less than
that of lightning strikes, bee stings, or choking on a wiener-- and driving a car, which kills
thousands of non-motorists in the USA every year, you must be actively trying to justify your own
morally indefensible conduct.

Every time you drive a car you accept a significant risk of hurting or killing someone who had no
part in your decision to drive. If a non-motorist gets hurt or killed as a result, the
responsibility lies with you, the one who made the difference between an accident, and an accident
with injury or death.

Chalo Colina

 

[Chalo]

The Real Bev <[email protected]> wrote:

> Their kid intruded into the space reserved for cars.

By which you mean, the transportation infrastructure provided for the use of all citizens? The one
that kid cyclists get to use without qualification, but that motorists must be licensed to use? Is
that the one you mean?

> One of the first things you teach a kid is STAY OUT OF THE STREET unless certain conditions
> are met.

And a cardinal rule for car drivers (a litmus test for whether a driver has screwed up, even) is
"don't run into/over children under any circumstances."

> An 8-year-old ought to know where he can and can't ride his bicycle, and it's the kids' parents'
> responsibility to teach him. That's what parents do.

And it is a driver's responsibility to operate his or her vehicle in such a way as not to squash
kids. Even if that means _slowing down_, or (God forbid!) _stopping_.

Ethical practice dictates that the one who imposes the risk of harm into a situation take the
responsibility for managing that risk. And when it comes to anything other than cars, folks
understand this principle. For instance, if someone went out shooting a gun in an assumed safe
direction (for celebration, or warning, or whatever) and someone else were shot and injured as a
result, it would not matter to most people that the gunman wasn't aiming to shoot anybody in
particular. He would still bear responsibility for the harm done. The shooting victim would not be
held responsible simply for being in the line of fire.

Because driving is so pervasive, drivers do not see their activity as tantamount to shooting around
into the community, but it is. It kills something like 4 to 5 times as many USA folks in a given
year as are killed by gunshot. (And the USA is the gunshot-killinest nation in the developed world
by a huge margin.)

> > Why would you wish to live in a world where children must pay the price so that adult motorists
> > can escape the consequences of their actions?
>
> God told you to say that, right?

I don't see what anybody's God has to do with it. It's basic ethics, which belong to no religion.

Chalo Colina

 

[Doug Huffman]

Nothing 'chumpy' about these statements! I have often disagreed with all of what this poster has
said BUT NOT THIS.

What he is saying is correct and proper and how he's saying it is almost strong enough.

Gracias Senior!

"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If you won't morally distinguish between riding a bike-- which imposes a risk on others less than
> that of lightning strikes, bee stings, or choking on a wiener-- and driving a car, which kills
> thousands of non-motorists in the USA every year, you must be actively trying to justify your own
> morally indefensible conduct.
>
> Every time you drive a car you accept a significant risk of hurting or killing someone who had no
> part in your decision to drive. If a non-motorist gets hurt or killed as a result, the
> responsibility lies with you, the one who made the difference between an accident, and an accident
> with injury or death.
>
> Chalo Colina

 

[Rich Clark]

"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> And it is a driver's responsibility to operate his or her vehicle in such a way as not to squash
> kids. Even if that means _slowing down_, or (God forbid!) _stopping_.

This kid would have squashed the car, had the mass ratio been reversed. As described, the driver
could have avoided the accident only by being in an alternate universe.
>
> Ethical practice dictates that the one who imposes the risk of harm into a situation take the
> responsibility for managing that risk.

Which was the kid (and his buddies who built the jump that would result in them landing in
the street).

RichC

 

[Pete]

On 28 Oct 2003 15:17:46 -0800, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:

> If you won't morally distinguish between riding a bike-- which imposes a risk on others less than
> that of lightning strikes, bee stings, or choking on a wiener-- and driving a car, which kills
> thousands of non-motorists in the USA every year, you must be actively trying to justify your own
> morally indefensible conduct.
>
> Every time you drive a car you accept a significant risk of hurting or killing someone who had no
> part in your decision to drive. If a non-motorist gets hurt or killed as a result, the
> responsibility lies with you, the one who made the difference between an accident, and an accident
> with injury or death.
>
> Chalo Colina

Change the circumstances a little. Kid playing around on a bike, doing jumps, flys out in the
street. Right in front of oncoming traffic.

The traffic, in this hypothetical, is not a car, but a pair of bike commuters, doing about 25mph.

The kid has literally come right out in front of the commuters. Nowhere to go, no room to stop. The
kid gets bowled over. Many injuries ensue.

Would you be so adamant about it being the commuters fault if this were the case?

Pete Sometimes, it *is* the cyclists fault.

 

[Jay]

>> "Arthur Harris" <[email protected]> wrote: 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.

> [email protected] wrote: What a load of ****. Any motorist who can't drive such as to avoid
> mowing down children should be stripped of the right, and quickly. Society has no social contract
> with 8-year-olds that would oblige them to observe traffic laws. And do we want a society that's
> safe for cars, or one that's safe for kids? I know my answer.

That is why the parents are supposed to both properly supervise and to train their kids.

BTW in my area ALL vehicle operators ( including all bikes) are required by law to follow ALL
applicable laws. If you enter the road surface, either you or if you are underage, your parents can
be held responsible.

If the child is under the age of 12, 16 and 18 - the rights and responsibilities of kids increase
and those of the parents ( for said kid's behaviour ) decrease with the child's age.

In this particular case- it appears that an improperly supervised and trained child entered a road
surface and caused damage. It also seems that without the charge the driver, who seems to have
broken no laws would have had to pay for the damage that the kid caused.

 

[Buck]

"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> And a cardinal rule for car drivers (a litmus test for whether a driver has screwed up, even) is
> "don't run into/over children under any circumstances."

> And it is a driver's responsibility to operate his or her vehicle in such a way as not to squash
> kids. Even if that means _slowing down_, or (God forbid!) _stopping_.

Chalo,

Blanket statements like these only apply in a world that can be measured in absolutes - black or
white, no grey allowed. But there are a great many circumstances where the party at fault is a minor
and the adult involved made every reasonable effort to prevent an accident. It is impossible to do
anything in this world without some risk. Efforts to completely eliminate the risks associated with
transporting ourselves and the goods we depend on in the manner you suggest would cripple our
economy. Nothing could move faster than a walking pace and everything would have to be made of nerf.

If you ever watch Real TV, you may have caught one of the more spectacular accidents involving a car
and a shopping cart. In case you missed it, a group of kids sent one of their own down an alley in a
shopping cart and he rolled into the street in front of a car. The car sent him flying. The alley
was completely blocked by the adjacent building, so the driver had NO opportunity to miss this kid.
From what you write, you would hold that driver responsible for the wreck.

This is similar to the situation being discussed here. But the kid on the bike had a much greater
ability to control where he was going. No one pushed him. His bike had brakes. He made a choice to
get into the street. Despite his age, I'm sure he knew better. He should be held responsible.

-Buck

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 03:53:12 GMT, "Buck" <s c h w i n n _ f o r _ s a l e @ h o t m a i l . c
o m> wrote:
>him. His bike had brakes. He made a choice to get into the street. Despite his age, I'm sure he
>knew better. He should be held responsible.

Not "despite" his age. _By_ his age, he should know better.

>-Buck
--
Rick Onanian