S
Sbirn
Guest
On 27 Oct 2003 17:17:33 -0800, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:
>It is unethical and absurd to burden a little child with the responsibility that rightfully belongs
>to a car driver.
Bzzzzt! Blame goes to the peson whose actions led directly to the collision. If the kid had been
operating his bike in a safe manner, he would not have been hurt. There is NO EVIDENCE that the
driver was doing anything but operating in a safe manner.
Are you aware of this field of science called physics? It holds a basic tenet that objects in
motion like to stay in motion. Therefore, even on a residential street a car traveling in a safe
manner at 40km/h will not be able to stop in 2 feet. Therefore, if anyone - kid or adult - suddenly
launches into the road on a bike only 5 feet in front of the car nobody short of superman could
stop that car in time.
>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.
Let's take a hypothetical situation. We have two kids who want to play street hockey...on an
interstate....in a wooded section....just around a blind corner. The posted speed limit is 100km/h.
Even if it is a perfectly clear day, a car coming around that blind corner needs probably 100 feet
or more to stop without even taking into account reaction time. Would you still blame the driver?
I don't really give a damn if you like cars or not. Whether you like it or not, drivers do not get
into their cars looking for people to mow down. When collisions happen, you simply cannot
automagically blame one side or another. Just because one party may be more or less protected by
their mode of transportation does not automatically impart blame on them.
Tell me, if you climb out onto a ledge of a tall building and a big gust of wind comes along and
sends you flying is it your fault for being stupid or is it the fault of the building owner/builder
for the existence of the building?
>It is unethical and absurd to burden a little child with the responsibility that rightfully belongs
>to a car driver.
Bzzzzt! Blame goes to the peson whose actions led directly to the collision. If the kid had been
operating his bike in a safe manner, he would not have been hurt. There is NO EVIDENCE that the
driver was doing anything but operating in a safe manner.
Are you aware of this field of science called physics? It holds a basic tenet that objects in
motion like to stay in motion. Therefore, even on a residential street a car traveling in a safe
manner at 40km/h will not be able to stop in 2 feet. Therefore, if anyone - kid or adult - suddenly
launches into the road on a bike only 5 feet in front of the car nobody short of superman could
stop that car in time.
>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.
Let's take a hypothetical situation. We have two kids who want to play street hockey...on an
interstate....in a wooded section....just around a blind corner. The posted speed limit is 100km/h.
Even if it is a perfectly clear day, a car coming around that blind corner needs probably 100 feet
or more to stop without even taking into account reaction time. Would you still blame the driver?
I don't really give a damn if you like cars or not. Whether you like it or not, drivers do not get
into their cars looking for people to mow down. When collisions happen, you simply cannot
automagically blame one side or another. Just because one party may be more or less protected by
their mode of transportation does not automatically impart blame on them.
Tell me, if you climb out onto a ledge of a tall building and a big gust of wind comes along and
sends you flying is it your fault for being stupid or is it the fault of the building owner/builder
for the existence of the building?