Louisville fatality, no charges pressed

Veloise said:

http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/070507whasmjdTopBicycle.475b...

So much for the "bicycle friendly city" designation.

--Karen D.

Direct quote from the linked article-
"There is no way of knowing what really happened Tuesday afternoon on
the Second Street Bridge. Metro Police say that without personally
witnessing the accident or having another witness at the scene, they
are not charging the motorist with a crime.
But it's not because it was a car vs. cyclist. Police spokesperson
Alicia Smiley told me it would be the same whether it was a car vs.
motorcycle or car vs. car."
and a little further into the article-
"Police told us that in this case, they only way they would file any
charges is if the blood alcohol tests taken on the van's driver came
back positive."
With no evidence of a crime (blood tests, etc) and no witness to say
what occurred what *should* happen?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Bob said:

Veloise said:

http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/070507whasmjdTopBicycle.475b...

Quoted message said:

So much for the "bicycle friendly city" designation.

Quoted message said:

--Karen D.

Direct quote from the linked article-
"There is no way of knowing what really happened Tuesday afternoon on
the Second Street Bridge. Metro Police say that without personally
witnessing the accident or having another witness at the scene, they
are not charging the motorist with a crime.
But it's not because it was a car vs. cyclist. Police spokesperson
Alicia Smiley told me it would be the same whether it was a car vs.
motorcycle or car vs. car."
and a little further into the article-
"Police told us that in this case, they only way they would file any
charges is if the blood alcohol tests taken on the van's driver came
back positive."
With no evidence of a crime (blood tests, etc) and no witness to say
what occurred what *should* happen?

Ideally? What _should_ happen is that driving should be considered a
privilege, not a right; and that privilege should be revoked for a
period of time if you injury anyone else with your vehicle. That
privilege should be permanently revoked if you kill someone else with
your vehicle. Not your fault? The burden of proof is upon you -
provide bulletproof evidence, and we'll let you drive again.

My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist who
hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault. That
sounds reasonable to me. It would completely transform the experience
of riding on roads, or even walking across or near them. (Our new
friends in Switzerland told us that such a law, even applied only to
legal crosswalks, made a world of difference there.)

We've made the world excessively convenient for motorists, and
extremely inconvenient for everyone else. Taking away their presumed
innocence would be a good first step.

- Frank Krygowski

"Veloise" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/070507whasmjdTopBicycle.475b9e1a.html

So much for the "bicycle friendly city" designation.

--Karen D.

That's the same story the driver who hit me gave. "The car in front of me
swerved to get around the guy on the bike, and by the time I saw him it was
too late.". At least HE got a ticket, albeit a minor one for "Improper
pass". I had to go to court because he fought the ticket, and he actually
used "I tried not to hit him, Your Honor", as an excuse. Would have been
nice if he'd been cited for more, like failure to maintain control or
following too closely, or something. Heck, if he'd lost his license for a
while(which was possible since I was injured) it might have sent a message.
But, instead, the judge said "I wouldn't ride MY bike on any main road in
this county.". Bogus.

Quoted message said:

Bob said:

On Jul 6, 10:51 pm, Veloise <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/070507whasmjdTopBicycle.475b...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So much for the "bicycle friendly city" designation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

--Karen D.

Quoted message said:

Direct quote from the linked article-
"There is no way of knowing what really happened Tuesday afternoon on
the Second Street Bridge. Metro Police say that without personally
witnessing the accident or having another witness at the scene, they
are not charging the motorist with a crime.
But it's not because it was a car vs. cyclist. Police spokesperson
Alicia Smiley told me it would be the same whether it was a car vs.
motorcycle or car vs. car."
and a little further into the article-
"Police told us that in this case, they only way they would file any
charges is if the blood alcohol tests taken on the van's driver came
back positive."
With no evidence of a crime (blood tests, etc) and no witness to say
what occurred what *should* happen?

Ideally? What _should_ happen is that driving should be considered a
privilege, not a right; and that privilege should be revoked for a
period of time if you injury anyone else with your vehicle. That
privilege should be permanently revoked if you kill someone else with
your vehicle. Not your fault? The burden of proof is upon you -
provide bulletproof evidence, and we'll let you drive again.

My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist who
hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault. That
sounds reasonable to me. It would completely transform the experience
of riding on roads, or even walking across or near them. (Our new
friends in Switzerland told us that such a law, even applied only to
legal crosswalks, made a world of difference there.)

We've made the world excessively convenient for motorists, and
extremely inconvenient for everyone else. Taking away their presumed
innocence would be a good first step.

- Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Driving privileges aren't granted by the police or- except in certain
circumstances- by the courts. They are granted by the individual
State's SOS, DMV, or whatever that State decides to name that
particular Executive Branch agency. If you'd read the licensing laws
you'd learn that no new laws are required to do exactly what you
suggest. That it hasn't already happened is a measure of just how
little support such measures have with the general public. If you
don't like it your choices are pretty restricted. You can either try
to change the majority attitude (good luck trying to convince people
that erasing the presumption of innocence is a good thing), move to
one of those European countries you mention, or accept that life isn't
always fair.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Bob said:

Quoted message said:

On Jul 7, 4:40 pm, Bob <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Jul 6, 10:51 pm, Veloise <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/070507whasmjdTopBicycle.475b...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> So much for the "bicycle friendly city" designation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> --Karen D.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Direct quote from the linked article-
"There is no way of knowing what really happened Tuesday afternoon on
the Second Street Bridge. Metro Police say that without personally
witnessing the accident or having another witness at the scene, they
are not charging the motorist with a crime.
But it's not because it was a car vs. cyclist. Police spokesperson
Alicia Smiley told me it would be the same whether it was a car vs.
motorcycle or car vs. car."
and a little further into the article-
"Police told us that in this case, they only way they would file any
charges is if the blood alcohol tests taken on the van's driver came
back positive."
With no evidence of a crime (blood tests, etc) and no witness to say
what occurred what *should* happen?

Quoted message said:

Ideally? What _should_ happen is that driving should be considered a
privilege, not a right; and that privilege should be revoked for a
period of time if you injury anyone else with your vehicle. That
privilege should be permanently revoked if you kill someone else with
your vehicle. Not your fault? The burden of proof is upon you -
provide bulletproof evidence, and we'll let you drive again.

Quoted message said:

My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist who
hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault. That
sounds reasonable to me. It would completely transform the experience
of riding on roads, or even walking across or near them. (Our new
friends in Switzerland told us that such a law, even applied only to
legal crosswalks, made a world of difference there.)

Quoted message said:

We've made the world excessively convenient for motorists, and
extremely inconvenient for everyone else. Taking away their presumed
innocence would be a good first step.

Quoted message said:

- Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

Driving privileges aren't granted by the police or- except in certain
circumstances- by the courts. They are granted by the individual
State's SOS, DMV, or whatever that State decides to name that
particular Executive Branch agency. If you'd read the licensing laws
you'd learn that no new laws are required to do exactly what you
suggest. That it hasn't already happened is a measure of just how
little support such measures have with the general public. If you
don't like it your choices are pretty restricted. You can either try
to change the majority attitude (good luck trying to convince people
that erasing the presumption of innocence is a good thing), move to
one of those European countries you mention, or accept that life isn't
always fair.

Yep. By making that post, I was working on tactic number one,
changing attitudes. Thanks.

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But, instead, the judge said "I wouldn't ride MY bike on any main road in
this county.".

The sad thing is, he doesn't even realize that he has made an admission of
how his rights have been terrorized out of him by a bullying class.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Claire Petersky said:

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But, instead, the judge said "I wouldn't ride MY bike on any main
road in this county.".

The sad thing is, he doesn't even realize that he has made an
admission of how his rights have been terrorized out of him by a
bullying class.

Maybe he IS the bullying class.

--
Mike Kruger
In Puritan New England, Christmas wasn't even a legal holiday until 1856

Mike Kruger said:

Claire Petersky said:

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But, instead, the judge said "I wouldn't ride MY bike on any main
road in this county.".

The sad thing is, he doesn't even realize that he has made an
admission of how his rights have been terrorized out of him by a
bullying class.

Maybe he IS the bullying class.

Agreed.

Time to start checking the grilles of some of these (cars and) SUV's
for bike head badges.....

Neil Brooks said:

Time to start checking the grilles of some of these (cars and) SUV's
for bike head badges.....

They still make bikes with real head badges?

--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

Gooserider said:

That's the same story the driver who hit me gave. "The car in front of me
swerved to get around the guy on the bike, and by the time I saw him it was
too late.". At least HE got a ticket, albeit a minor one for "Improper
pass". I had to go to court because he fought the ticket, and he actually
used "I tried not to hit him, Your Honor", as an excuse. Would have been
nice if he'd been cited for more, like failure to maintain control or
following too closely, or something. Heck, if he'd lost his license for a
while(which was possible since I was injured) it might have sent a message.
But, instead, the judge said "I wouldn't ride MY bike on any main road in
this county.". Bogus.

FWIW: I've long been saying that the "Bicycling is dangerous!"
nonsense hurts cyclists. This is a perfect example. At the very
least, we cyclists need to start rebutting that idea. Too many of us
willingly contribute to spreading it.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist who
hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault. That
sounds reasonable to me.

Wait until someone moves quite unreasonably in front of your car.

There is no justice in absolutes.

Bryan Scholtes said:

Quoted message said:

My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist who
hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault. That
sounds reasonable to me.

Wait until someone moves quite unreasonably in front of your car.

There is no justice in absolutes.

This is especially true where children are involved, since until they
reach a certain level of development; they are incapable of following
the principles of right-of-way. While this does not physically endanger
motorists, it does endanger adult cyclists (and to a lesser extent,
adult pedestrians).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Quoted message said:

Bob said:

On Jul 7, 4:14 pm, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Jul 7, 4:40 pm, Bob <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> On Jul 6, 10:51 pm, Veloise <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/070507whasmjdTopBicycle.475b...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > So much for the "bicycle friendly city" designation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > --Karen D.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Direct quote from the linked article-
> "There is no way of knowing what really happened Tuesday afternoon on
> the Second Street Bridge. Metro Police say that without personally
> witnessing the accident or having another witness at the scene, they
> are not charging the motorist with a crime.
> But it's not because it was a car vs. cyclist. Police spokesperson
> Alicia Smiley told me it would be the same whether it was a car vs.
> motorcycle or car vs. car."
> and a little further into the article-
> "Police told us that in this case, they only way they would file any
> charges is if the blood alcohol tests taken on the van's driver came
> back positive."
> With no evidence of a crime (blood tests, etc) and no witness to say
> what occurred what *should* happen?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ideally? What _should_ happen is that driving should be considered a
privilege, not a right; and that privilege should be revoked for a
period of time if you injury anyone else with your vehicle. That
privilege should be permanently revoked if you kill someone else with
your vehicle. Not your fault? The burden of proof is upon you -
provide bulletproof evidence, and we'll let you drive again.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist who
hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault. That
sounds reasonable to me. It would completely transform the experience
of riding on roads, or even walking across or near them. (Our new
friends in Switzerland told us that such a law, even applied only to
legal crosswalks, made a world of difference there.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We've made the world excessively convenient for motorists, and
extremely inconvenient for everyone else. Taking away their presumed
innocence would be a good first step.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Driving privileges aren't granted by the police or- except in certain
circumstances- by the courts. They are granted by the individual
State's SOS, DMV, or whatever that State decides to name that
particular Executive Branch agency. If you'd read the licensing laws
you'd learn that no new laws are required to do exactly what you
suggest. That it hasn't already happened is a measure of just how
little support such measures have with the general public. If you
don't like it your choices are pretty restricted. You can either try
to change the majority attitude (good luck trying to convince people
that erasing the presumption of innocence is a good thing), move to
one of those European countries you mention, or accept that life isn't
always fair.

Yep. By making that post, I was working on tactic number one,
changing attitudes. Thanks.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you're seriously trying to change what appears to be the majority
attitude, you might consider two things. First, the regulars here
aren't likely to need much persuasion. Second, if your posts seem to
suggest as this one did that we should do away with the presumption of
innocence you're likely to come off to the non-regulars that may just
visit here as a nutjob. No, I'm not calling you a nutjob. <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Rivendell does.

mark

(apologies for the thread drift here)

Luigi de Guzman said:

Neil Brooks said:

Time to start checking the grilles of some of these (cars and) SUV's
for bike head badges.....

They still make bikes with real head badges?

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bryan Scholtes said:

Quoted message said:

My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist who
hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault. That
sounds reasonable to me.

Quoted message said:

Wait until someone moves quite unreasonably in front of your car.

Quoted message said:

There is no justice in absolutes.

This is especially true where children are involved, since until they
reach a certain level of development; they are incapable of following
the principles of right-of-way. While this does not physically endanger
motorists, it does endanger adult cyclists (and to a lesser extent,
adult pedestrians).

Doesn't this entirely predictable characteristic of children make it
reasonable to impose a duty of care on vehicle operators rather than
absolve them of responsibility?

best wishes
james

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bryan Scholtes said:

Quoted message said:

My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist who
hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault. That
sounds reasonable to me.

Quoted message said:

Wait until someone moves quite unreasonably in front of your car.

Quoted message said:

There is no justice in absolutes.

I've had someone move quite unreasonably in front of my car. One
specific incident: driving into a fairgrounds to help with a bike
safety event, the narrow fairground road had cars parked all along it,
making visibility difficult. I realized I'd better go _very_ slow
because of the kids in attendance - and within ten seconds, a little
girl popped out from between two parked cars, riding her bike wrong-
way toward my car's grille. Of course, I easily stopped in time - but
another motorist traveling at the speed limit probably would have hit
her.

Their excuse would have been "I didn't see her in time" and "I wasn't
speeding" and "NO, I haven't been drinking!" and the cops and
newspapers would have said it was her fault. But when I'm driving a
car, I think I have the obligation to let non-motorists live.

Quoted message said:

This is especially true where children are involved, since until they
reach a certain level of development; they are incapable of following
the principles of right-of-way.

Precisely. They should not be subject to a death penalty for
perfectly natural inattention. When I pass kids or other pedestrians,
I do so on high alert and at slow speed. The motorist behind me
already has too many advantages; he can just wait.

- Frank Krygowski

Bob said:

Quoted message said:

On Jul 8, 1:19 am, Bob <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Direct quote from the linked article-
>> "There is no way of knowing what really happened Tuesday
>> afternoon on the Second Street Bridge. Metro Police say that
>> without personally witnessing the accident or having another
>> witness at the scene, they are not charging the motorist with a
>> crime.
>> But it's not because it was a car vs. cyclist. Police spokesperson
>> Alicia Smiley told me it would be the same whether it was a car
>> vs. motorcycle or car vs. car."
>> and a little further into the article-
>> "Police told us that in this case, they only way they would file
>> any charges is if the blood alcohol tests taken on the van's
>> driver came back positive."
>> With no evidence of a crime (blood tests, etc) and no witness to
>> say what occurred what *should* happen?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Ideally? What _should_ happen is that driving should be
> considered a privilege, not a right; and that privilege should be
> revoked for a period of time if you injury anyone else with your
> vehicle. That privilege should be permanently revoked if you kill
> someone else with your vehicle. Not your fault? The burden of
> proof is upon you - provide bulletproof evidence, and we'll let
> you drive again.

Quoted message said:

> My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist
> who hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault.
> That sounds reasonable to me. It would completely transform the
> experience of riding on roads, or even walking across or near
> them. (Our new friends in Switzerland told us that such a law,
> even applied only to legal crosswalks, made a world of difference
> there.)

Quoted message said:

> We've made the world excessively convenient for motorists, and
> extremely inconvenient for everyone else. Taking away their
> presumed innocence would be a good first step.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Driving privileges aren't granted by the police or- except in
certain circumstances- by the courts. They are granted by the
individual State's SOS, DMV, or whatever that State decides to name
that particular Executive Branch agency. If you'd read the
licensing laws you'd learn that no new laws are required to do
exactly what you suggest. That it hasn't already happened is a
measure of just how little support such measures have with the
general public. If you don't like it your choices are pretty
restricted. You can either try to change the majority attitude
(good luck trying to convince people that erasing the presumption
of innocence is a good thing), move to one of those European
countries you mention, or accept that life isn't always fair.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yep. By making that post, I was working on tactic number one,
changing attitudes. Thanks.- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

If you're seriously trying to change what appears to be the majority
attitude, you might consider two things. First, the regulars here
aren't likely to need much persuasion. Second, if your posts seem to
suggest as this one did that we should do away with the presumption of
innocence you're likely to come off to the non-regulars that may just
visit here as a nutjob. No, I'm not calling you a nutjob. <g>

I don't think that most of the "regulars" here would do away with the
presumption of innocence, either. Being both drivers and cyclists, it's not
hard to see how each can be horribly stupid and wrong in any given incident.
(A few will blame the driver -- "cager", "scud jockey" -- no matter what the
facts suggest, but most know better.)

BS

James ? said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bryan Scholtes said:

> My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist who
> hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault. That
> sounds reasonable to me.
Wait until someone moves quite unreasonably in front of your car.
There is no justice in absolutes.

This is especially true where children are involved, since until they
reach a certain level of development; they are incapable of following
the principles of right-of-way. While this does not physically endanger
motorists, it does endanger adult cyclists (and to a lesser extent,
adult pedestrians).

Doesn't this entirely predictable characteristic of children make it
reasonable to impose a duty of care on vehicle operators rather than
absolve them of responsibility?

No, it imposes a duty on the parents of the children if they wish their
brood to survive to adolescence.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

aka Frank Krygowski said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bryan Scholtes said:

> My understanding is that in several European countries, a motorist who
> hits a cyclist or pedestrian is automatically judged at fault. That
> sounds reasonable to me.
Wait until someone moves quite unreasonably in front of your car.
There is no justice in absolutes.

I've had someone move quite unreasonably in front of my car. One
specific incident: driving into a fairgrounds to help with a bike
safety event, the narrow fairground road had cars parked all along it,
making visibility difficult. I realized I'd better go _very_ slow
because of the kids in attendance - and within ten seconds, a little
girl popped out from between two parked cars, riding her bike wrong-
way toward my car's grille. Of course, I easily stopped in time - but
another motorist traveling at the speed limit probably would have hit
her.

Their excuse would have been "I didn't see her in time" and "I wasn't
speeding" and "NO, I haven't been drinking!" and the cops and
newspapers would have said it was her fault. But when I'm driving a
car, I think I have the obligation to let non-motorists live.

Quoted message said:

This is especially true where children are involved, since until they
reach a certain level of development; they are incapable of following
the principles of right-of-way.

Precisely. They should not be subject to a death penalty for
perfectly natural inattention. When I pass kids or other pedestrians,
I do so on high alert and at slow speed. The motorist behind me
already has too many advantages; he can just wait.

Where I often drive, if one slows and moves to the left to pass a
cyclist while driving, the following vehicle may pass to the right,
thereby running over the cyclist. It is not uncommon to be passed on the
right by a vehicle traveling in the bicycle and bus/parking lanes that
is going 20 to 30 mph over the speed limits (typically 30 to 40 mph).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com