Nailed by Hit and Run

[Bob]

On Feb 15, 11:43 am, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> > P.S.- As an aside and not trying to be contentious, it's hyperbole to
> > say using a motor vehicle is the "best way to murder someone".
> > Intentional murder by car is so rare that when it happens it makes
> > national headlines, witness the woman in Texas a few years ago that
> > used her Mercedes to shortcut a nasty divorce proceeding.
>
> I understand, and while also not trying to be contentious, it does seem
> that the "I just didn't see them" excuse seems to get people off the
> hook. I guess that, barring any blatant extenuating circumstances
> (intoxication, etc.), there's little to be done to prove negligence. How
> much do you feel needs to/can be done to claim/prove negligence? Do you
> think the "I just didn't see them" defense is acceptable (without any
> consequences). Do you think there's a bias against cyclists from either
> law enforcement or the general population from what appears to be the
> popular belief that cyclists are flirting with danger ("asking for it")?
> I've heard that the default legal status of a motorist in such a
> collision is different in some European countries than in the US, but
> I'm largely ignorant of the details.

Let me begin by answering your last question first, is there a bias in
law enforcement and/or the general public against cyclists? IMO there
isn't, not if you are referring to "serious cyclists". By "serious" I
mean those who *choose* cycling as opposed to those forced by
economics to use a bike as transportation. There *is* a bias among
parts of both the law enforcement community and the general public
against the poor. Only a fool would argue there isn't. In practice
though I believe that anti-poor bias is offset by the equally
undeniable sympathy amounting to a bias in favor of the poor that is
at least as widespread as the former. Call me an idealist but I also
believe that when they are called upon to judge others, most people
make a conscious effort to not allow their personal bias to dictate
their decision.
As for your first question, negligence is notoriously hard to prove
because it is a state of mind judged by subjective standards. What one
police officer or judge or jury consider obvious negligence another
might find to be borderline carelessness. All any investigator can do
is to try to uncover as much of the truth as humanly possible and all
any judge or jury can do is to try to set aside *all* bias- pro or
con- and judge each case on it's merits. That can be particularly
difficult in traffic crashes because they unfold so rapidly and
uninvolved witnesses are so uncommon. That fact plus the unwritten but
widely accepted dictum, "Better a hundred guilty go free than convict
one innocent", means that sometimes the "I just didn't see them"
defense works in criminal cases.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Bob]

On Feb 14, 9:58 pm, [email protected] (Michael Baldwin) wrote:

>   However I'm interested in your thoughts on the hypothetical
> Endorsement Firm of Tom & Mike.  Could we issue motor vehicle operator
> license's, achieve favorable public opinion and turn an honest profit?
>

Politicians have been doing that in Illinois for years. Witness the
late Paul Powell and ex-governor George Ryan among others. Ooops, you
specified *honest* profit.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Michael Baldwin) writes:
>
> FYI - Michigan law as of 08/17/2006
>
> YIELD THE RIGHT OF WAY
>
> Section 257.612.1(a)
>
> Vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield
> the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians and bicyclists
> lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time
> the signal is exhibited.

Yeah, that's plain & simple, and affords pedestrians and bicyclists
the First Principle of R-o-W; to wit: first come, first served.
Hit-&-run is de facto denial of that First Principle of R-o-W.

>
> Section 257.612.1(d)
>
> The vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and
> bicyclists lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic
> lawfully using the intersection.

The traffic should yield the R-o-W to everybody who should have
it. This law simply re-states an old concensus while making a
special case of non-motorized-vehicle road/street users. It
re-states Common-Law R-o-W rules in terms of special circumstances.
This is what screws things up. Right of Way is for everybody
who traverses the Commons.

> Also Michigan now has a minimum safe passing clearance law while
> overtaking cyclists and pedestrians.

There's already an ancient Common Law R-o-W rule about that, too.
Don't have to make new rules up. Old ones already exist.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[Zoot Katz]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:30:09 -0800 (PST), Bob <[email protected]>
wrote:

>As for your first question, negligence is notoriously hard to prove
>because it is a state of mind judged by subjective standards. What one
>police officer or judge or jury consider obvious negligence another
>might find to be borderline carelessness.

Being asleep at the wheel would be easier to prove if they weren't
pumped with adrenalin after the collision. Do cell phone records
constitute proof of borderline carelessness or just plain negligence?

>All any investigator can do
>is to try to uncover as much of the truth as humanly possible and all
>any judge or jury can do is to try to set aside *all* bias- pro or
>con- and judge each case on it's merits.

All any investigator is going to hear is what an attorney has told
their client to say. We supposedly still don't allow confessions
extracted under torture as admissible evidence. How many killers are
likely to admit having been asleep when they creamed the bicyclist?
They don't know what just happened.

>That can be particularly
>difficult in traffic crashes because they unfold so rapidly and
>uninvolved witnesses are so uncommon. That fact plus the unwritten but
>widely accepted dictum, "Better a hundred guilty go free than convict
>one innocent", means that sometimes the "I just didn't see them"
>defense works in criminal cases.

"I just didn't see them" is the truth if they were asleep or doing
anything but paying attention to where they were going at a speed
that permitted their stopping within half their distance of vision.
But, that doesn't make them innocent in my books.

I recently heard something on the radio about sleep apnea
contributing significantly to traffic death numbers. The human body
reacts to interrupted sleep cycles by getting micro-sleeps when it
can. Too often that's in the comfort of a plush lined, climate
controlled, scud hurtling through public space at killer speeds.

I've a hunch more habitualy dependent scud slaves suffer sleep apnea
than do regular cyclists and dedicated pedestrians or skaters.
--
zk

 

[Bob]

On Feb 18, 9:56 pm, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:30:09 -0800 (PST), Bob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >As for your first question, negligence is notoriously hard to prove
> >because it is a state of mind judged by subjective standards. What one
> >police officer or judge or jury consider obvious negligence another
> >might find to be borderline carelessness.
>
> Being asleep at the wheel would be easier to prove if they weren't
> pumped with adrenalin after the collision. Do cell phone records
> constitute proof of borderline carelessness or just plain negligence?

Neither. You're confusing circumstantial evidence with proof.

> >All any investigator can do
> >is to try to uncover as much of the truth as humanly possible and all
> >any judge or jury can do is to try to set aside *all* bias- pro or
> >con- and judge each case on it's merits.
>
> All any investigator is going to hear is what an attorney has told
> their client to say.  We supposedly still don't allow confessions
> extracted under torture as admissible evidence.  How many killers are
> likely to admit having been asleep when they creamed the bicyclist?

You might be surprised at how many people make statements against
their interest without ever being tortured or even talked to sternly.

> They don't know what just happened.
>
> >That can be particularly
> >difficult in traffic crashes because they unfold so rapidly and
> >uninvolved witnesses are so uncommon. That fact plus the unwritten but
> >widely accepted dictum, "Better a hundred guilty go free than convict
> >one innocent", means that sometimes the "I just didn't see them"
> >defense works in criminal cases.
>
> "I just didn't see them" is the truth if they were asleep or doing
> anything but paying attention to where they were going at a speed
> that permitted their stopping within half their distance of vision.
> But, that doesn't make them innocent in my books.

I'm not saying that "I just didn't see them" is always or even often
an acceptable excuse but merely that it *does* happen on occasion. I
think saying it is always a matter of literally being asleep at the
wheel or simple negligence is a gross over-simplification. Things are
seldom as absolute as we'd like. Stop and think for just a second.
Have you ever hit a pothole/loose gravel/a sewer grate/broken glass
because you just didn't see it in time to avoid it? If you have then
by your stated standard you were either asleep in the saddle or riding
too fast and those are all *stationary* objects.

Regards,
Bob Hunt