Re: House arrest after killing cyclist in hit and run.

On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 11:53:46 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 3/1/2025 11:10 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:

On 1 Mar 2025 12:40:18 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 2/28/2025 8:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 2/28/2025 5:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 2/28/2025 3:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>
In my view, a person who kills someone with their car should never,
ever be allowed to drive again.
>

First, let's acknowledge that rule will never be implemented in the
U.S. But if it were, driver caution would increase many times over.
>
After the first few "dumbshit walks in front of car" episodes actually
resulted in "no more driving" and were publicized, motorists might
begin slowing to non-fatal speeds when pedestrians (or bicyclists) are
within walk-in- front range.
>
As I've said here before, if an overhead crane operator killed someone
in a factory, I think they'd never be allowed to operate the crane
again, no matter what their excuse.
>
Humans have given up far more than we should have to motordom. Streets
and roads were once the domain of pedestrians, of kids playing, of
people interacting. Turning them entirely over to motorists was a
deliberate campaign goal of the car manufacturers.
>
https://marker.medium.com/the-invention-of-jaywalking- afd48f994c05
>
>

>
I (naively?) assumed you meant 'by negligence or malice' and I was happy
to agree with that.
>
But I can't agree with you here.  Extend that argument and we'll charge
train operators with murder when jerkoffs drive around the gate.  Or
auto drivers who hit red light running cyclists for that matter.

>
Given the legal system of the United States, I'd assume that if such a
law were implemented, there would be gaggles of lawyers rushing to any
accused motorist to defend his right to run down anyone who impeded his
speed.
>
So think of my position as an initial step in negotiations. Let it apply
in, say, residential areas, where kids should be able to play in
streets. Or in pedestrian heavy business districts.
>
But as we all know, the present situation is closest to "I didn't see
him!" or "He came out of nowhere!" followed by at most a slap on the
wrist. And any imperfection in the pedestrian's behavior is a coupon for
no motorist penalty at all.
>
Locally, about six months ago we had a young, well loved, well respected
music teacher, church organist killed by a car when walking across a
street. About a week ago, another young man was killed crossing the
plaza-infested five lane at 6 AM. Details on the first are sketchy to me
- it sounds like he was in a legal crosswalk - but cops said the latter
was "not crossing in a designated crosswalk" so the motorist is off
completely free. And in a different city, a young woman I know well was
knocked to the ground and injured while crossing in a crosswalk with a
green "walk" signal.
>
(BTW, Ohio law has a virtual crosswalk at any intersection, whether it's
marked or not. Still, expecting pedestrians to walk an extra half mile
to avoid being called a "jaywalker" seems unfair to me.)
>
I'd like a law that makes motorists think "Holy shit, there's a
pedestrian. I'd better be _really_ careful."
>

>
Presumed liability with the hierarchy of users, ie the idea that larger
vehicles bring the risk associated with travel, which seems fair enough,
and thus they have to prove it wasn?t their fault.
>
Seems to work, though I?ve not looked at it with details..
>
Roger Merriman

>
Here, and I suspect in most countries, heavy trucks are the "safest"
thing on the highway. Or at least they have the least "accidents". By
the same token small motorcycles - 100 - 125 cc have the most.
>

 
Safest for who? Such vehicles are apparently safe to use, but
disproportionately cause injuries/deaths hence European regulations
particularly around cities, safe they are not!
 
Or rather due to their size they struggle to be safe particularly mixing
with pedestrians/bikes and so on.
 
Thailand seems to have horrific road safety issues even compared to
neighbouring countries, so I’d suggest that they certainly need to change
something.
 
Roger Merriman

>
Well, as always F=MA and large trucks (British = HGV
lorries) can make spectacular crashes when they crash.
>
That said, their crash rate per mile is much lower than
other vehicles.
>
Couldn't quickly find a mileage to crash incidence number
for UK but I did come across this, for another consideration:
>
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-news/94780/britain-s-most-dangerous-roads-revealed-50-per-cent-of-fatalities-occur

 (:-) Yes, Thailand has a lot of highway crash but what most reports
don't mention is that 80%, or more,  are small motorcycles - 100 - 150
cc. Cheap second hand and few bother with a license - "I can ride a
bicycle obviously can ride a little motor bike like that."
--
Cheers,

John B.