Liste des Groupes | Revenir à rb tech |
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 13:24:31 -0500, Frank Krygowskiwow, talk about needing to get a life without having to remind people
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 3/1/2025 9:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:>On 2/28/2025 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:>... 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. ...
>
I'd like a law that makes motorists think "Holy shit, there's a
pedestrian. I'd better be _really_ careful."
>
No one discounts those or other tragedies such as that of my friend Jeff
Archer:
>
https://www.wbtv.com/story/32500249/popular-owner-of-local-bike-shop-
killed-after-struck-by-car/
>
But we have a few hundred years of statutes and tort case law (i.e.,
this is not new ground for humans), and although errors do exist, the
system works fairly well in principle.
Our disagreement seems to be the definition of "works fairly well." I
see the laws and attitudes as generating lots of societal harm. Examples
are not just the count of non-motorist deaths and injuries, but the
dissuasion of non-motorized travel. That leads to huge reductions in
exercise and activity and their health benefits. It leads to fewer
people out interacting socially, reduced community engagement, fewer
opportunities for friendship, etc. It also contributes toward the
promotion and construction of terribly designed segregated facilities
for bicyclists, and occasionally to laws mandating their use.
>
It's certainly not the only factor driving the motoring dependence, but
I think its a central one.
>We can agree that legal and criminal responsibility is all too>
frequently passed over by weak enforcement/sentencing. This is a
significant and untoward trend but there are better remedies than
punishing the innocent.
:-) I'm thinking of a parallel with your frequent complaint about
enforcement of other laws. Legally and practically, "innocent" often
means "We couldn't convict him because the judge wouldn't allow this
important evidence" or "He could afford a lawyer who got him released on
the third appeal" - even though "We all know he did it."
>
Sometimes hundreds of years of statutes and tort case law put us in bad
positions.
"I see the laws and attitudes as generating lots of societal harm.
Examples are not just the count of non-motorist deaths and injuries,
but the dissuasion of non-motorized travel. That leads to huge
reductions in exercise and activity and their health benefits. It
leads to fewer people out interacting socially, reduced community
engagement, fewer opportunities for friendship, etc."
--Kygrowski rant
>
<LOL> Sorry, but the vast majority of USAians are not even slightly
interested in going on their shopping trips on bicycle like you do.
Bicycling is predominately recreational and that's not likely to
change anytime soon.
>
People are simply not going to do what you think they should do.
>
As for <OMG> "fewer opportunities for friendship, etc."
>
Get a life, Krygowski. Figure out how to live without having to remind
other people that you exist.
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.