Re: Dead Vermont cyclist

On 3/13/2025 10:23 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 21:15:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 3/13/2025 5:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

>
It would be nice if the court would suspend his drivers license and
give him a desk job.  Have him drive to work on a bicycle and see how
long he survives.  If that's too harsh, maybe put him on a freeway
debris cleanup crew.  The punishment should fit the crime.

>
As I've said before, he should never drive again.

>
Good thinking.  Let's convert the perpetrator into yet another victim.
The state can support him because he can't get a job because he can't
drive a car.  Never mind the victims family.
>
Here's the way we handle accidental traffic deaths in my town:
"Driver who hit and killed pedestrian lambasts Caltrans"
<https://pressbanner.com/driver-who-hit-and-killed-pedestrian- lambasts-caltrans/>
>
Six years later, Jeremy has a drivers license, but can't afford an
automobile, insurance, gas, maintenance, etc.  Without insurance, he
doesn't drive.  Most of the time, he rides the bus.  The part about
smoking marijuana to avoid pain pills is quite real.  He had back
surgery about a year previously.
>
The area where Josh was killed is unchanged and still constitutes a
traffic hazard for cars exiting the adjacent gas station, pedestrians,
cyclists, and critters.
<https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Felton%20traffic.jpg>

 Nope, I'm not sympathetic. What rule could be more fundamental than "Don't hit someone walking (or bicycling) with your car"?
 And if killing someone with your car isn't sufficient for forbidding future driving, what would be?
 Is the permission to drive really more important than a person's life?