Fw: Re: [OFR-Thur] FW: ERic Glasnapp-Carlsbad Cyclist
Judy Frankel
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
|
Richard Masoner
--
Thanks for the info Bruce. It does suck. Was there info about the investigation relating to distracted driving,phone usage, texting?
Serge Issakov
Typical juror: "I could have done that. Not guilty."
For better for worse (sometimes for worse), we're a democracy (my dad liked to point out that the problem with democracy is that "the majority is stupid"). DAs are elected officials who are very aware of their win/loss ratios, as well as likely jury outcomes, as you say.
Solution: driverless cars (coming sooner than you think!)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.
Judy Frankel
It Would be good to fix the law which has been tightened in other states and if someone is going to give a soundboard to the.press on this as they are planning it Would be better to have Jim than Andy and Richard Duquette with the "protected" solution. That is not the soundboard needed for this problem. |
|
Neal
Serge Issakov
Neal
You make a good point ..... however I think it is better for large groups to take the lane when appropriate .... and with CBC support (and others) we should keep that right:
https://calbike.org/protecting-the-right-to-ride/
Cheers,
Neal
+1 mph Faster
Judy Frankel
We've had deaths on both the 52 and 56 separated bike ways. So that doesn't make it safer. More dangerous |
|
Neal
Hmmmmm ...... perhaps separated bike lanes are safer for cyclists .........
"Protected bike lanes reduce bike-related intersection injuries by about 75 percent compared to comparable crossings without infrastructure.
Harris et al, 2013 - "Comparing the effects of infrastructure on bicycling injury at intersections and non-intersections using a case–crossover design." Injury Prevention"
"New York City's protected bike lane on 9th Avenue led to a 56 percent reduction in injuries to all street users, including a 57 percent reduction in injuries to people on bikes and a 29 percent reduction in injuries to people walking, as well as an 84 percent reduction in sidewalk riding.
NYC DOT, 2012 - Measuring the Street"
http://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics/category/protected-bike-lane-statistics#safety-benefits
http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/protected-bikeways-are-far-safer-than-just-paint-study-shows
http://www.sfgate.com/outdoors/bikeabouttown/article/Safer-than-ever-to-commute-by-bicycle-4218263.php
Serge Issakov
Judy Frankel
| Ok well. I did write soundbite but the new phone thinks it knows better than I what I'm trying to say |
|
Jim Baross
Ok well. I did write soundbite but the new phone thinks it knows better than I what I'm trying to say
Date:Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 6:33 PM
Judy Frankel
Jim
What about imposing strict liability on texting and driving distracted like MADD did for drunk driving.
This is what occurred in Carlsbad. The driver who struck a cyclist in a nice wide bike lane on a clear day was definitely driving distracted.. impaired.
This could and did happen to a pedestrian on the side walk.
And the CEO of Rady’s childrens’ hospital.
To maintain our rights to the road, motorists need to be held accountable for not having control over their vehicles.
Other states are increasing the penalties.
Judy
Jim Baross
Jim
What about imposing strict liability on texting and driving distracted like MADD did for drunk driving.
This is what occurred in Carlsbad. The driver who struck a cyclist in a nice wide bike lane on a clear day was definitely driving distracted.. impaired.
This could and did happen to a pedestrian on the side walk.
And the CEO of Rady’s childrens’ hospital.
To maintain our rights to the road, motorists need to be held accountable for not having control over their vehicles.
Other states are increasing the penalties.
Judy
From: cabo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cabo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Baross
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 12:56 PM
To: Cabo Forum
Judy Frankel
Jim..
How do you go about getting this text? Do you know experts in that area? Maybe Serge knows. Isn’t there a lawyer you work with on legislation?
Judy
Neal
I had a sense of optimism about 'strict liability laws' (if passed) having a salutary effect to modify motorist behavior .... but the subject may be more nuanced than it appears at first glance .... though I think it is still worth pursuing ... it may not be a silver bullet.
https://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/
"The Liability Myth
In Chris Boardman’s otherwise excellent video about Utrecht, there was one dim patch – his claim that “the presumed liability law … ensures every road user is obliged to look after the more vulnerable”.
I don’t know who is briefing Boardman, but it’s extremely naïve to think that anyone is worrying about the fine print in their insurance documents while driving – especially someone who drives badly anyway. If they’re not worried about dangerous driving laws, then they won’t care about a small aspect of their insurance policy.
It’s a popular myth among cycling advocates that presumed liability (or strict liability) changes driver behaviour, even though the reality has been explained time and time again by people who live with it every day.
Yet the claim of massive behaviour change is still repeated, with headlines suggesting it will “hold drivers automatically accountable” and articles suggesting that “motorists [will be] automatically at fault“. (Even if it was true, this sort of language will only alienate huge numbers of people.)
The liability myth also ignores the fact that while almost every European country has such laws (the exceptions being the UK, Ireland, Romania, Cyprus and Malta), the cycling rates and safety statistics vary massively across Europe, with no clear correlation to liability laws.
Serge Issakov
Neal
Or it could be: We write the law by righting it ourselves. Seriously.
And maybe throwing in a law upgrade to substantially increase the penalty for a motorist causing bodily injury or death to a cyclist .... like jail time and a mandatory fine.
Cheers,
Neal
+1 mph Faster
Neal
John Forester
The next section of the Penal Code, 192, has section (c) Vehicular manslaughter, prohibits manslaughter while driving while committing an unlawful act (texting and such is prohibited by CVC 23123.5), with two levels, with gross negligence and without gross negligence. That provides the statutes that today would cover the case of a cyclist killed as a result of negligence by a texting driver.
With a prosecution under either 191.5 or 192, if the evidence were clear as to the texting (and texting leaves records of time of occurrence), then it would be difficult for a juryman to wiggle out of voting for conviction on the grounds that he himself might well have committed a similar act. He might not like it, but he is still obliged to follow the evidence. A refusal to do so would be considered an attempt at jury nullification, which is not regarded very highly.
-- John Forester, MS, PE Bicycle Transportation Engineer 7585 Church St, Lemon Grove CA 91945 619-644-5481, johnforester.com
Judy Frankel
This sounds good.. Can we get this done?
Judy Frankel
| John. A lawyer responed to this with " Interesting! But I think that to be too optimistic. I guess it is possible to get a conviction for manslaughter with ordinary negligence, but it's pretty rare. I would think that gross negligence or recklessness would make a conviction far more likely. Frankly, I think texting and driving IS reckless (how can it not be reckless not
to look where you're going?), but I'm not sure that all members of a criminal jury would see it that way. All it take is one hold out ... and there are a lot of people who text and drive." |
|
|
Serge Issakov
Serge Issakov
John Forester
did not vote against conviction because they disapproved of the law
against homicide. They voted as they did because they were persuaded
that the LAPD had perverted the evidence, which is not jury nullification.
On 9/30/2015 9:18 AM, Serge Issakov wrote:
> Jury nullification might not be highly regarded by the court system,
> but there is no law against it, and it is reality. The most prominent
> example I can think of is the OJ case. But jurors do it all the time,
> nobody can do anything about it, DAs know this, and they take into
> account when they decide what the chances of winning are with a given
> case.
>
> Serge
>
>