Dickens:"The law is a ass."

[AMuzi]

https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucker-who-killed-brooklyn-teen-escapes-felony-charges-thanks-lax-laws/
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Frank Krygowski]

On 1/31/2018 2:48 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucker-who-killed-brooklyn-teen-escapes-felony-charges-thanks-lax-laws/
>
Time for Spike Bike?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

On 2/1/2018 10:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/31/2018 2:48 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucker-who-killed-brooklyn-teen-escapes-felony-charges-thanks-lax-laws/
>>
> Time for Spike Bike?
>

This story has a lot of traction, in the headlines every
morning.

And yet here we are. Even yet:

https://nypost.com/2018/01/31/mom-of-boy-killed-by-unlicensed-driver-demands-justice/

[paulp...@gmail.com]

I'm curious why so many cyclists think death of a cyclist in an accident is a crime. Murder requires intent. Manslaughter requires "gross negligence." Accidents are not a crime, even if there is negligence, even if people die. Unless the driver did something way out of the ordinary that caused the accident- no crime occurred. The lawyer is absolutely right, the lapsed license is utterly irrelevant to the cause of the injury.

[Tim McNamara]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 13:29:04 -0800 (PST), paulp...@gmail.com <paulp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 2:48:49 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucker-who-killed-brooklyn-teen-escapes-felony-charges-thanks-lax-laws/
>

> I'm curious why so many cyclists think death of a cyclist in an accident is a crime.
> Murder requires intent. Manslaughter requires "gross negligence." Accidents are not a
> crime, even if there is negligence, even if people die. Unless the driver did
> something way out of the ordinary that caused the accident- no crime occurred. The
> lawyer is absolutely right, the lapsed license is utterly irrelevant to the cause of
> the injury.

We tend to frame it that way because we deal every day with inattentive and or
incompetent drivers who avoid killing or maiming us only because we take the action to
compensate for their inattention and incompetence. Our lives are beneath their notice or
concern.

It may not be murder (e.g., no formulation of intent to kill the other person) but it is
more frequently manslaughter than drivers are charged with. The police and prosecutors
do not want to ruin someone's life just for killing a cyclist, so they accept "I didn't
see" him or her as a valid defense (instead of the admission of negligence that it really
is. Question: how the hell do you not see someone who is dressed like a 200 lb canary on
a bike? Answer: you weren't even looking. Comment: it was your job to look.).

Now, there are cases where the cyclst ran a red light or a stop sign into a vehicle with
the right of way (or some other scenario where it is the cyclist that caused the
collision). Just as it would be if the cyclist was in a car, the cyclist is at fault.

How are most cyclists injured or killed in accidents? They are struck from behind by an
overtaking motor vehicle. Those are the driver's fault in the majority of cases.

[paulp...@gmail.com]

"The police and prosecutors
do not want to ruin someone's life just for killing a cyclist, so they accept "I didn't
see" him or her as a valid defense (instead of the admission of negligence that it really
is. "

Most of us drive too. It is damned easy not to see a cyclist. Other than a persecution complex, there is no reason to conclude "just a cyclist" as some kind of motive, when the easier explanation is that mere negligence is a just a civil case and there is simply insufficient evidence to prove a crime. When every juror is going to hear the facts and think "there but for the grace of god go I", there is basically no way it can constitute gross negligence and therefore isn't a crime.

I just don't see the point of the many internet whines (and posting of newspaper articles) that a cyclist got hit and died, so there must have been a crime that isn't being punished. No. That is an unsupportable leap. You need more for it to be a crime.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 6:58:04 PM UTC-5, paulp...@gmail.com wrote:
> "The police and prosecutors
> do not want to ruin someone's life just for killing a cyclist, so they accept "I didn't
> see" him or her as a valid defense (instead of the admission of negligence that it really
> is. "
>
> Most of us drive too. It is damned easy not to see a cyclist.

If you really believe that applies to a cyclist in ordinary daylight, or a
legally lit cyclist at night, you should turn in your driver's license.

It's your job as a driver to see cyclists, plus pedestrians (including kids
who my react unpredictably), plus motorcycles, plus other cars, plus trash
cans that blow into the road, plus trees by the side of the road, plus any
number of other things that may be near you or in front of you.

> Other than a persecution complex, there is no reason to conclude "just a cyclist" as some kind of motive, when the easier explanation is that mere negligence is a just a civil case and there is simply insufficient evidence to prove a crime.

Negligence is not just a civil case. There are laws against it.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/8/2018 6:13 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> How are most cyclists injured or killed in accidents? They are struck from behind by an
> overtaking motor vehicle.

Sorry, that's not true. See
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/univcourse/pdf/swless04.pdf

"10. The bicycle-motor vehicle crashes were divided
into the three main categories as such:
Parallel-path events 36 percent
Crossing-path events 57 percent
Specific circumstances 7 percent

11. The most frequent parallel-path crashes were
motorist turn/merge into bicyclist’s path (12.2
percent), motorist overtaking the bicyclist (8.6
percent), and bicyclist turn/merge into motorist’s
path (7.3 percent). The most frequent crossing
path crashes were motorist failed to yield to
bicyclist (21.7 percent), bicyclist failed to yield at
an intersection (16.8 percent), and bicyclist failed
to yield midblock (11.8 percent). These six
individual crash types accounted for almost 80
percent of all bicycle-motor vehicle crashes."

So motorist overtaking were just 8.6 percent of the total. And I'd bet
that a majority of those were of two types: Totally Unlit cyclists at
night, which legal lighting would prevent; and "I think I can squeeze
by" events, which would have been averted by lane control by the cyclist.

Recently, the now-useless League of American Bicyclist pulled a
publicity stunt to try to promote segregated paths. They had interns
scan news reports of bike crashes to see how the reporters described the
crash details. From those, they tried to glean the percentage of
hit-from-behind crashes, and came up with a wild overestimate. Needless
to say, their methodology was terrible.

But that's consistent behavior from an organization that has shifted
from "cyclists' rights to the road" to "let's build cycle tracks
everywhere."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Duane]

You don't think texting while driving is gross negligence? How about
driving drunk?

How about the recent discussion of the case in Boston with the
professional truck driver turning right from a middle lane and killing
someone?

I agree that accidents happen but when the event is caused by a reckless
disregard I don't think it's still an accident.

As far as the suspended license, it shows a propensity to this behavior.

[jbeattie]

Well, unless your drunk or criminally negligent, it is a civil case. Otherwise, every car v. car accident would be criminally prosecuted. The evil dark side of treating bicycles as vehicles is that getting hit by a car is legally no different from getting hit in a car by another car. You ask who had the right of way and go from there.

But I have yet to see a ghost car by the side of the road. http://www.oregonlive.com/living/index.ssf/2013/03/ghost_bikes_in_portland_a_bitt.html

It's easy to see cyclists on a long, flat, empty road. It's not as easy in cluttered urban environment with lots of distractions, e.g. pedestrians, cars, traffic signals. This is not an excuse -- just a reality. There are places where I know conflicts are common, and I exercise case. And regrettably, bike facilities more often than not put cyclists in harms way -- and will do so until motorists learn that bike lanes are (wait for it) lanes. Separate facilities can hide cyclists altogether at intersections or pit bikes against bikes or pedestrians. For some f****** unknown reason, they just put a Tesla dealership straddling a separated bike path on my way home, and now that is the killing fields. You're basically riding through a car dealership with cars using the bike path as a road (because there is no road, just a bike path). And don't get me going about the buses. I've already ordered my flame-thrower from Elon Musk, which I intent to use on the buses and his Tesla dealership.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Duane]

The question I think is what constitutes criminal negligence. Texting
while driving should as it's illegal - at least here in Quebec.

Also I think there should be a different standard for professional
presumably trained truck drivers.

[Radey Shouman]

I see quite a few roadside crosses here. I'm sure most of those they
memorialize were either car drivers or passengers. Maybe they don't do
that in Oregon.

--

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/9/2018 10:31 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:

> jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> writes:
>
>>
>> But I have yet to see a ghost car by the side of the
>> road. http://www.oregonlive.com/living/index.ssf/2013/03/ghost_bikes_in_portland_a_bitt.html
>
> I see quite a few roadside crosses here. I'm sure most of those they
> memorialize were either car drivers or passengers. Maybe they don't do
> that in Oregon.

I come across a few roadside crosses or other similar memorials, but
they are probably fewer than one every 200 miles.

Given that there are over 35,000 motorists killed each year (vs. about
800 bicyclists) it seems like white painted junk cars should be stacked
up everywhere! Cars are dangerous!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Radey Shouman]

Google claims the US has 4.12 million miles of road, so that would be
118 miles per fatality. That sounds well within the precision of your
200 mile estimate, particularly since some crash sites have multiple
fatalities, and most are not marked.

I've also assumed a lifetime of a year. I guess it's a matter of local
mores: Ghost bikes rarely last a week here, but roadside crosses may
persist for years. Who knows? They might even remind the occasional
driver to pay attention.

--

[jbeattie]

A lot of that road is pretty empty. You could play football on some of the highways in Eastern Oregon. http://i.imgur.com/44YsRI2.jpg (going west from Nevada). Take an extra water bottle.

Anyway, we don't get much in the way of memorials around here for the dead drivers. Bicyclists and motorists die with some regularity on my flat commute route. https://bikeportland.org/2013/05/16/fatal-crash-highlights-problems-with-sw-barbur-blvd-86837 Angela Burke got a vigil. https://bikeportland.org/2010/12/20/vigil-brings-light-to-tragic-stretch-of-barbur-blvd-44832 Someone has died there every year for at least the last six years. I've been riding it for 30 years -- before bike lanes, and alas, I must suffer through my dreary existence, still alive. I admit, though, with increased traffic and the buses, it can be pretty unpleasant.

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 10:22:25 -0500, Duane <duane...@videotron.ca>
wrote:

That implies that non truck drivers are not as competent. The question
then becomes, "do we want to be on the road with all these incompetent
drivers"?

But the superior trained truck driver does have a further implication,
doesn't it? What about the totally untrained bicyclist, who, in many
cases isn't even aware of the traffic code?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Joy Beeson]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 15:58:01 -0800 (PST), paulp...@gmail.com wrote:

> Most of us drive too. It is damned easy not to see a cyclist.

I remember a time when I'd have killed a wrong-way cyclist or crashed
into another car avoiding him if I had not been in the habit of
waiting until both eastbound lanes were clear before turning onto
Western Avenue.

I've never been startled by a cyclist who knew the rules of the road
-- except by the mere fact that someone *did* know the rules of the
road.

--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

[Tim McNamara]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 15:58:01 -0800 (PST), paulp...@gmail.com

<paulp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "The police and prosecutors do not want to ruin someone's life just
> for killing a cyclist, so they accept "I didn't see" him or her as a
> valid defense (instead of the admission of negligence that it really
> is. "
>
> Most of us drive too. It is damned easy not to see a cyclist.

With the exception of the dark-clothed cyclist with no lights at night
(which is something I see with depressive regularity around here, as
well as dark-clothed pedestrians at night), it's not that hard to see
bicyclists. On my bike I am taller than most cars.

In most cass "I didn't see" is either a lie or an admission of
negligence.

> Other than a persecution complex, there is no reason to conclude "just
> a cyclist" as some kind of motive, when the easier explanation is that
> mere negligence is a just a civil case and there is simply
> insufficient evidence to prove a crime. When every juror is going to
> hear the facts and think "there but for the grace of god go I", there
> is basically no way it can constitute gross negligence and therefore
> isn't a crime.

The prejudice of the jury doesn't determine what laws apply to what
situations. There are conditions under which negligence is a crime in
all 50 states in the US, and should be prosecuted under criminal laws
and not in civil court. If negligence results in the death of another
person, that is IMHO not a civil matter in most cases.

> I just don't see the point of the many internet whines (and posting of
> newspaper articles) that a cyclist got hit and died, so there must
> have been a crime that isn't being punished. No. That is an
> unsupportable leap. You need more for it to be a crime.

And there frequently is. That is the point. Drivers are frequently
distracted on their cell phones (talking, texting, looking at maps,
etc.), eating, reading books or magazines, arguing with passengers,
looking in the back seat, picking something up from the floor,
intoxicated... I have personally seen all of those scenarios multiple
times while driving on the highways as well as riding my bike on the
roads around here. That is enough for striking a bicyclist (or a
pedestrian or another car) to be a crime.

Now, if the cyclist runs a stop sign or a red light, is riding the wrong
way down a one way street, is riding erratically and unpredictably- all
of which I have witnessed as well- then I think it's likely to be a very
different story. Even if the driver was distracted or inattentive, the
cyclist has some share in the burden of responsibility.

[Tim McNamara]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 20:12:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2/8/2018 6:13 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>> How are most cyclists injured or killed in accidents? They are
>> struck from behind by an overtaking motor vehicle.
>
> Sorry, that's not true. See
> https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/univcourse/pdf/swless04.pdf

<snip>

> 11. The most frequent parallel-path crashes were motorist turn/merge
> into bicyclist’s path (12.2 percent), motorist overtaking the
> bicyclist (8.6 percent), and bicyclist turn/merge into motorist’s path
> (7.3 percent).

Do you know if the first type were exclusively drivers and cyclists
traveling in opposite drections? Or does this include situations where
the driver had passed the cyclist and then turned, cutting the cyclist
off? I would include that scenario in my original statement as they
were struck by a vehicle coming from behind. Not that it would be
likely to move that into the majority. Perhaps my information is out of
date, past research had indicated being struck by a vehicle traveling in
the same direction caused more fatalities.

> The most frequent crossing path crashes were motorist failed to yield
> to bicyclist (21.7 percent), bicyclist failed to yield at an
> intersection (16.8 percent), and bicyclist failed to yield midblock
> (11.8 percent).

In what scenario does a vehicle turning or entering the road in the
middle of the block have the right of way?

> These six individual crash types accounted for almost 80 percent of
> all bicycle-motor vehicle crashes."

What are the other 20+%? Bicycists hitting parked cars? Drivers
hitting stationary bicyclists (we had one of those incidents here a few
years ago when a semi driver turned right on a red, crushing the cyclist
in the bike lane waiting at the corner under the trailer wheels).

> So motorist overtaking were just 8.6 percent of the total. And I'd bet
> that a majority of those were of two types: Totally Unlit cyclists at
> night, which legal lighting would prevent; and "I think I can squeeze
> by" events, which would have been averted by lane control by the
> cyclist.

I strongly suspect that 8.6% is a gross underestimate and that the real
number is at least double that. It doesn't pass the smell test. As for
you putative reasons, I think that certainly a percentage is the unlit
cyclist scenario (since I see a lot of that around here and those riders
can be hard to see especially in the glare of oncoming headlights). But
I think the greater cause is inattentive, negligent and incompetent
driving.

The lane control is a red herring, it is the driver's responsibility to
gauge that correctly and their fault if they don't- not that that helps
the dead cyclist or injured, of course. As my Mom used to say about
driving, "you can be right and you can be dead right."

<snip>

LAB's been useless for decades. Their devotees around here have managed
to get bike lanes created that are more dangerous than the situation had
been on the same roads without them.

[Tim McNamara]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 07:07:20 -0800 (PST), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>
wrote:

>
> But I have yet to see a ghost car by the side of the road.

No, people put up memorial crosses and the like where fatal accidents
have happened. It's common enough that the Minnesota Department of
Transportation has policies and guidelines about it. There are mostly
informal policies about ghost bikes in the Twin Cities.

[paulp...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 5:04:39 PM UTC-5, Tim McNamara wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 15:58:01 -0800 (PST),
> I wrote:
> > "The police and prosecutors do not want to ruin someone's life just
> > for killing a cyclist, so they accept "I didn't see" him or her as a
> > valid defense (instead of the admission of negligence that it really
> > is. "
> >
> > Most of us drive too. It is damned easy not to see a cyclist.
>
> With the exception of the dark-clothed cyclist with no lights at night
> (which is something I see with depressive regularity around here, as
> well as dark-clothed pedestrians at night), it's not that hard to see
> bicyclists. On my bike I am taller than most cars.
>
> In most cass "I didn't see" is either a lie or an admission of
> negligence.

Your opinion. I think it is wrong, but okay.

>
> > Other than a persecution complex, there is no reason to conclude "just
> > a cyclist" as some kind of motive, when the easier explanation is that
> > mere negligence is a just a civil case and there is simply
> > insufficient evidence to prove a crime. When every juror is going to
> > hear the facts and think "there but for the grace of god go I", there
> > is basically no way it can constitute gross negligence and therefore
> > isn't a crime.
>
> The prejudice of the jury doesn't determine what laws apply to what
> situations. There are conditions under which negligence is a crime in
> all 50 states in the US, and should be prosecuted under criminal laws
> and not in civil court. If negligence results in the death of another
> person, that is IMHO not a civil matter in most cases.

Of course the ADA handling the matter has to consider the jury. [S]he looks to see if there is sufficient evidence that a jury will convict. Not enough evidence = no case.

The fact that you think death makes it a criminal, not civil, does not make it the criminal law. Negligence that causes the death of another is ALWAYS a civil matter. It is only criminal if there is a much higher level of negligence. This is from the model penal code (just because it was easy to find online) "A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation."

Commonly called gross negligence. If it is just an accident, it isn't a crime. No matter how much you might wish otherwise. And folks continually saying it is a crime on the web is misinformation.

>
> > I just don't see the point of the many internet whines (and posting of
> > newspaper articles) that a cyclist got hit and died, so there must
> > have been a crime that isn't being punished. No. That is an
> > unsupportable leap. You need more for it to be a crime.
>
> And there frequently is. That is the point. Drivers are frequently
> distracted on their cell phones (talking, texting, looking at maps,
> etc.), eating, reading books or magazines, arguing with passengers,
> looking in the back seat, picking something up from the floor,
> intoxicated... I have personally seen all of those scenarios multiple
> times while driving on the highways as well as riding my bike on the
> roads around here. That is enough for striking a bicyclist (or a
> pedestrian or another car) to be a crime.

"Gross deviation" from normal behavior is what makes it criminal (as opposed to perhaps a traffic offense.) You says it happens all the time. Thus, based on your own experience, is probably not a gross deviation. So, not a crime.

[Frank Krygowski]

The PDF has illustrative diagrams of several common crash types.

>> These six individual crash types accounted for almost 80 percent of
>> all bicycle-motor vehicle crashes."
>
> What are the other 20+%? Bicycists hitting parked cars?

Every examination of crash types I've read always had a sizeable "other"
category. I've assumed this is because many bicyclists find very
creative ways to get in trouble.

>> So motorist overtaking were just 8.6 percent of the total. And I'd bet
>> that a majority of those were of two types: Totally Unlit cyclists at
>> night, which legal lighting would prevent; and "I think I can squeeze
>> by" events, which would have been averted by lane control by the
>> cyclist.
>
> I strongly suspect that 8.6% is a gross underestimate and that the real
> number is at least double that. It doesn't pass the smell test.

IIRC, various studies have given different percentages to the relative
crash types.

This one from North Carolina
www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat_nc/pdf/summary_bike_types08-12.pdf
says hits from behind are about 17%.

An Orlando study ("Orlando Area Bicyclist Crash Study:
A Role-Based Approach to Crash Countermeasures") says motorist
overtaking accounted for 8.2%.

Carol Tan's "Crash Type Manual"
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/96104/
lists five sub-categories of crashes caused by "motorist overtaking."
They total 8.6%, but maybe that's using the same data as the other study
I linked.

The Kenneth Cross study from the 1970s said "motorist collided with rear
of cyclist" comprised 4.17% of crashes. It's at
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm

Whatever the percentage, it seems hits-from-behind are a pretty small
percentage of crash types. And it's been noted that many of those that
do occur are rural, unlit cyclists riding at night.

Now granted, when it does happen, it's a very bad thing. It's
responsible for a disproportionate number of fatalities - but again, not
"most" of fatalities, IIRC.

It's a crash type that is excessively feared. There are more important
things to watch out for.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tim McNamara]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:26:20 -0800 (PST), paulp...@gmail.com
<paulp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Gross deviation" from normal behavior is what makes it criminal (as
> opposed to perhaps a traffic offense.) You says it happens all the
> time. Thus, based on your own experience, is probably not a gross
> deviation. So, not a crime.

This is the gist of your argument and it is complete bullshit. You are
claiming that crime is mitigated by the frequency with which it is
committed. Grossly dangerous behavior cannot be normalized; if we allow
that to be, there would ultimately be no point whatsoever to having laws
to govern human behavior.

An example is a local case being prosecuted criminally which is one of
the very examples I gave- being distracted by the cell phone resulting
in the driver striking and killing one person and permanently disabling
another in the car that she hit. Even though distracted driving happens
all the time, it does rise to the level of gross negligence.

[jbeattie]

What if the call on the cell-phone had been from an ER, telling the driver his baby son was being resuscitated. What if he had dropped hot coffee in his lap. What if, what if . . . Drivers have been distracted every since there were cars. Yes, its worse now with cellphones, and a legislature certainly could make it criminal to cause an injury while using a cellphone in a car. A lot of car-related conduct already is criminal, but making every negligent car accident a crime would be bizarre -- and would clog up the criminal docket. And why stop with cars. What about medical malpractice?

Personally, I'm for capital punishment for people who get into the quick check line with more than nine items. I would like to criminalize super-bright lights on bikes in bike lanes, and while I'm at it . . .

-- Jay Beattie.

[paulp...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 6:02:37 PM UTC-5, Tim McNamara wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:26:20 -0800 (PST),

You remind me of a friend who moonlights as a landlord. He refuses to hire a lawyer when he needs to evict a non-paying tenant. But, every time he goes to Court he gets twisted in circles by tenants because he confuses what he thinks the law should be with what it actually is. He refuses to listen to anyone who tries to explain, so he is convinced that the Court is completely biased against him. fini

[Duane]

There should be a distinction between taking a call and texting. Or
googling. Or catching the latest Game of Thrones episode.

--
duane

[AMuzi]

Jay, it's 2018. We don't have satire or parody any longer:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5380673/Fed-pedestrian-24-calling-drivers-executed.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

[Oculus Lights]

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 11:48:49 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/trucker-who-killed-brooklyn-teen-escapes-felony-charges-thanks-lax-laws/

> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

my favorite line when I played Mr. Bumble in sixth grade, getting to shout out the word ass in front of all the parents and teachers.
IF I kill someone through my own negligence, then haven't I commited a crime? Where does the line of premeditation get drawn to say that the real crime was being negligent? After that, then make me responsible for the result of my negligence.
Yes, the law is an ASS in the way drivers vs bicyclists are treated when responsibility is assigned and adjudicated. Been on the short end of crooked ticketing getting blamed for what the cop called failure to keep right, on a shoulderless narrow lane two lane road in Hillsborough NJ when a car pulling a trailer of lawn mowers came up and declared its god given right to pass a bicycle despite an oncoming car quickly showing up around a bend on a crest of a slight rise. Trailer's wheel grabbed the frame of my Paramount throwing me up in the air like a baseball pitching machine, landing me sideways into a tumble that cracked my helmet in half. One memory from laying there on the roadway half numb half excruciating general pain was seeing the shine of sunlight off the driver's NJ state PBS card in the cop's hand. Yes the law was an ass then and still is. Three years ago Alan Brumm was killed by an oncoming driver passing a bicyclist going the opposition direction, driver claiming they were asserting their right according to state law to pass a bicyclist across the center line if there isn't oncoming traffic. Well dammit isn't a bicyclist considered an oncoming vehicle? The CHP said no and the murderer walked away free. For bicyclists when it comes to car collisions Yes the law is an ASS.