On 2/28/2025 2:49 PM, pH wrote:
From today's San Jose Mercury News (28 Feb 2025).
https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/02/27/man-gets-house-arrest-for-killing-bicyclist-in-fremont-hit-and-run-crash/
A paywall pops up fairly soon.
I counter w/ a Ctrl-A as soon as the page loads to highlight all the text
then switch to a terminal window with and open instance of 'jstar' (or use >> text editor or your choice), right click and "paste" and read the text
there.
I forget if I right click and 'copy' after I highlight the text...might have >> to play around.
Anyway, the driver swerved over and hit the victim in the bike lane "for
unknown reasons" then drove on. He eventually did call 911 however.
I tried your trick, but didn't need it. I was able to read the entire >article.
I'm amazed that the crime is classed as a misdemeanor. It's been said
that if you want to murder someone, be sure to do it using your car.
In my view, a person who kills someone with their car should never, ever
be allowed to drive again.
On 2/28/2025 2:49 PM, pH wrote:
From today's San Jose Mercury News (28 Feb 2025).
https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/02/27/man-gets-house-arrest-for-
killing-bicyclist-in-fremont-hit-and-run-crash/
A paywall pops up fairly soon.
I counter w/ a Ctrl-A as soon as the page loads to highlight all the text
then switch to a terminal window with and open instance of 'jstar' (or
use
text editor or your choice), right click and "paste" and read the text
there.
I forget if I right click and 'copy' after I highlight the
text...might have
to play around.
Anyway, the driver swerved over and hit the victim in the bike lane "for
unknown reasons" then drove on. He eventually did call 911 however.
I tried your trick, but didn't need it. I was able to read the entire article.
I'm amazed that the crime is classed as a misdemeanor. It's been said
that if you want to murder someone, be sure to do it using your car.
In my view, a person who kills someone with their car should never, ever
be allowed to drive again.
On 2/28/2025 2:49 PM, pH wrote:
From today's San Jose Mercury News (28 Feb 2025).
https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/02/27/man-gets-house-arrest-for-killing-bicyclist-in-fremont-hit-and-run-crash/
A paywall pops up fairly soon.
I counter w/ a Ctrl-A as soon as the page loads to highlight all the text
then switch to a terminal window with and open instance of 'jstar' (or use >> text editor or your choice), right click and "paste" and read the text
there.
I forget if I right click and 'copy' after I highlight the text...might have >> to play around.
Anyway, the driver swerved over and hit the victim in the bike lane "for
unknown reasons" then drove on. He eventually did call 911 however.
I tried your trick, but didn't need it. I was able to read the entire >article.
I'm amazed that the crime is classed as a misdemeanor. It's been said
that if you want to murder someone, be sure to do it using your car.
In my view, a person who kills someone with their car should never, ever
be allowed to drive again.
On 2/28/2025 2:49 PM, pH wrote:
From today's San Jose Mercury News (28 Feb 2025).
https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/02/27/man-gets-house-
arrest-for-killing-bicyclist-in-fremont-hit-and-run-crash/
A paywall pops up fairly soon.
I counter w/ a Ctrl-A as soon as the page loads to
highlight all the text
then switch to a terminal window with and open instance of
'jstar' (or use
text editor or your choice), right click and "paste" and
read the text
there.
I forget if I right click and 'copy' after I highlight the
text...might have
to play around.
Anyway, the driver swerved over and hit the victim in the
bike lane "for
unknown reasons" then drove on. He eventually did call
911 however.
I tried your trick, but didn't need it. I was able to read
the entire article.
I'm amazed that the crime is classed as a misdemeanor. It's
been said that if you want to murder someone, be sure to do
it using your car.
In my view, a person who kills someone with their car should
never, ever be allowed to drive again.
On 2/28/2025 3:56 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 2/28/2025 3:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
�even if it's a legit accident?
In my view, a person who kills someone with their car should never,
ever be allowed to drive again.
Say for example some dumbshit simply walks in front your car while
you're driving along doing say, 40 mph in a 45 mph zone.
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
On 2/28/2025 3:56 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 2/28/2025 3:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
even if it's a legit accident?
In my view, a person who kills someone with their car
should never, ever be allowed to drive again.
Say for example some dumbshit simply walks in front your
car while you're driving along doing say, 40 mph in a 45
mph zone.
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
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:First, let's acknowledge that rule will never be implemented in the
In my view, a person who kills someone with their car should never,
ever be allowed to drive again.
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."
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 04:01:58 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 22:05:55 -0500, Frank Krygowski >><[email protected]> 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:First, let's acknowledge that rule will never be implemented in the
In my view, a person who kills someone with their car should never, >>>>>>> ever be allowed to drive again.
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."
What a shame that you've come to hate cars and drivers so much. For
many, myself, for example, driving can be fun. Here's the little
former race car that I sometimes commuted to work in. Mostly rural
with little traffic but lots of twists and curves. I made my first
trip to Florida in it.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/j_soloman/54333895269/
Why Isn't there a law that makes bicycle riders think, "Holy shit,
there's a motor vehicle, I'd better be really careful."
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 04:57:13 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 16:39:27 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 04:01:58 -0500, Catrike Ryder >>><[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 22:05:55 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>><[email protected]> 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: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. >>>>>>>
In my view, a person who kills someone with their car should never, >>>>>>>>> ever be allowed to drive again.
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."
What a shame that you've come to hate cars and drivers so much. For >>>>many, myself, for example, driving can be fun. Here's the little
former race car that I sometimes commuted to work in. Mostly rural
with little traffic but lots of twists and curves. I made my first >>>>trip to Florida in it.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/j_soloman/54333895269/
Why Isn't there a law that makes bicycle riders think, "Holy shit, >>>there's a motor vehicle, I'd better be really careful."
There is. We call it common sense.
Well, that's what I'd say and I also apply it to doing a lot of
everyday things. When my wife would say "Do you think this dress is
pretty" , I'd assure her that I thought it must be the pettiest dress
in the county... even riding a bicycle or (I know it's hard to
believe) to driving an auto.
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:First, let's acknowledge that rule will never be implemented in the
In my view, a person who kills someone with their car should never,
ever be allowed to drive again.
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."
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:First, let's acknowledge that rule will never be
In my view, a person who kills someone with their car
should never, ever be allowed to drive again.
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."
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 04:01:58 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 22:05:55 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> 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:First, let's acknowledge that rule will never be implemented in the
In my view, a person who kills someone with their car should never, >>>>>>> ever be allowed to drive again.
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."
What a shame that you've come to hate cars and drivers so much. For
many, myself, for example, driving can be fun. Here's the little
former race car that I sometimes commuted to work in. Mostly rural
with little traffic but lots of twists and curves. I made my first
trip to Florida in it.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/j_soloman/54333895269/
Why Isn't there a law that makes bicycle riders think, "Holy shit,
there's a motor vehicle, I'd better be really careful."
On 1 Mar 2025 12:40:18 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> 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:First, let's acknowledge that rule will never be implemented in the
In my view, a person who kills someone with their car should never, >>>>>>> ever be allowed to drive again.
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 wasnt their fault.
Seems to work, though Ive 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.
John B. <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 12:40:18 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> 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: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. >>>>>>
In my view, a person who kills someone with their car should never, >>>>>>>> ever be allowed to drive again.
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 wasnt their fault.
Seems to work, though Ive 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
On 3/1/2025 9:14 AM, AMuzi wrote:
A few thousand years of human interaction (with laws, rules, customs,
and case records) has resulted in some widely accepted general rules and
this is one.
For example, one application of that:
https://everything2.com/title/Law+of+Gross+Tonnage
"The heavier vessel always has the right-of-way.
That obviously is not the case on roads, neither legally nor practically.
On 3/1/2025 7:40 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> 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:First, let's acknowledge that rule will never be implemented in the
In my view, a person who kills someone with their car should never, >>>>>>> ever be allowed to drive again.
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..
When we visited Zurich, we were hosted by a young couple. The four of us >walked and biked around town a fair amount. During one of our walks, our >hosts said Zurich had recently passed a strict liability law, at least >regarding cars vs. pedestrians.
I don't remember if it applied to cyclists or not, and I never heard the >details. But they said it had transformed the experience of walking
around the city, making it much better.
On 3/1/2025 9:14 AM, AMuzi wrote:
A few thousand years of human interaction (with laws,
rules, customs, and case records) has resulted in some
widely accepted general rules and this is one.
For example, one application of that:
https://everything2.com/title/Law+of+Gross+Tonnage
"The heavier vessel always has the right-of-way.
That obviously is not the case on roads, neither legally nor
practically.
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.
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.
On 3/1/2025 7:40 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> 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:First, let's acknowledge that rule will never be implemented in the
In my view, a person who kills someone with their car should never, >>>>>>> ever be allowed to drive again.
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..
When we visited Zurich, we were hosted by a young couple. The four of us walked and biked around town a fair amount. During one of our walks, our hosts said Zurich had recently passed a strict liability law, at least regarding cars vs. pedestrians.
I don't remember if it applied to cyclists or not, and I never heard the details. But they said it had transformed the experience of walking
around the city, making it much better.
On 3/1/2025 12:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
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
I'd be more interested in the "mileage to crash" number, i.e. the number
of crashes per mile.
I'm reminded of the rather useless statement that "Most vehicle crashes
occur within five miles of home." Of course they do! That's where people drive the most!
Regarding British roads, I'd be interested in Roger's comments on what British countryside roads are like these days. We did some English and Scottish bike touring way back in 1976, and I was comfortable with the traffic levels on minor highways and roads. I was also fine during a
short visit in 2001 (trapped there due to flight groundings from the
9/11 attacks) when I did only a little cycling. But it's obvious traffic
will have increased.
What's it like these days out away from the big cities? Is the riding
still pleasant?
My bicycling projects are not high on her list.On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 21:10:28 -0500, Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/1/2025 2:09 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Get a life, Krygowski. Figure out how to live without having to remind
other people that you exist.
:-) Speaking of "get a life," someone should count up the percentage of
my posts that Mr. Tricycle Rider snarks at. It's got to be over 75%.
Does it hit 90%?
Ah well. I suppose that's what he needs to give himself some tiny
feeling of achievement. But what a pity!
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 13:24:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> 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.
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 13:18:22 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 12:59:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/1/2025 9:14 AM, AMuzi wrote:That's absolutely practical from my perspective. That's an issue I've
A few thousand years of human interaction (with laws, rules, customs,
and case records) has resulted in some widely accepted general rules and >>>> this is one.
For example, one application of that:
https://everything2.com/title/Law+of+Gross+Tonnage
"The heavier vessel always has the right-of-way.
That obviously is not the case on roads, neither legally nor practically. >>
no intention of arguing.
The Gross Tonnage rule is based on the fact that a larger ship is far
less maneuverable then a lighter, smaller vessel and momentum, also
enters into the equation - 100 tons is obviously much more difficult (floating in the water) to stop, then 1 ton.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 33:00:39 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,309 |