https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14490079/Vermont-police-crash-cyclist-Kapitanski-Sean-Hayes.html
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 19:55:56 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14490079/Vermont-police-crash-cyclist-Kapitanski-Sean-Hayes.html
Cop cars laptops can show him Youtube? Can he also tune in "Dancing
with the Stars?" and "Howard Stern?" That's likely the kind of garbage
that moron would watch.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 04:50:30 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 19:55:56 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14490079/Vermont-police-crash-cyclist-Kapitanski-Sean-Hayes.html
Cop cars laptops can show him Youtube? Can he also tune in "Dancing
with the Stars?" and "Howard Stern?" That's likely the kind of garbage
that moron would watch.
If he had a smartphone with internet connectivity he could run a web
browser on the smartphone and watch any kind of streaming content
including YouTube. If he had a tablet with a built in LTE cellular
modem, he could also use the tablet for watching YouTube.
"Public safety smartphones and tablets" ><https://www.samsung.com/us/business/solutions/industries/public-safety/smartphones-tablets/>
Whether the phone or tablet was issued by the police department or was
owned by the officer for personal use is unknown.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 04:50:30 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 19:55:56 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14490079/Vermont-police-crash-cyclist-Kapitanski-Sean-Hayes.html
Cop cars laptops can show him Youtube? Can he also tune in "Dancing
with the Stars?" and "Howard Stern?" That's likely the kind of garbage
that moron would watch.
If he had a smartphone with internet connectivity he could run a web
browser on the smartphone and watch any kind of streaming content
including YouTube. If he had a tablet with a built in LTE cellular
modem, he could also use the tablet for watching YouTube.
"Public safety smartphones and tablets" <https://www.samsung.com/us/business/solutions/industries/public-safety/smartphones-tablets/>
Whether the phone or tablet was issued by the police department or was
owned by the officer for personal use is unknown.
On 3/13/2025 2:11 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 04:50:30 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 19:55:56 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14490079/Vermont-police-crash-cyclist-Kapitanski-Sean-Hayes.html
Cop cars laptops can show him Youtube? Can he also tune in "Dancing
with the Stars?" and "Howard Stern?" That's likely the kind of garbage
that moron would watch.
If he had a smartphone with internet connectivity he could run a web
browser on the smartphone and watch any kind of streaming content
including YouTube. If he had a tablet with a built in LTE cellular
modem, he could also use the tablet for watching YouTube.
"Public safety smartphones and tablets"
<https://www.samsung.com/us/business/solutions/industries/public-safety/smartphones-tablets/>
Whether the phone or tablet was issued by the police department or was
owned by the officer for personal use is unknown.
Semi truck drivers are convicted regularly after watching
videos on a telephone or more frequently tapping out texts.
When things go badly, that is construed as criminal
negligence. As well it should be.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 16:18:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/13/2025 2:11 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 04:50:30 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 19:55:56 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14490079/Vermont-police-crash-cyclist-Kapitanski-Sean-Hayes.html
Cop cars laptops can show him Youtube? Can he also tune in "Dancing
with the Stars?" and "Howard Stern?" That's likely the kind of garbage >>>> that moron would watch.
If he had a smartphone with internet connectivity he could run a web
browser on the smartphone and watch any kind of streaming content
including YouTube. If he had a tablet with a built in LTE cellular
modem, he could also use the tablet for watching YouTube.
"Public safety smartphones and tablets"
<https://www.samsung.com/us/business/solutions/industries/public-safety/smartphones-tablets/>
Whether the phone or tablet was issued by the police department or was
owned by the officer for personal use is unknown.
Semi truck drivers are convicted regularly after watching
videos on a telephone or more frequently tapping out texts.
When things go badly, that is construed as criminal
negligence. As well it should be.
It would be nice if the court would suspend his drivers license and
give him a desk job. Have him drive to work on a bicycle and see how
long he survives. If that's too harsh, maybe put him on a freeway
debris cleanup crew. The punishment should fit the crime.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 14:42:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 16:18:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/13/2025 2:11 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 04:50:30 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 19:55:56 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14490079/Vermont-police-crash-cyclist-Kapitanski-Sean-Hayes.html
Cop cars laptops can show him Youtube? Can he also tune in "Dancing
with the Stars?" and "Howard Stern?" That's likely the kind of garbage >>>>> that moron would watch.
If he had a smartphone with internet connectivity he could run a web
browser on the smartphone and watch any kind of streaming content
including YouTube. If he had a tablet with a built in LTE cellular
modem, he could also use the tablet for watching YouTube.
"Public safety smartphones and tablets"
<https://www.samsung.com/us/business/solutions/industries/public-safety/smartphones-tablets/>
Whether the phone or tablet was issued by the police department or was >>>> owned by the officer for personal use is unknown.
Semi truck drivers are convicted regularly after watching
videos on a telephone or more frequently tapping out texts.
When things go badly, that is construed as criminal
negligence. As well it should be.
It would be nice if the court would suspend his drivers license and
give him a desk job. Have him drive to work on a bicycle and see how
long he survives. If that's too harsh, maybe put him on a freeway
debris cleanup crew. The punishment should fit the crime.
He killed a guy. Put him in prison.
On 3/13/2025 5:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
It would be nice if the court would suspend his drivers license and
give him a desk job. Have him drive to work on a bicycle and see how
long he survives. If that's too harsh, maybe put him on a freeway
debris cleanup crew. The punishment should fit the crime.
As I've said before, he should never drive again.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 16:18:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/13/2025 2:11 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 04:50:30 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 19:55:56 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14490079/Vermont-police-crash-cyclist-Kapitanski-Sean-Hayes.html
Cop cars laptops can show him Youtube? Can he also tune in "Dancing
with the Stars?" and "Howard Stern?" That's likely the kind of garbage >>>> that moron would watch.
If he had a smartphone with internet connectivity he could run a web
browser on the smartphone and watch any kind of streaming content
including YouTube. If he had a tablet with a built in LTE cellular
modem, he could also use the tablet for watching YouTube.
"Public safety smartphones and tablets"
<https://www.samsung.com/us/business/solutions/industries/public-safety/smartphones-tablets/>
Whether the phone or tablet was issued by the police department or was
owned by the officer for personal use is unknown.
Semi truck drivers are convicted regularly after watching
videos on a telephone or more frequently tapping out texts.
When things go badly, that is construed as criminal
negligence. As well it should be.
It would be nice if the court would suspend his drivers license and
give him a desk job. Have him drive to work on a bicycle and see how
long he survives. If that's too harsh, maybe put him on a freeway
debris cleanup crew. The punishment should fit the crime.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 18:42:21 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 17:53:04 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 14:42:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 16:18:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
On 3/13/2025 2:11 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 04:50:30 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 19:55:56 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14490079/Vermont-police-crash-cyclist-Kapitanski-Sean-Hayes.html
Cop cars laptops can show him Youtube? Can he also tune in "Dancing >>>>>>> with the Stars?" and "Howard Stern?" That's likely the kind of garbage >>>>>>> that moron would watch.
If he had a smartphone with internet connectivity he could run a web >>>>>> browser on the smartphone and watch any kind of streaming content
including YouTube. If he had a tablet with a built in LTE cellular >>>>>> modem, he could also use the tablet for watching YouTube.
"Public safety smartphones and tablets"
<https://www.samsung.com/us/business/solutions/industries/public-safety/smartphones-tablets/>
Whether the phone or tablet was issued by the police department or was >>>>>> owned by the officer for personal use is unknown.
Semi truck drivers are convicted regularly after watching
videos on a telephone or more frequently tapping out texts.
When things go badly, that is construed as criminal
negligence. As well it should be.
It would be nice if the court would suspend his drivers license and
give him a desk job. Have him drive to work on a bicycle and see how
long he survives. If that's too harsh, maybe put him on a freeway
debris cleanup crew. The punishment should fit the crime.
He killed a guy. Put him in prison.
Yep. That would be involuntary manslaughter. In California, that's
good for 4 years in prison and a fine up to $10,000. I couldn't find
the numbers for Vermont.
The problem is that incarceration is not cheap. It costs about
$134,000/year to incarcerate someone in Vermont:
<https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cost-per-prisoner-in-us-states/>
The 4 year maximum penalty will cost the state of Vermont:
4 x $134,000 = $536,000
I suspect Vermont taxpayers can find something better on which to
spend their money.
Instead, lets go back to bad olde days of "blood money".
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blood%20money>
The perpetrator pays the family of the deceased. It's considered
standard practice in the middle east and I think in parts of SE Asia.
Here's a typical rate schedule for Saudi Arabia.
<https://jeddahpcg.dfa.gov.ph/qisas-and-diyya-or-blood-money>
One Saudi Riyal is currently $0.27 US.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_money_in_Islam>
"While Saudi judges have the last say in any settlement, as of 2011,
diya price for a Muslim man, in Saudi Arabia, was SR300,000 ($80,000)
for an accidental death and SR400,000 ($106,666) in premeditated
murder. The price was raised that year due to a rise in the price of
camels."
For the current situation, I suspect having the officer contribute 1/3
of his income to the family for some number of years would be fair to
all involved, except perhaps those who believe that begging for money
on GoFundMe.com is a fair solution. That's certainly better than
burning half a million dollars to feed and house the perpetrator while
allowing the victims family to descend into poverty.
Simple solutions don't work.
I don't know about Saudi but in some SEA countries there is a bit more
to your easy-peasy "It's considered standard practice.....
The family has to agree to accept the money in lieu of execution.
On 3/13/2025 4:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 16:18:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/13/2025 2:11 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 04:50:30 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 19:55:56 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14490079/Vermont-police-crash-cyclist-Kapitanski-Sean-Hayes.html
Cop cars laptops can show him Youtube? Can he also tune in "Dancing
with the Stars?" and "Howard Stern?" That's likely the kind of garbage >>>>> that moron would watch.
If he had a smartphone with internet connectivity he could run a web
browser on the smartphone and watch any kind of streaming content
including YouTube. If he had a tablet with a built in LTE cellular
modem, he could also use the tablet for watching YouTube.
"Public safety smartphones and tablets"
<https://www.samsung.com/us/business/solutions/industries/public-safety/smartphones-tablets/>
Whether the phone or tablet was issued by the police department or was >>>> owned by the officer for personal use is unknown.
Semi truck drivers are convicted regularly after watching
videos on a telephone or more frequently tapping out texts.
When things go badly, that is construed as criminal
negligence. As well it should be.
It would be nice if the court would suspend his drivers license and
give him a desk job. Have him drive to work on a bicycle and see how
long he survives. If that's too harsh, maybe put him on a freeway
debris cleanup crew. The punishment should fit the crime.
Picking up litter on highways may be appropriate to a first
offense vandalism (and it often is) but for a murder? I
can't see where that's at all appropriate.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 17:53:04 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 14:42:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> >>wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 16:18:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/13/2025 2:11 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 04:50:30 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 19:55:56 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14490079/Vermont-police-crash-cyclist-Kapitanski-Sean-Hayes.html
Cop cars laptops can show him Youtube? Can he also tune in "Dancing >>>>>> with the Stars?" and "Howard Stern?" That's likely the kind of garbage >>>>>> that moron would watch.
If he had a smartphone with internet connectivity he could run a web >>>>> browser on the smartphone and watch any kind of streaming content
including YouTube. If he had a tablet with a built in LTE cellular
modem, he could also use the tablet for watching YouTube.
"Public safety smartphones and tablets"
<https://www.samsung.com/us/business/solutions/industries/public-safety/smartphones-tablets/>
Whether the phone or tablet was issued by the police department or was >>>>> owned by the officer for personal use is unknown.
Semi truck drivers are convicted regularly after watching
videos on a telephone or more frequently tapping out texts.
When things go badly, that is construed as criminal
negligence. As well it should be.
It would be nice if the court would suspend his drivers license and
give him a desk job. Have him drive to work on a bicycle and see how >>>long he survives. If that's too harsh, maybe put him on a freeway
debris cleanup crew. The punishment should fit the crime.
He killed a guy. Put him in prison.
Here (not that here is necessarily better) the police have been
instructed to being a charge of attempted murder for causing a road
accident where people are killed in car accidents during the Sonkran
Festival (something like a combined Christmas and New year in your
country)
On 3/13/2025 10:23 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 21:15:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/13/2025 5:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
It would be nice if the court would suspend his drivers license and
give him a desk job. Have him drive to work on a bicycle and see how >>>> long he survives. If that's too harsh, maybe put him on a freeway
debris cleanup crew. The punishment should fit the crime.
As I've said before, he should never drive again.
Good thinking. Let's convert the perpetrator into yet another victim.
The state can support him because he can't get a job because he can't
drive a car. Never mind the victims family.
Here's the way we handle accidental traffic deaths in my town:
"Driver who hit and killed pedestrian lambasts Caltrans"
<https://pressbanner.com/driver-who-hit-and-killed-pedestrian-
lambasts-caltrans/>
Six years later, Jeremy has a drivers license, but can't afford an
automobile, insurance, gas, maintenance, etc. Without insurance, he
doesn't drive. Most of the time, he rides the bus. The part about
smoking marijuana to avoid pain pills is quite real. He had back
surgery about a year previously.
The area where Josh was killed is unchanged and still constitutes a
traffic hazard for cars exiting the adjacent gas station, pedestrians,
cyclists, and critters.
<https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Felton%20traffic.jpg>
Nope, I'm not sympathetic. What rule could be more fundamental than
"Don't hit someone walking (or bicycling) with your car"?
And if killing someone with your car isn't sufficient for forbidding
future driving, what would be?
Is the permission to drive really more important than a person's life?
On 3/13/2025 10:23 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 21:15:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/13/2025 5:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
It would be nice if the court would suspend his drivers
license and
give him a desk job. Have him drive to work on a
bicycle and see how
long he survives. If that's too harsh, maybe put him on
a freeway
debris cleanup crew. The punishment should fit the crime.
As I've said before, he should never drive again.
Good thinking. Let's convert the perpetrator into yet
another victim.
The state can support him because he can't get a job
because he can't
drive a car. Never mind the victims family.
Here's the way we handle accidental traffic deaths in my
town:
"Driver who hit and killed pedestrian lambasts Caltrans"
<https://pressbanner.com/driver-who-hit-and-killed-
pedestrian-lambasts-caltrans/>
Six years later, Jeremy has a drivers license, but can't
afford an
automobile, insurance, gas, maintenance, etc. Without
insurance, he
doesn't drive. Most of the time, he rides the bus. The
part about
smoking marijuana to avoid pain pills is quite real. He
had back
surgery about a year previously.
The area where Josh was killed is unchanged and still
constitutes a
traffic hazard for cars exiting the adjacent gas station,
pedestrians,
cyclists, and critters.
<https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/
Felton%20traffic.jpg>
Nope, I'm not sympathetic. What rule could be more
fundamental than "Don't hit someone walking (or bicycling)
with your car"?
And if killing someone with your car isn't sufficient for
forbidding future driving, what would be?
Is the permission to drive really more important than a
person's life?
On 3/13/2025 10:23 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 21:15:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/13/2025 5:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
It would be nice if the court would suspend his drivers license and
give him a desk job. Have him drive to work on a bicycle and see how
long he survives. If that's too harsh, maybe put him on a freeway
debris cleanup crew. The punishment should fit the crime.
As I've said before, he should never drive again.
Good thinking. Let's convert the perpetrator into yet another victim.
The state can support him because he can't get a job because he can't
drive a car. Never mind the victims family.
Here's the way we handle accidental traffic deaths in my town:
"Driver who hit and killed pedestrian lambasts Caltrans"
<https://pressbanner.com/driver-who-hit-and-killed-pedestrian-lambasts-caltrans/>
Six years later, Jeremy has a drivers license, but can't afford an
automobile, insurance, gas, maintenance, etc. Without insurance, he
doesn't drive. Most of the time, he rides the bus. The part about
smoking marijuana to avoid pain pills is quite real. He had back
surgery about a year previously.
The area where Josh was killed is unchanged and still constitutes a
traffic hazard for cars exiting the adjacent gas station, pedestrians,
cyclists, and critters.
<https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Felton%20traffic.jpg>
Nope, I'm not sympathetic. What rule could be more fundamental than
"Don't hit someone walking (or bicycling) with your car"?
And if killing someone with your car isn't sufficient for forbidding
future driving, what would be?
Is the permission to drive really more important than a person's life?
On 3/14/2025 1:25 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 11:44:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Nope, I'm not sympathetic. What rule could be more fundamental than
"Don't hit someone walking (or bicycling) with your car"?
And if killing someone with your car isn't sufficient for forbidding
future driving, what would be?
Is the permission to drive really more important than a person's life?
Isn't there a law against riding your bicycle in the path of a moving
car?
On 3/14/2025 1:25 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 11:44:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Nope, I'm not sympathetic. What rule could be more
fundamental than
"Don't hit someone walking (or bicycling) with your car"?
And if killing someone with your car isn't sufficient
for forbidding
future driving, what would be?
Is the permission to drive really more important than a
person's life?
Isn't there a law against riding your bicycle in the path
of a moving
car?
no, dumbass.
On 3/14/2025 1:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 11:44:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Nope, I'm not sympathetic. What rule could be more fundamental than
"Don't hit someone walking (or bicycling) with your car"?
And if killing someone with your car isn't sufficient for forbidding
future driving, what would be?
Is the permission to drive really more important than a person's life?
Isn't there a law against riding your bicycle in the path of a moving
car?
What nonsense!
On 3/14/2025 2:30 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/14/2025 1:25 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 11:44:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Nope, I'm not sympathetic. What rule could be more
fundamental than
"Don't hit someone walking (or bicycling) with your car"?
And if killing someone with your car isn't sufficient
for forbidding
future driving, what would be?
Is the permission to drive really more important than a
person's life?
Isn't there a law against riding your bicycle in the path
of a moving
car?
no, dumbass.
The actual situation on the ground can be wildly different
depending on the statute, local road design, marking,
signage and practice, the personalities involved and
whatever the judge ate for lunch.
http://flbikelaw.org/2010/03/two-citations-identical-circumstances-opposite-verdicts/
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 15:02:31 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/14/2025 2:30 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/14/2025 1:25 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 11:44:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Nope, I'm not sympathetic. What rule could be more
fundamental than
"Don't hit someone walking (or bicycling) with your car"?
And if killing someone with your car isn't sufficient
for forbidding
future driving, what would be?
Is the permission to drive really more important than a
person's life?
Isn't there a law against riding your bicycle in the path
of a moving
car?
no, dumbass.
The actual situation on the ground can be wildly different
depending on the statute, local road design, marking,
signage and practice, the personalities involved and
whatever the judge ate for lunch.
http://flbikelaw.org/2010/03/two-citations-identical-circumstances-opposite-verdicts/
I'm pretty sure that if I ride the Catrike out onto the road in front
of a moving truck, my estate would be liable for his broken headlight.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 3/14/2025 4:37 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 15:10:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/14/2025 1:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 11:44:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Isn't there a law against riding your bicycle in the path of a moving
Nope, I'm not sympathetic. What rule could be more fundamental than
"Don't hit someone walking (or bicycling) with your car"?
And if killing someone with your car isn't sufficient for forbidding >>>>> future driving, what would be?
Is the permission to drive really more important than a person's life? >>>>
car?
What nonsense!
Oh well, go ahead and do it....
I do it all the time. I did it many times on today's ride, as usual. I'm
not nearly as fearful or as ignorant of the law as you are.
Man up, if you can.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 22:47:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/14/2025 4:37 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 15:10:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/14/2025 1:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 11:44:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Isn't there a law against riding your bicycle in the path of a moving >>>>> car?
Nope, I'm not sympathetic. What rule could be more fundamental than >>>>>> "Don't hit someone walking (or bicycling) with your car"?
And if killing someone with your car isn't sufficient for forbidding >>>>>> future driving, what would be?
Is the permission to drive really more important than a person's life? >>>>>
What nonsense!
Oh well, go ahead and do it....
I do it all the time. I did it many times on today's ride, as usual. I'm
not nearly as fearful or as ignorant of the law as you are.
Man up, if you can.
I'm pretty sure that if I ride into the path of fast moving vehicles
and get hit, it'd be my own fault.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
floriduh dumbass <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 15:02:31 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/14/2025 2:30 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/14/2025 1:25 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 11:44:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Nope, I'm not sympathetic. What rule could be more
fundamental than
"Don't hit someone walking (or bicycling) with your car"?
And if killing someone with your car isn't sufficient
for forbidding
future driving, what would be?
Is the permission to drive really more important than a
person's life?
Isn't there a law against riding your bicycle in the path
of a moving
car?
no, dumbass.
The actual situation on the ground can be wildly different
depending on the statute, local road design, marking,
signage and practice, the personalities involved and
whatever the judge ate for lunch.
http://flbikelaw.org/2010/03/two-citations-identical-circumstances-opposite-verdicts/
I'm pretty sure that if I ride the Catrike out onto the road in front
of a moving truck, my estate would be liable for his broken headlight.
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 05:07:12 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 22:47:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski >><[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/14/2025 4:37 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 15:10:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/14/2025 1:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 11:44:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Isn't there a law against riding your bicycle in the path of a moving >>>>>> car?
Nope, I'm not sympathetic. What rule could be more fundamental than >>>>>>> "Don't hit someone walking (or bicycling) with your car"?
And if killing someone with your car isn't sufficient for forbidding >>>>>>> future driving, what would be?
Is the permission to drive really more important than a person's life? >>>>>>
What nonsense!
Oh well, go ahead and do it....
I do it all the time. I did it many times on today's ride, as usual. I'm >>>not nearly as fearful or as ignorant of the law as you are.
Man up, if you can.
I'm pretty sure that if I ride into the path of fast moving vehicles
and get hit, it'd be my own fault.
The problem with Frank's theory is if it doesn't work right you are
dead.
Years ago I posted about two women on a motorbike with two babies who
rode out in front of a 40 ft bed truck hauling a 40 ft. trailer. The
guy did try to stop, in fact he flipped the trailer but the results
were one women and one baby dead.
When I mentioned it to Frank he just shrugged it off saying "Oh, they
didn't do it right."
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 22:47:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/14/2025 4:37 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 15:10:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/14/2025 1:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 11:44:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Isn't there a law against riding your bicycle in the path of a moving >>>>>> car?
Nope, I'm not sympathetic. What rule could be more fundamental than >>>>>>> "Don't hit someone walking (or bicycling) with your car"?
And if killing someone with your car isn't sufficient for forbidding >>>>>>> future driving, what would be?
Is the permission to drive really more important than a person's life? >>>>>>
What nonsense!
Oh well, go ahead and do it....
I do it all the time. I did it many times on today's ride, as usual. I'm >>> not nearly as fearful or as ignorant of the law as you are.
Man up, if you can.
I'm pretty sure that if I ride into the path of fast moving vehicles
and get hit, it'd be my own fault.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
There is world of difference between riding on a road, as one should be
able to so, and other users of the road as every have to adjust to others >using the road, back in wales I can encounter all manner of vehicles and >animals!
Even in london and areas around get >pedestrians/scooters/bikes/horses/motorbikes/milk
floats/vans/buses/lorries.
All of which will use the roads in different ways, unless it�s a motorway >where all traffic is broadly traveling same speeds.
Roger Merriman
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 05:07:12 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 22:47:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/14/2025 4:37 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 15:10:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/14/2025 1:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 11:44:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Isn't there a law against riding your bicycle in the path of a moving >>>>>> car?
Nope, I'm not sympathetic. What rule could be more fundamental than >>>>>>> "Don't hit someone walking (or bicycling) with your car"?
And if killing someone with your car isn't sufficient for forbidding >>>>>>> future driving, what would be?
Is the permission to drive really more important than a person's life? >>>>>>
What nonsense!
Oh well, go ahead and do it....
I do it all the time. I did it many times on today's ride, as usual. I'm >>> not nearly as fearful or as ignorant of the law as you are.
Man up, if you can.
I'm pretty sure that if I ride into the path of fast moving vehicles
and get hit, it'd be my own fault.
The problem with Frank's theory is if it doesn't work right you are
dead.
Years ago I posted about two women on a motorbike with two babies who
rode out in front of a 40 ft bed truck hauling a 40 ft. trailer. The
guy did try to stop, in fact he flipped the trailer but the results
were one women and one baby dead.
When I mentioned it to Frank he just shrugged it off saying "Oh, they
didn't do it right."
On 15 Mar 2025 10:03:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 22:47:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/14/2025 4:37 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 15:10:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/14/2025 1:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 11:44:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Isn't there a law against riding your bicycle in the path of a moving >>>>>>> car?
Nope, I'm not sympathetic. What rule could be more fundamental than >>>>>>>> "Don't hit someone walking (or bicycling) with your car"?
And if killing someone with your car isn't sufficient for forbidding >>>>>>>> future driving, what would be?
Is the permission to drive really more important than a person's life? >>>>>>>
What nonsense!
Oh well, go ahead and do it....
I do it all the time. I did it many times on today's ride, as usual. I'm >>>> not nearly as fearful or as ignorant of the law as you are.
Man up, if you can.
I'm pretty sure that if I ride into the path of fast moving vehicles
and get hit, it'd be my own fault.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
There is world of difference between riding on a road, as one should be
able to so, and other users of the road as every have to adjust to others
using the road, back in wales I can encounter all manner of vehicles and
animals!
Even in london and areas around get
pedestrians/scooters/bikes/horses/motorbikes/milk
floats/vans/buses/lorries.
All of which will use the roads in different ways, unless its a motorway >> where all traffic is broadly traveling same speeds.
Roger Merriman
Of course I'm not arguing against riding on streets and roads. I do it regularly. Buit just like in a vehicle, moving into the path of a
faster moving vehicle might not be a good idea.
At 30 mph you need roughly 120 feet to come to a complete stop (65
feet to react and 55 feet to brake) in good conditions.
At 60 mph you need roughly 360 feet to come to a complete stop (130
feet to react and 190 feet to brake) in good conditions.
https://zutobi.com/us/driver-guides/reaction-braking-stopping-distance
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 15 Mar 2025 10:03:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 22:47:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/14/2025 4:37 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 15:10:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/14/2025 1:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 11:44:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Nope, I'm not sympathetic. What rule could be more fundamental than >>>>>>>>> "Don't hit someone walking (or bicycling) with your car"?
And if killing someone with your car isn't sufficient for forbidding >>>>>>>>> future driving, what would be?
Is the permission to drive really more important than a person's life?
Isn't there a law against riding your bicycle in the path of a moving >>>>>>>> car?
What nonsense!
Oh well, go ahead and do it....
I do it all the time. I did it many times on today's ride, as usual. I'm >>>>> not nearly as fearful or as ignorant of the law as you are.
Man up, if you can.
I'm pretty sure that if I ride into the path of fast moving vehicles
and get hit, it'd be my own fault.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
There is world of difference between riding on a road, as one should be
able to so, and other users of the road as every have to adjust to others >>> using the road, back in wales I can encounter all manner of vehicles and >>> animals!
Even in london and areas around get
pedestrians/scooters/bikes/horses/motorbikes/milk
floats/vans/buses/lorries.
All of which will use the roads in different ways, unless it?s a motorway >>> where all traffic is broadly traveling same speeds.
Roger Merriman
Of course I'm not arguing against riding on streets and roads. I do it
regularly. Buit just like in a vehicle, moving into the path of a
faster moving vehicle might not be a good idea.
At 30 mph you need roughly 120 feet to come to a complete stop (65
feet to react and 55 feet to brake) in good conditions.
At 60 mph you need roughly 360 feet to come to a complete stop (130
feet to react and 190 feet to brake) in good conditions.
https://zutobi.com/us/driver-guides/reaction-braking-stopping-distance
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Don�t think Frank would have issue with that, only pushback I guess being >folks speeding or not driving to the conditions, but in general do need to >take into account oncoming traffic and that you have a gap to pull
into/cross safely.
Roger Merriman
On 3/15/2025 9:02 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:Let's please recall that Mr. Tricycle Rider's original statement was
On 15 Mar 2025 10:03:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 22:47:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/14/2025 4:37 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 15:10:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/14/2025 1:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 11:44:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Nope, I'm not sympathetic. What rule could be more fundamental than >>>>>>>>>> "Don't hit someone walking (or bicycling) with your car"?
And if killing someone with your car isn't sufficient for forbidding >>>>>>>>>> future driving, what would be?
Is the permission to drive really more important than a person's life?
Isn't there a law against riding your bicycle in the path of a moving >>>>>>>>> car?
What nonsense!
Oh well, go ahead and do it....
I do it all the time. I did it many times on today's ride, as usual. I'm >>>>>> not nearly as fearful or as ignorant of the law as you are.
Man up, if you can.
I'm pretty sure that if I ride into the path of fast moving vehicles >>>>> and get hit, it'd be my own fault.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
There is world of difference between riding on a road, as one should be >>>> able to so, and other users of the road as every have to adjust to others >>>> using the road, back in wales I can encounter all manner of vehicles and >>>> animals!
Even in london and areas around get
pedestrians/scooters/bikes/horses/motorbikes/milk
floats/vans/buses/lorries.
All of which will use the roads in different ways, unless it?s a motorway >>>> where all traffic is broadly traveling same speeds.
Roger Merriman
Of course I'm not arguing against riding on streets and roads. I do it
regularly. Buit just like in a vehicle, moving into the path of a
faster moving vehicle might not be a good idea.
At 30 mph you need roughly 120 feet to come to a complete stop (65
feet to react and 55 feet to brake) in good conditions.
At 60 mph you need roughly 360 feet to come to a complete stop (130
feet to react and 190 feet to brake) in good conditions.
https://zutobi.com/us/driver-guides/reaction-braking-stopping-distance
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Don�t think Frank would have issue with that, only pushback I guess being
folks speeding or not driving to the conditions, but in general do need to >> take into account oncoming traffic and that you have a gap to pull
into/cross safely.
"Isn't there a law against riding your bicycle in the path of a moving
car?"
Note he did NOT say "pull out suddenly into the path of a moving car."
He may now be pretending he said that, or he may have been thinking that >while unable to express himself correctly. But his original statement
applied to any bicyclist riding in a normal position on a normal road
with a moving car somewhere behind him.
And Mr. Tricycle may indeed +be terrified of that! He did say, long ago,
that "Nothing can make [it] safe..." Which is why he rides almost
entirely back and forth on a flat Florida bike path. (Boring!)
I think everyone else here rides on normal roads almost all the time,
with no great fears.
On 3/15/2025 2:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 14:02:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/15/2025 9:02 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:Let's please recall that Mr. Tricycle Rider's original statement was
On 15 Mar 2025 10:03:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 22:47:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/14/2025 4:37 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 15:10:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/14/2025 1:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 11:44:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Nope, I'm not sympathetic. What rule could be more fundamental than
"Don't hit someone walking (or bicycling) with your car"? >>>>>>>>>>>>
And if killing someone with your car isn't sufficient for forbidding
future driving, what would be?
Is the permission to drive really more important than a person's life?
Isn't there a law against riding your bicycle in the path of a moving
car?
What nonsense!
Oh well, go ahead and do it....
I do it all the time. I did it many times on today's ride, as usual. I'm
not nearly as fearful or as ignorant of the law as you are.
Man up, if you can.
I'm pretty sure that if I ride into the path of fast moving vehicles >>>>>>> and get hit, it'd be my own fault.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
There is world of difference between riding on a road, as one should be >>>>>> able to so, and other users of the road as every have to adjust to others
using the road, back in wales I can encounter all manner of vehicles and >>>>>> animals!
Even in london and areas around get
pedestrians/scooters/bikes/horses/motorbikes/milk
floats/vans/buses/lorries.
All of which will use the roads in different ways, unless it?s a motorway
where all traffic is broadly traveling same speeds.
Roger Merriman
Of course I'm not arguing against riding on streets and roads. I do it >>>>> regularly. Buit just like in a vehicle, moving into the path of a
faster moving vehicle might not be a good idea.
At 30 mph you need roughly 120 feet to come to a complete stop (65
feet to react and 55 feet to brake) in good conditions.
At 60 mph you need roughly 360 feet to come to a complete stop (130
feet to react and 190 feet to brake) in good conditions.
https://zutobi.com/us/driver-guides/reaction-braking-stopping-distance >>>>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Don�t think Frank would have issue with that, only pushback I guess being >>>> folks speeding or not driving to the conditions, but in general do need to >>>> take into account oncoming traffic and that you have a gap to pull
into/cross safely.
"Isn't there a law against riding your bicycle in the path of a moving
car?"
Note he did NOT say "pull out suddenly into the path of a moving car."
He may now be pretending he said that, or he may have been thinking that >>> while unable to express himself correctly. But his original statement
applied to any bicyclist riding in a normal position on a normal road
with a moving car somewhere behind him.
No, "in the path" quite clearly means where the vehicle is going to
be.
:-) Yes, of course. And when I'm riding a highway or country road, I am >where the vehicle is going to be.
Sheesh!
And Mr. Tricycle may indeed +be terrified of that! He did say, long ago, >>> that "Nothing can make [it] safe..." Which is why he rides almost
entirely back and forth on a flat Florida bike path. (Boring!)
I think everyone else here rides on normal roads almost all the time,
with no great fears.
Indeed, "Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe.
I very seldom do it anymore."
--Catrike Rider.
"Nearly 1,000 bicyclists die and over 130,000 are injured in crashes
that occur on roads in the United States every year.
https://www.cdc.gov/pedestrian-bike-safety/about/bicycle-safety.html
Oooh, so scary!
Over 40,000 motorists die each year. Over 7000 pedestrians die every
year, hit by cars. In fact, go to >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate and
scroll down to Road Injuries to compare bicycles, motorists,
motorcyclists and pedestrians. Go farther down to compare with drownings
and poisonings.
You should worry about bicycling about as much as you worry about being >poisoned.
Why is it that some cyclists are so dedicated to pretending cycling is >horribly dangerous? I mean, if you're timid, that's one thing. But
there's no need to try to make others afraid.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 31:24:27 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Calls today: | 9 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,271 |
