Cycling Mob Cycling Forums - View Single Post

06-16-2004, 10:35 PM

16 Jun 2004 15:40:17 GMT,
<20040616114017.04692.00000074@mb-m10.aol.com>,
hunrobe@aol.com (Hunrobe) wrote:
\szip
>>Say, legally riding you hits a legally walking pedestrian whilst
>>avoiding a distracted driver. You're both injured. There's no other
>>witnesses to the incident. The driver is long gone. Neither of you has
>>a plate number and somewhat conflicting accounts.
>>Who gets sued?
>
>Again, liability versus responsibility plus you're throwing something else into
>the mix. Distractions are not the same as intentional violations of the law.
>You're mixing apples and oranges, civil and criminal. Perhaps if I can ever
>convince you to stop doing that you'll stop making over the top, blanket
>statements like, "It's always the driver's fault. They were driving weren't
>they?" <g>

Oh that's right, I forgot it's legal and perfectly acceptable to doze
off or search for your cigarettes when you should be driving.
I guess you've got to get caught killing somebody to get a fine.

In the given example, you avoided the question. Who gets sued?

My point is, if bungwipe doesn't smack into something expensive or
heavy enough to stop them and a cop doesn't see him run the cyclist
into the pedestrian, perhaps breaking a law in the process, it isn't
any different than dufus' proposition that bicyclists cause these
types of accidents all the time and there's no way of holding them
accountable.

I'm saying scud jockeys get away with deadlier dumb **** all the time
and their victims' families are slapped in the face by the meaningless
punishments given the killers that are caught.
--
zk

06-16-2004, 10:35 PM	#759 (permalink)
Zoot Katz Posts: n/a	Re: Holy shatz! Cop stops bicycle! 16 Jun 2004 15:40:17 GMT, <20040616114017.04692.00000074@mb-m10.aol.com>, hunrobe@aol.com (Hunrobe) wrote: \szip >>Say, legally riding you hits a legally walking pedestrian whilst >>avoiding a distracted driver. You're both injured. There's no other >>witnesses to the incident. The driver is long gone. Neither of you has >>a plate number and somewhat conflicting accounts. >>Who gets sued? > >Again, liability versus responsibility plus you're throwing something else into >the mix. Distractions are not the same as intentional violations of the law. >You're mixing apples and oranges, civil and criminal. Perhaps if I can ever >convince you to stop doing that you'll stop making over the top, blanket >statements like, "It's always the driver's fault. They were driving weren't >they?" <g> Oh that's right, I forgot it's legal and perfectly acceptable to doze off or search for your cigarettes when you should be driving. I guess you've got to get caught killing somebody to get a fine. In the given example, you avoided the question. Who gets sued? My point is, if bungwipe doesn't smack into something expensive or heavy enough to stop them and a cop doesn't see him run the cyclist into the pedestrian, perhaps breaking a law in the process, it isn't any different than dufus' proposition that bicyclists cause these types of accidents all the time and there's no way of holding them accountable. I'm saying scud jockeys get away with deadlier dumb **** all the time and their victims' families are slapped in the face by the meaningless punishments given the killers that are caught. -- zk