 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / March 2008I wonder how things would have been different if he'd been wearing a helmet
Bay Area radio is reporting a 17-year-old bicyclist *was not wearing a helmet* [the news anchor really did dramatically emphasize those words] when he was hit by a truck that dragged him and his bike down the street 150 feet at at least 50 miles per hour. The truck then crossed the median, plowed into another vehicle traveling in the opposite direction, finally coming to a stop about 1,300 feet down the road. In journalism they always tell you to lead with the most important fact. I note that the radio anchor led with the fact that he was not wearing his helmet. Clearly, had he been, said helmet would have protected him from being dragged 150 feet at 50+ miles per hour. That's one fine helmet. I think I'll buy a case of them and wear them all the time everywhere, especially in the shower, where it's damn slippery. John  SignatureVon Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven >Bay Area radio is reporting a 17-year-old bicyclist *was not wearing a >helmet* [the news anchor really did dramatically emphasize those words] [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >his helmet. Clearly, had he been, said helmet would have protected him >from being dragged 150 feet at 50+ miles per hour. You misunderstand. CA law states that persons under 18 MUST wear a helmet while bicycling. Because he violated the law, the accident automatically becomes his fault. Because this boy broke the law, he DESERVED to get killed by that Trucker. At least, that's the way it works in Liberal Logic. This is the same sort of logic that states it's OK to pull out of a driveway or side street directly into the path a speeding car; after all, if the car hadn't been speeding, you could have pulled out without being hit. However, because the speeder was breaking the law, the collision is automatically his fault. Oh, and if you're an LLB, and you fail to yield the left lane to a faster driver behind you, the faster driver is the bad guy because he is violating the speed limit law. See how that works? ["Followup-To:" header set to ca.driving.] > automatically becomes his fault. Because this boy broke the law, he > DESERVED to get killed by that Trucker. > > At least, that's the way it works in Liberal Logic. Please stop with the generalizations. I'm liberal and I don't agree that he deserved to get killed. HOWEVER, it's still important to point out that he was not wearing a helmet. Even if, in this case, wearing one probably wouldn't have made a difference (and we know it wouldn't have). SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol >["Followup-To:" header set to ca.driving.] >> automatically becomes his fault. Because this boy broke the law, he [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >deserved to get killed. HOWEVER, it's still important to point out that he >was not wearing a helmet. Why is it important to point that he was not wearing a helmet? > Even if, in this case, wearing one probably wouldn't >have made a difference (and we know it wouldn't have). Signature======================================================================== Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make | two, one and one make one." mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain >>Please stop with the generalizations. I'm liberal and I don't agree that he >>deserved to get killed. HOWEVER, it's still important to point out that he >>was not wearing a helmet. > > Why is it important to point that he was not wearing a helmet? Because, IMHO, we should be encouraging people to be safe. Now that I think about it, perhaps making a big deal about him not wearing a helmet is not a good idea, but at least take a few seconds to say "remember your safety gear while you're out riding." SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol >>>Please stop with the generalizations. I'm liberal and I don't agree that he >>>deserved to get killed. HOWEVER, it's still important to point out that he [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Because, IMHO, we should be encouraging people to be safe. Don't you think that the results of the collisions are encouragement enough without having to get all sanctimonious and preachy about it? IMHO that is actually counterproductive, making people LESS likely to wear safety gear. As Rage Against the Machine so aptly puts it, the attitude is "f.ck you, I won't do what you tell me!" >>> Please stop with the generalizations. I'm liberal and I don't agree that he >>> deserved to get killed. HOWEVER, it's still important to point out that he >>> was not wearing a helmet. >> Why is it important to point that he was not wearing a helmet? > > Because, IMHO, we should be encouraging people to be safe. Then do just that. Wearing a helmet isn't some sort of magic shield. It doesn't just "make you safe." And it certainly doesn't warrant putting in the lead of the story, cf, "A family *that did not have a lightning rod on their house* was killed when the house was struck by lightning during a torrential downpour and a fire started." J SignatureVon Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven >> Because, IMHO, we should be encouraging people to be safe. > > Then do just that. Wearing a helmet isn't some sort of magic shield. > It doesn't just "make you safe." OK, Mr. Pedant, would you prefer the word "safer"? SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol >>> Because, IMHO, we should be encouraging people to be safe. >> Then do just that. Wearing a helmet isn't some sort of magic shield. >> It doesn't just "make you safe." > > OK, Mr. Pedant, would you prefer the word "safer"? Not what I meant, but now that you bring it up, yes. J SignatureVon Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven >["Followup-To:" header set to ca.driving.] Why? This discussion is on-topic for both groups. >> automatically becomes his fault. Because this boy broke the law, he >> DESERVED to get killed by that Trucker. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Please stop with the generalizations. I'm liberal and I don't agree that he >deserved to get killed. Do you agree that he was at at least partially at fault? >HOWEVER, it's still important to point out that he >was not wearing a helmet. Even if, in this case, wearing one probably wouldn't >have made a difference (and we know it wouldn't have). Then why is it so important to point that out ? >>["Followup-To:" header set to ca.driving.] > > Why? This discussion is on-topic for both groups. Because I always forget that my stupid NNTP client defaults to following up ONLY to the first newsgroup in the Newsgroups header. >>Please stop with the generalizations. I'm liberal and I don't agree that he >>deserved to get killed. > > Do you agree that he was at at least partially at fault? Absolutely. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol >>>Please stop with the generalizations. I'm liberal and I don't agree that he >>>deserved to get killed. >> >> Do you agree that he was at at least partially at fault? > >Absolutely. From the information in the original post, we have no information that the pedalcyclist broke any laws or was riding someplace where he wasn't supposed to be; his only error was not wearing a helmet. Yet you judge him to be partially at fault for the collision simply because he broke the helmet law. Fine, I won't call that type of reasoning "Liberal Logic" anymore if you can come up with a better term to describe it. :) ["Followup-To:" header set to ca.driving.] >>> Do you agree that he was at at least partially at fault? >> >>Absolutely. > > From the information in the original post, we have no information that > the pedalcyclist broke any laws Then maybe I didn't read very well. I was under the impression that he was in violation of at least one law in addition to the helmet law. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 05:00:12 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Fine, I won't call that type of reasoning "Liberal Logic" anymore if > you can come up with a better term to describe it. :) That kind of "logic" does not occupy any place on any political spectrum. Listen to Faux News some time for expressions of your so-called "liberal logic". They do it just the same, just from a different angle. I prefer "Lloyd Llogic", after Lloyd Parker. The absolute absence of any sort of reasoning, without resorting to labels that are nothing more than buzzwords. E.P. ["Followup-To:" header set to ca.driving.] >> >>>deserved to get killed. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > That kind of "logic" does not occupy any place on any political > spectrum. Wait. Didn't the guy on the bike crash a red light? If so, he damned well IS at least partially at fault. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol >["Followup-To:" header set to ca.driving.] > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Wait. Didn't the guy on the bike crash a red light? If so, he damned well >IS at least partially at fault. No, no. Bikes are unmotorized, smaller, and lighter, therefore bike riders are morally superior beings who can do no wrong. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>Wait. Didn't the guy on the bike crash a red light? If so, he damned well >>IS at least partially at fault. > > No, no. Bikes are unmotorized, smaller, and lighter, therefore bike > riders are morally superior beings who can do no wrong. That was a serious question, dammit! SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol >> Fine, I won't call that type of reasoning "Liberal Logic" anymore if >> you can come up with a better term to describe it. :) > That kind of "logic" does not occupy any place on any political > spectrum. Funny, I only ever hear it from nanny-statists (both "left" and "right"). > HOWEVER, it's still important to point out that he > was not wearing a helmet. Even if, in this case, wearing one probably wouldn't > have made a difference (and we know it wouldn't have). To steal a line from one of the regulars, Scott methinks: WHISKEY? TANGO? FOXTROT? Over... >> HOWEVER, it's still important to point out that he >> was not wearing a helmet. Even if, in this case, wearing one probably wouldn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >WHISKEY? TANGO? FOXTROT? Over... Feel free to steal it. I certainly did. :) > You misunderstand. CA law states that persons under 18 MUST wear a > helmet while bicycling. Because he violated the law, the accident > automatically becomes his fault. Because this boy broke the law, he > DESERVED to get killed by that Trucker. Ticket the truck driver, AND the dead guy. They both did something wrong. > At least, that's the way it works in Liberal Logic. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > without being hit. However, because the speeder was breaking the law, > the collision is automatically his fault. I guess it would depend on the circumstances. If the speeder was only slightly above the limit, the outcome would not have been affected-- the guy backing out made the critical boo-boo by not looking. If the speeder is doing 100 in a residential area, the guy backing out might have done a fine job of clearing before backing, nor realizing that something a quarter of a mile away was about to nail him. The outcome here would have been entirely dependent on the speediot--he was highly likely to hit something, and whom he hit is just the luck of the draw. In between these two extremes, the lawyers win and justice doesn't. > Oh, and if you're an LLB, and you fail to yield the left lane to a > faster driver behind you, the faster driver is the bad guy because he > is violating the speed limit law. Ticket them both, in some circumstances. One or the other in other circumstances. >>Bay Area radio is reporting a 17-year-old bicyclist *was not wearing a >>helmet* [the news anchor really did dramatically emphasize those words] [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > At least, that's the way it works in Liberal Logic. It's not so much that it broke the law, he didn't do what the nanny state told him IMO. Although how do they know if he was wearing a foam hat or not? If he was it was in several small pieces spread over 1300 feet of road looking like common road litter. The bits of blow molded plastic and styrofoam wouldn't look much different from discared product packaging. > This is the same sort of logic that states it's OK to pull out of a > driveway or side street directly into the path a speeding car; after > all, if the car hadn't been speeding, you could have pulled out > without being hit. However, because the speeder was breaking the law, > the collision is automatically his fault. > Oh, and if you're an LLB, and you fail to yield the left lane to a > faster driver behind you, the faster driver is the bad guy because he > is violating the speed limit law. > > See how that works? I think it's actually the person who is offending the nanny. People who don't think for themselves and let the state do it for them are to be praised and can never be a fault. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.