Crazy Motorists

[Velo Dude]

It is getting even crazier.

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20090727%2FNEWS01%2F907270323

Fire arms are involved now.

“He decided he needed to tell them he thought it was unsafe that they would do that and have their child out there in an area where they had a lot of traffic,” Splain said.

"Diez stopped his car and confronted Simons near 1360 Tunnel Road. When Simons began to walk away, Diez shot at him, Splain said.

"The bullet blew a hole through the outer lining of Simons' helmet and went straight through both sides of it, but he was not hit."

Apparently he thought that shooting the guy in the head was the best way to make his point about it being unsafe.

 

[elapid]

I'm not saying the driver who hits a cyclist has no responsibility. I'm just questioning the fairness of "removing" such a driver.

You say it is irrelevant how many drivers drift into a bike lane or don't see a bike and get away with it. Irrelevant to what? Irrelevant to whether removing such a driver is justified?

The is issue here is what is fair and just. I assume we can agree that is unfair and unjust to randomly pick someone's name and address out of a hat, and penalize them. Yes?

Now let's fill the that with only names of people who, from time to time, drift into bike lanes and sometimes don't take notice of bicyclists they pass that are in bike lanes. Well, that's essentially the same names as before.

Now, let's randomly pick one of those and penalize him. How is that any different, in terms of fairness and what is just, from picking the one to penalize by whoever happens to do both (drift into an unnoticed bicyclist in the bike lane) at the same time?

It makes sense to remove drivers who are clearly doing something outside of the norm. It make sense to penalize drivers who do something wrong but which is within the norm, and happens to hurt or even kill someone else. It makes no sense, to me, to remove a driver like that. To what end? Do you think someone is going to hear from a friend of a friend about the guy who lost his license for hitting and killing someone in a bike lane, and so will suddenly and magically start paying more attention for the rest of his life, and make sure he never drifts into a bike lane, and tries to never overlook a harmless and irrelevant cyclist he is passing? You're dreaming.

I think what is fair and just is that anyone that does something wrong should pay for their mistakes. I doubt that anyone else will learn from these mistakes, but this is not where I disagree with you. You can apply the same argument to thieves and murderers - they know the consequences of their actions if caught, but this still doesn't stop them from committing their acts. It is irrelevant how often the action is done without consequences. If it is done and results in someone being injured or killed, then there should be some punishment for that individual committing the act that injures or kills if that act is caused solely by the driver. IMO a fine and/or loss of license is an inadequate punishment.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I think what is fair and just is that anyone that does something wrong should pay for their mistakes. I doubt that anyone else will learn from these mistakes, but this is not where I disagree with you. You can apply the same argument to thieves and murderers - they know the consequences of their actions if caught, but this still doesn't stop them from committing their acts. It is irrelevant how often the action is done without consequences. If it is done and results in someone being injured or killed, then there should be some punishment for that individual committing the act that injures or kills if that act is caused solely by the driver. IMO a fine and/or loss of license is an inadequate punishment.

What do you think the penalty should be for someone who drifts into a bike lane that is luckily unoccupied at the moment he or she drifts into it? Would a fine and/or loss of license be inadequate?

It seems to me that if you're penalizing someone for engaging in a given act, because that act is wrong (in this case, the act is "drifting into a bike lane"), then the penalty should be the same, regardless of what happens as a result of that act.

Or, are you suggesting that the same act is more wrong if injury or death happens to result?

Are you saying that drifting into an actually empty bike lane is not as wrong as drifting into a bike lane that is mistakenly perceived to be empty due to the phenomenon known as inattentional blindness?

 

[Anonymous]

cath wiggins had her bike crashed into yesterday by a driver... bike bent, cath bruised.. (via twitter)..

we had the joys of the magic indicator... you know the ones, stop at a zebra crossing indicating left, so you pull out of the junction and they they drive straight on indicating left towards you...

@-holes..

 

[elapid]

What do you think the penalty should be for someone who drifts into a bike lane that is luckily unoccupied at the moment he or she drifts into it? Would a fine and/or loss of license be inadequate?

It seems to me that if you're penalizing someone for engaging in a given act, because that act is wrong (in this case, the act is "drifting into a bike lane"), then the penalty should be the same, regardless of what happens as a result of that act.

Or, are you suggesting that the same act is more wrong if injury or death happens to result?

Are you saying that drifting into an actually empty bike lane is not as wrong as drifting into a bike lane that is mistakenly perceived to be empty due to the phenomenon known as inattentional blindness?

I am saying the latter: the act is more wrong if it results in injury or death. I know it sucks for the driver in such a situation, but nor can the driver get off with a slap on the wrist if it does result in the injury or death of a rider who is riding where they are meant to be riding.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I am saying the latter: the act is more wrong if it results in injury or death.

Lots of people agree with this, but I just can't understand the reasoning behind it.

I understand the need to pay restitution to the injured party, or their survivors, but that's different from being penalized for doing something wrong, and being penalized more if others happened to be injured or killed from that act.

Say two 160 lbs guys both have 6 margaritas each within one hour, and both get into their identical Ford pickups and drive home. They toss coins to decide who will drive first, and who will follow the other.

On the drive home (they're neighbors so going home the same way) the one in front overlooks a pedestrian in a crosswalk and hits and kills him, the other rear ends the first but no injuries result from that. The first one should go to jail for manslaughter, while the other just pays a fine for his first DUI? How is that fair or just? Why should the first be penalized more than the second, just because his irresponsible behavior happened to result in death or injury? How is that different from tossing a coin to decide who gets the big penalty?

I guess this gets down to what is the point of identifying certain behavior as "wrong", and more or less "wrong" than other behavior, and penalizing accordingly? Is it not to inhibit people from engaging in behavior deemed to be "wrong"? Or, in the case of "removing drivers" (taking licenses away), to protect people from those who are likely to harm them?

If the behavior we are trying to inhibit, or protect each other from, is, say, drifting into bike lanes when they are perceived to be empty, then shouldn't that behavior be penalized equally regardless of whether the bike lane is actually empty when it occurs?

It seems like the only justification for penalizing those who actually harm others is simply revenge. I understand the primal satisfaction in that, but is that a rational basis for law in a civilized society?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

cath wiggins had her bike crashed into yesterday by a driver... bike bent, cath bruised.. (via twitter)..

we had the joys of the magic indicator... you know the ones, stop at a zebra crossing indicating left, so you pull out of the junction and they they drive straight on indicating left towards you...

@-holes..

The only thing a turn indicator definitely indicates is whether it's turned on or not.

The potential causes of a wrong indicator are many: bulb failure or other electrical or mechanical problem, human error, @-hole, etc.

It's not wise to bet your safety on the ability of a turn indicator to reliably predict the behavior of a driver. Always look for confirming evidence before you put your life and limb at risk.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Lots of people agree with this, but I just can't understand the reasoning behind it.

I understand the need to pay restitution to the injured party, or their survivors, but that's different from being penalized for doing something wrong, and being penalized more if others happened to be injured or killed from that act.

Say two 160 lbs guys both have 6 margaritas each within one hour, and both get into their identical Ford pickups and drive home. They toss coins to decide who will drive first, and who will follow the other.

On the drive home (they're neighbors so going home the same way) the one in front overlooks a pedestrian in a crosswalk and hits and kills him, the other rear ends the first but no injuries result from that. The first one should go to jail for manslaughter, while the other just pays a fine for his first DUI? How is that fair or just? Why should the first be penalized more than the second, just because his irresponsible behavior happened to result in death or injury? How is that different from tossing a coin to decide who gets the big penalty?

I guess this gets down to what is the point of identifying certain behavior as "wrong", and more or less "wrong" than other behavior, and penalizing accordingly? Is it not to inhibit people from engaging in behavior deemed to be "wrong"? Or, in the case of "removing drivers" (taking licenses away), to protect people from those who are likely to harm them?

If the behavior we are trying to inhibit, or protect each other from, is, say, drifting into bike lanes when they are perceived to be empty, then shouldn't that behavior be penalized equally regardless of whether the bike lane is actually empty when it occurs?

It seems like the only justification for penalizing those who actually harm others is simply revenge. I understand the primal satisfaction in that, but is that a rational basis for law in a civilized society?

Man A points a gun at his neighbor and pulls the trigger but the gun missfires and the neighbor runs off.
Man B points a gun at his neighbor and fires, hitting him in the head and killing him.
Should they be punished equally?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Man A points a gun at his neighbor and pulls the trigger but the gun missfires and the neighbor runs off.
Man B points a gun at his neighbor and fires, hitting him in the head and killing him.
Should they be punished equally?

Good point. We do punish acts of murder more severely than attempted murder. But why? I don't understand the basis for that either. That might be primal revenge too. After all, if the target is not hurt, the primal need for revenge is much less.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Good point. We do punish acts of murder more severely than attempted murder. But why? I don't understand the basis for that either. That might be primal revenge too. After all, if the target is not hurt, the primal need for revenge is much less.

Too funny. A quick google search reveals we are not the only ones pondering these very questions. This is almost the mirror image of the logical flow in our discussion:

http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/348

Obviously, this is not going to be resolved here, and it's getting way out of scope for this bicycling forum.
Suffice it to say that the problem is unsettling, and like it or not, people are punished based not only on what is within their control, but sometimes on ramifications that are outside of their control.

A driver can control whether he will drift into a bike lane or not, but he cannot control whether an unnoticed bicyclist will be in there when he does so, yet we punish him differently based on whether that bicyclist is there or not - something he cannot control. I'm not the only one who thinks there is something very troubling about punishing people based on this kind of "moral luck".

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-luck/

 

[elapid]

Lots of people agree with this, but I just can't understand the reasoning behind it.

I understand the need to pay restitution to the injured party, or their survivors, but that's different from being penalized for doing something wrong, and being penalized more if others happened to be injured or killed from that act.

Say two 160 lbs guys both have 6 margaritas each within one hour, and both get into their identical Ford pickups and drive home. They toss coins to decide who will drive first, and who will follow the other.

On the drive home (they're neighbors so going home the same way) the one in front overlooks a pedestrian in a crosswalk and hits and kills him, the other rear ends the first but no injuries result from that. The first one should go to jail for manslaughter, while the other just pays a fine for his first DUI? How is that fair or just? Why should the first be penalized more than the second, just because his irresponsible behavior happened to result in death or injury? How is that different from tossing a coin to decide who gets the big penalty?

I guess this gets down to what is the point of identifying certain behavior as "wrong", and more or less "wrong" than other behavior, and penalizing accordingly? Is it not to inhibit people from engaging in behavior deemed to be "wrong"? Or, in the case of "removing drivers" (taking licenses away), to protect people from those who are likely to harm them?

If the behavior we are trying to inhibit, or protect each other from, is, say, drifting into bike lanes when they are perceived to be empty, then shouldn't that behavior be penalized equally regardless of whether the bike lane is actually empty when it occurs?

It seems like the only justification for penalizing those who actually harm others is simply revenge. I understand the primal satisfaction in that, but is that a rational basis for law in a civilized society?

Oh, I agree with you on your last point. Your argument beforehand is also similar to the driver that wanders into the bike lane. Bad luck is a b-i-t-c-h, but it is still bad luck for the driver and worse for the injured and dead party. Especially for cases like manslaughter, I think more inventive punishments are required. When the death is purely accidental, there is really no point in ruining more lives. I do not think that person guilty of manslaughter should be not punished, but I think the punishment should not involve jail time and could be constructive. If there is more to it, such as drink driving, then there should be some sort of punishment as well.

 

[elapid]

Good point. We do punish acts of murder more severely than attempted murder. But why? I don't understand the basis for that either. That might be primal revenge too. After all, if the target is not hurt, the primal need for revenge is much less.

I watched a movie recently, I forget which, but attempted or actual robbery of an armoured car carries an jail sentence of 30 years, more than murder and attempted murder. Go figure.

 

[Bala Verde]

Too funny. A quick google search reveals we are not the only ones pondering these very questions. This is almost the mirror image of the logical flow in our discussion:

http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/348

Obviously, this is not going to be resolved here, and it's getting way out of scope for this bicycling forum.
Suffice it to say that the problem is unsettling, and like it or not, people are punished based not only on what is within their control, but sometimes on ramifications that are outside of their control.

A driver can control whether he will drift into a bike lane or not, but he cannot control whether an unnoticed bicyclist will be in there when he does so, yet we punish him differently based on whether that bicyclist is there or not - something he cannot control. I'm not the only one who thinks there is something very troubling about punishing people based on this kind of "moral luck".

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-luck/

If you are interested, look up Harry Frankfurt (amongst others "Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility"), very good read.

I haven't read all the previous posts, but it seems as if the lines between legal punishment and moral judgment are blurred.

 

[Hugh Januss]

It seems simple to me. Whenever you choose to go outside the structure of the "laws". Whether it is talking on a cell phone while driving, speeding in your car, drinking and driving, running stoplights on a bicycle, or not paying attention to where you are driving, or a whole bunch of other activities, you are making a choice. If nothing happens then you got away with something, good for you. If you get caught then you get a lesson, and maybe a fine, short stay in jail, whatever. If, however you make that choice and as a result you ruin or end someone's life, then you accept the consequences and no whining. Unless of course you are rich and can afford a really good team of lawyers.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

It seems simple to me. Whenever you choose to go outside the structure of the "laws". Whether it is talking on a cell phone while driving, speeding in your car, drinking and driving, running stoplights on a bicycle, or not paying attention to where you are driving, or a whole bunch of other activities, you are making a choice. If nothing happens then you got away with something, good for you. If you get caught then you get a lesson, and maybe a fine, short stay in jail, whatever. If, however you make that choice and as a result you ruin or end someone's life, then you accept the consequences and no whining. Unless of course you are rich and can afford a really good team of lawyers.

Ah, so, since no one is capable of paying attention to everything all of the time, and everyone fails to pay attention some of the time, everyone actually deserves "a lesson, maybe a fine, short stay in jail, whatever", but only those unlucky enough to get caught have to pay the price. Simple indeed. But fair and just? Moral? Not so clear.

I don't have an issue with punishing someone who chooses to drink and drive. I do have a problem with meting out severe punishments (e.g., "removing the driver") when what the person did is essentially no different from what everyone else does. And I'm not trying to excuse inexcusable behavior. I'm suggesting we be realistic about inevitable behavior.

For example, I don't habitually run red lights when I'm driving (or bicycling for that matter), but a few years ago we were on a trip, and they had this place near the freeway with two lights maybe 100 feet apart, and as I was approaching the first light the second one turned green and I went, not realizing that the first one was red. It was honest confusion. I wasn't drunk, tired or texting or using a cell phone. I was just a bit distracted trying to figure out which lane I needed to be in to get on the freeway in the right direction, and I overlooked a frickin' red light in an odd and unfamiliar configuration.

Now, I was lucky. Luckily others who had the green were paying better attention than I was at that moment, so the only consequence was my wife screaming at me (which is not insignificant, but obviously it could have been much worse). But if I had been less lucky a cop would have seen it and given me a $200 ticket or whatever. If I had been even less lucky I could've hit another car, pedestrian or bicyclist and maybe even injured or killed someone. It shook me up as it was, and I've had no similar incidents before or after. Now, if I had been unlucky and something much worse had happened, would I have received a valuable lesson for being penalized for that? What could I have possibly learned that I didn't already know?

It's easy to say running a red light or drifting into a bike lane is "inexcusable" behavior, or a "choice" for which someone needs to be punished, but the fact is that it does happen inadvertently to just about everyone from time to time, sooner or later, and, for the unlucky, can have dire consequences. The odds of it happening to you or any one person are very low, but that shouldn't make it okay to punish them severely for it. That's discrimination against the unlucky.

 

[biker9]

the depersonalisation of driving is perhaps the cause of most of the trouble between motorists and bicyclists.those in cars are told by the ad-man to go faster while we on bikes,are to smart for that and are better off for it.You have to remember life is the journey not the destination.

 

[elapid]

That's discrimination against the unlucky.

Its not discrimination. If someone's inattention results in the injury or death of another party, then that bad luck has had consequences. Yes, it will live with the inattentive driver for the rest of their life, but that is also not sufficient when the injured or killed party (and this person's family and friends) would have suffered much much more than the inattentive driver. I don't know where the middle ground is, but I think there needs to be a middle ground. I have no problem with that driver losing their license for some period of time and a fine, but I do have a problem with no punishment and, if the injured party is permanently injured or killed, then I do have a problem with both slaps on the wrist (loss of license and/or fine) and, on the opposite end of the spectrum, jail time. The judicial system needs to develop punishments which are constructive for the injured party and/or family if that person is killed or permanently injured (mentally or physically), but that does not place undue burden on the inattentive driver or threaten their livelihood.

 

[RhodriM]

Good point. We do punish acts of murder more severely than attempted murder. But why? I don't understand the basis for that either. That might be primal revenge too. After all, if the target is not hurt, the primal need for revenge is much less.

I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be harsh penalties for accidental death/injury but intending to cause harm is clearly worse than doing it through negligence.

 

[RhodriM]

I watched a movie recently, I forget which, but attempted or actual robbery of an armoured car carries an jail sentence of 30 years, more than murder and attempted murder. Go figure.

I'm always staggered when I see some of the sentences for crimes against property vs crimes against person.

Those who attempted the Millenium Dome robbery got 18 years. The diamond was worth a fortune, but does that make the crime worse than murder?

 

[Bala Verde]

As Uncle Ben said to Peter Parker: "Remember, with great power comes great responsibility."

When you drive a car, you should be aware of that, and thus be kept to a higher standard.

Sometimes it might occur that you can't be blamed morally for an accident - because it was outside your control - but it would still make sense to pass strict legal judgment.

First of all, that is how the law operates. The law has difficulties deviating from itself, its set precedents, and individualising the offense. The law would be deemed unfair, when in similar cases a different outcome is reached. You could perhaps be morally excused for an inadvertent violation, but the law still requires that you will be punished, whether that is through fines withdrawal of licence or jail time. It's like disputing the fact that you did not see a sign that prohibited you to park somewhere, which unfortunately resulted in a ticket. Or worse, that you were truly unaware of the existence of a certain law, so that you violated it without knowing. You cannot argue that you didn't know - how easy would it be for every offender to argue similarly - you are just supposed to know. Morally perhaps excusable, legally punishable.

Secondly, many will say that the law also acts to influence or guide behaviour, as a deterent or an incentive. If laws put the 'burden of the blame' (e.g. through high fines) on the motorist's shoulders, they are forcing drivers to be more careful, more aware, more vigilant than they would normally be. A potential slip up will now not only result in serious damage to another participant in traffic, but also to oneself.

I wonder btw what kind of laws motorists would like to have adopted when M1 Abrahams Tanks are part of normal traffic.

 

[Fourier]

Try riding a bike (any type of bike) in Latin America, is a scene out of Mad Max, every man for himself out there. No mercy from motorists, no laws to protect cyclists (or even pedestrians). Add also corrupt police forces, robbery, poor road conditions and rainy weather, you have to look out for yourself and your riding buddies.

 

[craig1985]

Saw a woman cyclist nearly get taken out by a car today and it was entirely her fault if she got hit. Because we drive and ride on the left hand side of the road here in Australia, one of the basic rules on the road is to give way to the right, at inter sections and round abouts. Well on today's bunch ride, a lot more people had jumped on that we had passed, and when the pace got a lot faster (38km/h), the bunch split up, and people were trying to bridge the gap to the leading bunch, we came to a fairly busy round about, and the call went out for everybody to slow down, which everybody else heard and all did, except for this woman, she kept on going at full speed, until she saw this car coming straight across her path, to which she braked and suddenly turned left and avoided somehow not getting hit. There was a honk of a horn and and she gave some unprintable comments and middle fingers waved, but I can't see how the car could even be at fault since she was meant to slow down and give way.

Later on the bunch split up with some people turning off to do some more KM's (I would have joined them if I knew what they were doing as I was up towards the front of the bunch), and sitting on the back of this group as they were often hitting speeds of over 40km/h, I noticed their riding style and thought that they all had a death wish, so I was just happy to sit on the back and when I got the chance to turn off and do my own thing, I did.

 

[badboyberty]

Australian B-list celebrities advocate killing cyclists

Did any get Magda Szubanski and Julia Morris's anti-cyclist rant on Good New Week?

They started on moaning about roadies on Beach Rd and progressed to the point where they were yelling "Drive, Just take them out... open the Door... open the Door.. take them out"

Magda is the public face of Jenny Craig Weight Loss and Julia is affiliated with Fernwood Gyms.

Fax complaint form is here http://ten.com.au/media/0610_COMPLAINT_FORM_(website)_1.doc and should be faxed to 02 9650 1111 (NSW),
03 92751011 (VIC), 07 3369 3786 (QLD) , 08 8225 1011 (SA) or 08 9344 8076 (WA).

 

[BigBoat]

I'm always staggered when I see some of the sentences for crimes against property vs crimes against person.

Those who attempted the Millenium Dome robbery got 18 years. The diamond was worth a fortune, but does that make the crime worse than murder?

Money talks far to much in our society. Its really getting sick! Somebody's life or actions are worth X amount...he he he

You read about the doctor that doped his wife to death while having sex with her? He got 2 years and he's out on bail, working for a Chicago law firm right now.

 

[craig1985]

Did any get Magda Szubanski and Julia Morris's anti-cyclist rant on Good New Week?

They started on moaning about roadies on Beach Rd and progressed to the point where they were yelling "Drive, Just take them out... open the Door... open the Door.. take them out"

Magda is the public face of Jenny Craig Weight Loss and Julia is affiliated with Fernwood Gyms.

Fax complaint form is here http://ten.com.au/media/0610_COMPLAINT_FORM_(website)_1.doc and should be faxed to 02 9650 1111 (NSW),
03 92751011 (VIC), 07 3369 3786 (QLD) , 08 8225 1011 (SA) or 08 9344 8076 (WA).

Maybe Kyle Sandilands had a point after all.