| Re: I wonder how things would have been different if he'd been wearing a helmet [message #796700] |
Sun, 02 March 2008 20:43 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: I wonder how things would have been different if he'd been wearing a helmet [message #796703 ] |
Sun, 02 March 2008 21:17 |
|
["Followup-To:" header set to ca.driving.]
On 2008-03-02, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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).
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
|
|
|
| Re: I wonder how things would have been different if he'd been [message #796735 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 02:35 |
|
On Mar 2, 12:43 pm, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
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.
|
|
|
| Re: I wonder how things would have been different if he'd been wearing a helmet [message #796746 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 04:26 |
|
In article <hf0ms35m6v8fugfhftjvbmncmj2o6nu71j [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:46:32 -0800, The Man Behind The Curtain
><noway [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> 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.
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.
|
|
|
| Re: I wonder how things would have been different if he'd been wearing a helmet [message #796753 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 04:39 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: I wonder how things would have been different if he'd been wearing a helmet [message #796768 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 06:00 |
|
>>["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.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
|
|
|
| Re: I wonder how things would have been different if he'd been wearing a helmet [message #796785 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 15:15 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: I wonder how things would have been different if he'd been wearing a helmet [message #796807 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 17:16 |
|
["Followup-To:" header set to ca.driving.]
On 2008-03-03, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
|
|
|
| Re: I wonder how things would have been different if he'd been [message #796854 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 20:27 |
|
On Mar 3, 6:15=A0am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 05:00:12 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
>
> <sjso... [at] JustThe.net> wrote:
> >>>Please stop with the generalizations. I'm liberal and I don't agree tha=
t 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. :)
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.
|
|
|
| Re: I wonder how things would have been different if he'd been wearing a helmet [message #796874 ] |
Mon, 03 March 2008 22:49 |
|
["Followup-To:" header set to ca.driving.]
On 2008-03-03, Ed Pirrero <gcmschemist [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>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. :)
>
> 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.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
|
|
|
| Re: I wonder how things would have been different if he'd been wearing a helmet [message #797751 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 07:15 |
|
>> 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").
|
|
|
