Door prize and a ticket to hereafter

Luke

Such was the fate of a Toronto cyclist this past week.

http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/2183#comments

Tom Keats

In article <250520080235266201%lucasiragusa@rogers.com>,
Luke <lucasiragusa@rogers.com> writes:
>
> Such was the fate of a Toronto cyclist this past week.
>
> http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/2183#comments

What a needless and unfortunate death!
Just because someone couldn't be bothered
to look before heedlessly flinging a car
door into a traffic stream.

Now there's a big hue & cry about punishing
the car-door-flinging offender, instead of
fixing the root of the problem.

I guess so many people endemically forget there
is other traffic besides motor vehicles. That's
why I appreciate how Critical Mass contributes
toward reminding people that, y'know, there
are other things out there besides motor vehicles,
too. Like, for instance: /people/!

And before anyone pipes up about how the rider
should have taken the lane, I submit it's not
always possible to do so on many urban arterial
streets. It's so easy to be an armchair quarterback.
It's not about what the rider should have done;
it's about what the driver should /not/ have done.

Actually, it's about how people should behave
among ourselves, and that transcends any legalism.

I find it most saddening and disappointing that
so many people are so unwilling to look out for
our fellows, to the point of unwittingly killing
'em in moments of blithe, self-centred ignorance.
Whudda buncha pigs we people can be. Especially
when seated behind a steering wheel and two or
three actuating pedals.


klahowya,
Tom

--
Shame is the ultimate punishment.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Frank Krygowski

On May 25, 4:30 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <250520080235266201%lucasirag...@rogers.com>,
> Luke <lucasirag...@rogers.com> writes:
>
>
>
> > Such was the fate of a Toronto cyclist this past week.
>
> >http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/2183#comments
>
> What a needless and unfortunate death!
> Just because someone couldn't be bothered
> to look before heedlessly flinging a car
> door into a traffic stream.
>
> Now there's a big hue & cry about punishing
> the car-door-flinging offender, instead of
> fixing the root of the problem.

Punishing the car-door-flinger is one step that would help fix the
root of the problem. The woman clearly violated the law. Her
violation was the direct cause of a person's death. Should we give
her an award?

> And before anyone pipes up about how the rider
> should have taken the lane, I submit it's not
> always possible to do so on many urban arterial
> streets.

Why? Or more specifically, why could the cyclist not have taken the
lane in this case? http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Eglint...tario,+Cana da
or http://tinyurl.com/3uyo7n makes it look like a busy city street,
probably with a low speed limit. Take the lane! It's better than
trusting your life to a cell-phone-chatting motorist in a hurry.

> It's so easy to be an armchair quarterback.
> It's not about what the rider should have done;
> it's about what the driver should /not/ have done.

It's about both.

- Frank Krygowski

Brian Huntley

On May 25, 7:29 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why? Or more specifically, why could the cyclist not have taken the
> lane in this case? http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Eglint...ar+Ave,+Toronto,...
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/3uyo7nmakes it look like a busy city street,
> probably with a low speed limit. Take the lane! It's better than
> trusting your life to a cell-phone-chatting motorist in a hurry.

It is a very busy city street. It does not have a low speed limit,
although that particular stretch isn't particularly speedy. It's a
major cross-town road in a city of 2.5 million (5 million in the metro
area), and that intersection is about a 5 blocks off Yonge Street,
which is Toronto's main street.

Eglinton Avenue is also hilly and is a major bus route (thanks to a
previous government killing a subway project that was already in
progress.) As well, the north-south streets don't connect straight
across from each other, so cars and trucks are constantly zig-zagging,
passing buses, and accelerating up the slopes.

I've never understood while parking is allowed there, but people seem
to think it's a God-given right. God gives, God takes.

Tom Keats

In article <4edb07df-56fa-434a-a9de-a7ff3eb6d608@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gmail.com> writes:
> On May 25, 4:30 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>> In article <250520080235266201%lucasirag...@rogers.com>,
>> Luke <lucasirag...@rogers.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Such was the fate of a Toronto cyclist this past week.
>>
>> >http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/2183#comments
>>
>> What a needless and unfortunate death!
>> Just because someone couldn't be bothered
>> to look before heedlessly flinging a car
>> door into a traffic stream.
>>
>> Now there's a big hue & cry about punishing
>> the car-door-flinging offender, instead of
>> fixing the root of the problem.
>
> Punishing the car-door-flinger is one step that would help fix the
> root of the problem. The woman clearly violated the law. Her
^^^^^^^

Maybe not so clearly. People have it so ingrained & engrammed
into us to watch out for /cars/, we're often blindly oblivious
to anything else.

So the driver is apparently getting off scot-free because
her misjudgement seems to be deemed "understandable."
That's hardly a clear violation of the law.

At any rate, she now has to live with herself.


> violation was the direct cause of a person's death. Should we give
> her an award?

What do you wanna do -- hang her from the streelight standard
nearest the incident, and feed her dead body to the crows?
Maybe we should keel-haul her, or have her drawn 'n quartered
by four bicycles, or inflict horrific Vlad The Impaler stuff
on her.

While you're at it, you could complain about how my
massive snippage of your post destroys your context.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Tom Keats

In article <4edb07df-56fa-434a-a9de-a7ff3eb6d608@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gmail.com> writes:

>> And before anyone pipes up about how the rider
>> should have taken the lane, I submit it's not
>> always possible to do so on many urban arterial
>> streets.
>
> Why? Or more specifically, why could the cyclist not have taken the
> lane in this case? http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Eglint...tario,+Cana da
> or http://tinyurl.com/3uyo7n makes it look like a busy city street,
> probably with a low speed limit. Take the lane! It's better than
> trusting your life to a cell-phone-chatting motorist in a hurry.
>
>> It's so easy to be an armchair quarterback.
>> It's not about what the rider should have done;
>> it's about what the driver should /not/ have done.
[snippage restored]
>>
>> Actually, it's about how people should behave
>> among ourselves, and that transcends any legalism.

You're just blaming the victim in a pathetic attempt
to be argumentative for some obscure reason known
only to yourself.

I'm not gonna play [with you.]

I guess the next sentence is so inferrable,
I shouldn't have to utter it.

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Frank Krygowski

On May 25, 10:20 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <4edb07df-56fa-434a-a9de-a7ff3eb6d...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On May 25, 4:30 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> >> In article <250520080235266201%lucasirag...@rogers.com>,
> >> Luke <lucasirag...@rogers.com> writes:
>
> >> > Such was the fate of a Toronto cyclist this past week.
>
> >> >http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/2183#comments
>
> >> What a needless and unfortunate death!
> >> Just because someone couldn't be bothered
> >> to look before heedlessly flinging a car
> >> door into a traffic stream.
>
> >> Now there's a big hue & cry about punishing
> >> the car-door-flinging offender, instead of
> >> fixing the root of the problem.
>
> > Punishing the car-door-flinger is one step that would help fix the
> > root of the problem. The woman clearly violated the law. Her
>
> ^^^^^^^
>
> Maybe not so clearly. People have it so ingrained & engrammed
> into us to watch out for /cars/, we're often blindly oblivious
> to anything else.
>
> So the driver is apparently getting off scot-free because
> her misjudgement seems to be deemed "understandable."
> That's hardly a clear violation of the law.

To paraphrase: The law makes it illegal to open a door in such a way
as to harm others. She opened the door in a way that directly caused
a death. Seems pretty clear to me!

> At any rate, she now has to live with herself.

That could be said of every violator of every law in the land -
except, perhaps, illegal suicides. It's meaningless.

> > violation was the direct cause of a person's death. Should we give
> > her an award?
>
> What do you wanna do -- hang her from the streelight standard
> nearest the incident, and feed her dead body to the crows?
> Maybe we should keel-haul her, or have her drawn 'n quartered
> by four bicycles, or inflict horrific Vlad The Impaler stuff
> on her.

Drop the hyperbole. A little if OK for literary purposes. Going over
the top just shows you're not willing to engage logically.

If given a free hand, here's what I'd do: I'd say she could never,
ever drive again. As I've said before, driving is a privilege, and
that privilege should be permanently revoked any time any motorist
causes a death. If you don't lose the privilege for that most
grevious act, what act would be worse?

Also, I'd have her face and that fact on billboards, newspapers and TV
screens. Shame is under-utilized as a deterrent in our society.

But I recognize our society is seriously twisted in the privileges it
gives to motorists. So, realistically, I think she should be
prosecuted as harshly as the law allows, and I think the entire
process should receive maximum publicity. She should get the maximum
possible penalty, and I hope it's enough that other motorists would
say "Wow. I've _really_ got to be more careful."

> While you're at it, you could complain about how my
> massive snippage of your post destroys your context.

I've never once complained about snipping posts. In fact, the only
person I know that does so is the terminally inept Bill Sornson.

- Frank Krygowski

Pat

I think you are underestimating the part about her having to live with it
for the rest of her life. Once, I went to pick up some boys to take to Cub
Scouts, and a little boy ran out of his apartment house, hit some ice, and
slid under my car! I didn't even run over him, but the memory of that has
stayed with me since, and that was in 1984. Just thinking of what could have
happened gives me shivers! And, I didn't even hit him!

So, she will have those memories of causing someone's death in her head for
the rest of her life--memories which come upon her at random times such as
when she almost nods off to sleep.

Yes, she should be prosecuted more severely. I'm just saying don't just
brush off the memories she'll have to deal with.

DennisTheBald

Maybe it's not the door opener but the runner over that would be
subject to punishment. I'm not sure that the bicyclist's sudden
falling after hitting the door negates the motorist's obligation not
to run over him. I doubt that the actual dooring bit of the incident
would have been fatal without the running over bit.

I wasn't there, didn't see it happen, and generally that's what the
police are gonna say too... That's probably why so few motorists are
ever held accountable for the damage that they do with their motors,
we all say that since we didn't actually see what happened it may be
that there is no way it could have been avoided.

Tom Keats

In article <7380b92f-8fa6-42b3-8691-b3191b837cf0@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gmail.com> writes:
> On May 25, 10:20 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>> In article <4edb07df-56fa-434a-a9de-a7ff3eb6d...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On May 25, 4:30 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>> >> In article <250520080235266201%lucasirag...@rogers.com>,
>> >> Luke <lucasirag...@rogers.com> writes:
>>
>> >> > Such was the fate of a Toronto cyclist this past week.
>>
>> >> >http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/2183#comments
>>
>> >> What a needless and unfortunate death!
>> >> Just because someone couldn't be bothered
>> >> to look before heedlessly flinging a car
>> >> door into a traffic stream.
>>
>> >> Now there's a big hue & cry about punishing
>> >> the car-door-flinging offender, instead of
>> >> fixing the root of the problem.
>>
>> > Punishing the car-door-flinger is one step that would help fix the
>> > root of the problem. The woman clearly violated the law. Her
>>
>> ^^^^^^^
>>
>> Maybe not so clearly. People have it so ingrained & engrammed
>> into us to watch out for /cars/, we're often blindly oblivious
>> to anything else.
>>
>> So the driver is apparently getting off scot-free because
>> her misjudgement seems to be deemed "understandable."
>> That's hardly a clear violation of the law.
>
> To paraphrase: The law makes it illegal to open a door in such a way
> as to harm others. She opened the door in a way that directly caused
> a death. Seems pretty clear to me!

You paraphrase (or rather, /infer/) my point mistakenly.

Was she in an environment that would induce her to look
for bicyclists before swinging that car door open?
I'm not excusing her, but I can see how the gears of the
minds of the judiciary work.

>> At any rate, she now has to live with herself.
>
> That could be said of every violator of every law in the land -
> except, perhaps, illegal suicides. It's meaningless.

In cases of illegal suicides, it's especially meaningless,
since suicides don't have to live with themselves.

>> > violation was the direct cause of a person's death. Should we give
>> > her an award?
>>
>> What do you wanna do -- hang her from the streelight standard
>> nearest the incident, and feed her dead body to the crows?
>> Maybe we should keel-haul her, or have her drawn 'n quartered
>> by four bicycles, or inflict horrific Vlad The Impaler stuff
>> on her.
>
> Drop the hyperbole. A little if OK for literary purposes. Going over
> the top just shows you're not willing to engage logically.
>
> If given a free hand, here's what I'd do: I'd say she could never,
> ever drive again. As I've said before, driving is a privilege, and
> that privilege should be permanently revoked any time any motorist
> causes a death.

I agree.

>If you don't lose the privilege for that most
> grevious act, what act would be worse?

I'm afraid I don't grok that.

> Also, I'd have her face and that fact on billboards, newspapers and TV
> screens. Shame is under-utilized as a deterrent in our society.

I guess you didn't notice my modified tag-line in my post, where
I suggested shame is the ultimate punishment. But unlike ROW,
shame is taken, not given.

> But I recognize our society is seriously twisted in the privileges it
> gives to motorists. So, realistically, I think she should be
> prosecuted as harshly as the law allows, and I think the entire
> process should receive maximum publicity. She should get the maximum
> possible penalty, and I hope it's enough that other motorists would
> say "Wow. I've _really_ got to be more careful."

I prefer considered & balanced justice on an individual basis.

>> While you're at it, you could complain about how my
>> massive snippage of your post destroys your context.
>
> I've never once complained about snipping posts.

But you sure can edit other people's posts!

That's okay, so can I :-|

> In fact, the only
> person I know that does so is the terminally inept Bill Sornson.

Anyway, I apologize for, and regret my other distasteful
post to you in this thread. I became too passionate about
the issue, and temporarily lost my reason and sociability.
I hope you can forgive me.

You seem to have that effect on people :-) <chuckle>

But y'know what? Wide outside lanes on urban arterial streets
(as opposed to lined bike lanes) don't necessarily obviate the
dangers of dooring.

And, in practice, on urban arterial streets, there's always the
"squeeze play" on so many occasions.


peace,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Aeek

On Sat, 31 May 2008 03:38:41 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats)
wrote:

>Was she in an environment that would induce her to look
>for bicyclists before swinging that car door open?

like on the edge of a road, where cyclists ride?

>I'm not excusing her, but I can see how the gears of the
>minds of the judiciary work.

The car driving judicary.

Tom Keats

In article <u7f244p7hn6jruvs9l13720qadq3ohi89h@4ax.com>,
Aeek <aeeeeeek@tpg.com.au> writes:

>>I'm not excusing her, but I can see how the gears of the
>>minds of the judiciary work.
>
> The car driving judicary.

The Judiciary pretty much /is/ comprised of carheads.

Those are the cards stacked against us.

We can bitch about it, knock ourselves out trying to
change it, deny it, or just deal with it.

Historically, we've mostly just dealt with it.

Maybe that's something to think about. That,
and the fact that we riders haven't yet been
really and truly repressed. We're irrepressible.
Always have been, always will be.


cheers,
Tom

--
Not Dead Yet
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca