Advocacy & Safety - Digg It

There is a lot of silliness in many of these comments. It's really not so hard to understand: If you chose to violate the law, to chose to accept all of the foreseeable conseqeunces that flow from it. If you chose to blow a stop sign or a light, you agree to accept the things that might happen to you, from nothing, to getting a ticket, to getting killed. There is a difference between choosing to blow thorugh a stop sign on a lightly traveled country road where you can easily see what coming, and running a stop light and hoping nothing happens. Personal responsibility really isn't hard to understand.

If I'm shooting at the gun range and someone jumps in front whose fault is it? What if the gun range were next to a park? What if I was pointing my gun at the park because it is in the same direction as the targets?

Every motorist is aware that there could be pedestrians, cyclists or other motorists around, and yet the blast down the road with 2000 pounds of steal at speeds in excess of 30 mph. How much closer do they have to point their weapons at innocent bystanders in order for you to consider them responsible? Isn't it enough that I'm shooting in the same direction of the park? Does it have to be point blank in order for you to consider the weapon holder responsible?
Vice President Cheney did not go to jail for accidentally shooting his friend in the face.

Vice President Cheney did not go to jail for accidentally shooting his friend in the face.

Happens all the time...

No straw men being created here, just commenting upon your inability to support the claim that you have made. Specifically:

"Also, I don't lose any sleep over my contribution to "slave labor". I support "slave labor". If it weren't better than what were otherwise available to the people being "enslaved" then they wouldn't be participating."

I particularly like the bolded bit.

Well, feel free to give as many ignorant comments as you like. As long as you agree that your comments are your uninformed opinion and in no way related to my actual position then I'm perfectly happy to let them stand. However, the fact remains that I am perfectly capable of supporting my claims and will do so if you establish a separate thread.

Since you are the only one drinking his kool aid, then what is the driver’s responsibility to the cyclist that chose to run the stop and was regrettably killed?

In Belgium it is legally the driver's responsibility as it is in any country with a moral legal standard. In fact, there was a big stink (http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/20620/ETRA-apologises-for-incorrect-motorist-liability-press-release) just a few years ago that such liability might be forced upon all members of the EU.

But you wouldn't care about that now would you? As long as the US gov't allows you to kill people you're perfectly happy to continue doing so, right? Nevermind what is right or what is wrong or whether or not we should fight for a more moral legal standard, right? :rolleyes:

There is a lot of silliness in many of these comments. It's really not so hard to understand: If you chose to violate the law, to chose to accept all of the foreseeable conseqeunces that flow from it. If you chose to blow a stop sign or a light, you agree to accept the things that might happen to you, from nothing, to getting a ticket, to getting killed. There is a difference between choosing to blow thorugh a stop sign on a lightly traveled country road where you can easily see what coming, and running a stop light and hoping nothing happens. Personal responsibility really isn't hard to understand.

The only thing silly here is that you seem to think that your easy to understand rule is a moral one. Just because someone is a law breaker that does not morally absolve the rest of society from the consequences of their actions. Running a red light will never, in itself, kill anyone. There are multiple causes and the death of a red light running cyclist is the consequence of the decision to drive to a much greater extent than it is the consequence of a cyclist running a red light.

Maybe our culture should adopt a custom of throwing stones in the streets. Then it would be a jaywalker's fault for getting stoned right? :rolleyes: It works in Afghanistan.

In Belgium it is legally the driver's responsibility as it is in any country with a moral legal standard. In fact, there was a big stink (http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/20620/ETRA-apologises-for-incorrect-motorist-liability-press-release) just a few years ago that such liability might be forced upon all members of the EU.

But you wouldn't care about that now would you? As long as the US gov't allows you to kill people you're perfectly happy to continue doing so, right? Nevermind what is right or what is wrong or whether or not we should fight for a more moral legal standard, right? :rolleyes:
So you're saying the driver is at fault if some inattentive cyclist pedals out 2 feet in front of a car going 30mph? The driver cannot possibly stop or swerve to avoid someone who does that. It's not possible. You'd have to defy physics to stop. And some member states of the EU want to blame a driver for injuries an inattentive cyclist or pedestrian caused by creating a situation where a collision is unavoidable?

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. It's called personal responsibility. You watch for the car if they've go the right of way, or you suffer the consequences when you cause a collision. How difficult is it for you to wrap the idea around your brain that you can be responsible for a collision when you run a red light? It's not the moral thing to blame someone and charge them with a crime because they aren't a magician who can bend the laws of physics to stop within two feet for your impatient ass.

I thought we went over the way the law works, but clearly you don't understand. Don't expect any sympathy if you end up learning the law the hard way.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

That comment alone should be considered sufficient.

So you're saying the driver is at fault if some inattentive cyclist pedals out 2 feet in front of a car going 30mph? The driver cannot possibly stop or swerve to avoid someone who does that. It's not possible. You'd have to defy physics to stop. And some member states of the EU want to blame a driver for injuries an inattentive cyclist or pedestrian caused by creating a situation where a collision is unavoidable?

You don't have to defy physics anymore than you have to defy physics in order to prevent yourself from impaling your neighbor on a steak knife. It's very simple, if you don't lunge at your neighbor with a steak knife then you won't have to worry about it being too late to stop yourself from being a murderer. Likewise, if you don't accelerate a ton of steal to 30mph then you won't have to worry about bearing the responsibility of stopping it.


That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. It's called personal responsibility. You watch for the car if they've go the right of way, or you suffer the consequences when you cause a collision. How difficult is it for you to wrap the idea around your brain that you can be responsible for a collision when you run a red light? It's not the moral thing to blame someone and charge them with a crime because they aren't a magician who can bend the laws of physics to stop within two feet for your impatient ass.

I thought we went over the way the law works, but clearly you don't understand. Don't expect any sympathy if you end up learning the law the hard way.

Excuse me? You're the one that needs to learn the law. You seem to think that the law is handed down from above and that you don't have a responsibility to influence the laws to be right and just. It doesn't work that way. You can and should do all you can to insure that moral laws are passed and unjust laws are reformed.

You want to talk about personal responsibility? You can start by not blaming the consequences of your actions on physics and by taking the responsibility to fight for laws which reflect personal responsibility for those actions (like they have in Belgium).

The sad thing is that you'll probably never learn, not even the hard way. You'll probably just continue victimizing people weaker than you until the day you die, rationalizing your selfish and hurtful actions with circular nonsense about physics and law. It makes me sick.

That comment alone should be considered sufficient.

Speaking of stupid comments...but I expect no less from you. Indeed, when have you ever given careful reflection to your posts?

Let me put this another way: You're riding your bike at about 25mph and a pedestrian steps out a few feet in front of you. You don't have time to miss them. You hit the ped, and fly off your bike, into the ground.

You beak several bones, and the bike has sustained damage too. But guess what? By your logic, you're at fault! Not only do you have to pay for your own medical expenses and damaged bike, but you have to pay for the injuries the ped sustained as well. Is that fair? Is that just? I'm guessing you're going to try to say it's different because your a bicyclist, but no, because you are a vehicle, you'd be guilty by your own, incredibly stupid reasoning that whatever is largest in a collision must assume all fault.

You want to talk about personal responsibility? You can start with not blaming the consequences of your actions on physics and fighting for laws which reflect personal responsibility for those actions (like they have in Belgium).
No, see, that's the opposite of personal responsibility. It's irresponsible (an illegal) to step out into the road without looking for cross traffic. It's irresponsible (and illegal) to run red lights. And it is the absolute opposite of personal responsibilty to blame other people for things that result of your impatience.

I wasn't sure, but now you've made it clear. So you hate cars. Guess what? That doesn't make the laws governing the flow of traffic "immoral". I've never heard a stupider argument made by anyone trying to assert absolute dominance of the road. You are the definition of a "cager"; closed mind, no consideration for anyone else.

Anyone else want in before the lock?

Too late.