Originally Posted by
njkayaker
Therefore, speeders should have their cars impounded.
It isn't clear what action you think should have been taken.
Impounding the adult's bike would likely have been considered an excessive response. And it would not have prevented the person from riding in the future without lights (except for a short window).
(If the bicycle had been impounded, some people here probably would have cried "bicyclist brutality"!)
No...speeding really isn't applicable here. We'd have a hard time making the case that we had a reasonable expectation that simply exceeding the posted speed limit might cause death or injury unless there were other factors involved...driving recklessly or erratically, school zone with kids and peds present, etc. If we assumed that speed alone might cause death or injury (even though it might) we'd have to make driving itself illegal, no?
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
He had an option to keep off of the streets (eg, ride on the sidewalk). A car doesn't.
No, it isn't but that doesn't mean people should be very aware that not all of the facts are there. Keep in mind that the article is leading the reader to draw the inference that "no lights" lead to him being killed.
Valid points, no doubt. I am not trying to prosecute this guy...just showing how he could be held liable.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey