Originally Posted by
livedarklions
Leave it to you to twist a reasonable discussion into some sort of "hysteria". The OP concerns an actual case where a cyclist ran off after killing someone with his bike. We know that's a rare occurrence, but the main reason for having a hit and run statute is to prevent people from leaving someone without aid after they hit them with their vehicle. This is exactly the same act whether it's a bike, a car, a motorcycle or a truck. So why should a bicycle rider be exempt from the penalties for acting in this manner AFTER the unlikely event occurred?
Because the cyclist is NOT exempt from far more robust laws that govern overall human behavior. No one is empowered to kill another person with impunity. Except automobile drivers actually. As long as they remain at the scene after a ̶k̶i̶l̶l̶i̶n̶g̶ accident, a driver, even if intoxicated, texting, whatever, is not actually guilty of murder. They are guilty only of whatever traffic statutes they may have violated. And we know this is true from the many, many stories linked here of drivers walking away from ... accidents, where cyclists died, with nary a blemish on their criminal record. It is left to the victims next of kin to mount some kind of Civil Action like a Wrongful Death Petition on their own dime if they want to get any justice for their loved one. A cyclist is no more free to kill another human being and run away, than anyone else. Isn't that enough?
Originally Posted by
livedarklions
By your logic, since people rarely murder each other by forcing them to drink bleach, it shouldn't be illegal to force someone to drink bleach, forcing someone to drink bleach shouldn't be considered murder.
That is not at all my logic. That is your interpretation. Your biased interpretation.
[QUOTE=livedarklions;21529642]You have a very good argument against regulation of general applicability like requiring licenses and liability insurance for bicyclists, but since no one on this thread is proposing that, that's completely besides the point.
It isn't beside the point because if you are going to drag cyclists into that class of road users liable for property and personal injury claims due to their unsafe operation of their vehicles, then cyclists MUST also be protected with the same liability insurance that other drivers MUST have, which necessitates an evaluation of the risk the underwriter is assuming which leads to road testing, licensing, etc. This is what comes from the decision to classify 30lb. commuter bicycles and their ilk the same as a Ford Fiesta or a Ford Escape for that matter. Whose bright idea was that? I get that most cyclists don't mind. It's like some kind of validation. I don't know if anyone has noticed but the roads are filling up with all kinds of non-automobile human traffic. A good rollerblader can maintain the same speed as an average cyclist. Unpowered skateboards on a downslope can easily match a fit cyclist and with less effort. Are these 'vehicles' too? Actually when I look over bicycle vehicle codes, I don't see that they are, in fact, classified the same as motor vehicles. Good places to operate a bicycle like Portland, OR recognize the differences between a bicycle and a car and this will only increase going forward.