Old 03-09-07, 10:38 AM
  #12  
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Bikepacker67
Ohh come on Skanking Biker, surely keeping your eyes OFF the road for extended periods (more than 3 seconds), while you travel 70 feet per second constitutes recklessness.

At least to anyone with a brain. Put it this way... would a normal driver feel their life was in danger if they where going 45mph with a blindfold on for the time that little Jenny was downloading her ringtone?
It depends - there is a difference, under the law, between negligence and recklessness.

Negligence is failure to act with the prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances.

Recklessness is wanton disregard for the dangers of a situation.

So basically, if she didn't observe any obvious danger from her actions, ie. traffic in close enough proximity that she might run into, she was merely negligent.

That's the way the law works, dude...words and their interpretation. While you or I might agree that she was reckless for taking her eyes off the road at all, proving it in a court is an entirely different animal.
__________________
"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
chipcom is offline