From: eoates@us.oracle.com
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles,rec.autos.driving,ca.driving,rec.motorcycles
Subject: Re: Car vs Cycle vs Bike vs Ped--The Main Point
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:58:04 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation, USA

In article <1992Apr5.072018.14154@cs.ucla.edu>, coleman@rocky.cs.ucla.edu (Mike Coleman) writes:
> I've been watching this discussion dawdle off in several directions, but no
> one seems to have stated what I see as the main point (sorry if I missed
> someone's post).
> 
> What is The Main Point, you ask?
> 
> 	People who operate cars often cause wrongful deaths and injuries;
> 	pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists rarely do. 
> 
> (More specifically, motorcyclists are somewhat worse than bicyclists, who are
> somewhat worse than pedestrians, but they all pale in comparison to car
> drivers.)
> 
> I'm not claiming that, say, bicyclists are better about obeying traffic laws
> than drivers.  Though I doubt it, maybe they are worse.  It's irrelevant.  The
> point is that, figuratively speaking, they are playing with pop guns while car
> drivers are using automatic weapons.  When a two-wheeler or pedestrian screws
> up, they typically are hurt or killed themselves, but incur little or no
> bystander liability; the opposite is true for automobile operators.
> 
> Heinlein says,
> 
> 	Sin consists in hurting other people unnecessarily.  
> 	Hurting yourself is not a sin, just stupid. 
> 
> This is the crucial point that destroys the foundation for childish driver
> arguments such as "bicyclists don't stop at stop signs; why should I have to?"
> 
> Why do you suppose it is that motorcycle liability insurance is so inexpensive
> while auto liability is so costly?  Because insurance companies have a soft
> spot in their hearts for bikers?  Hah!  It's because motorcyclists incur much
> less liability per mile than car drivers.  And you can bet that if pedestrians
> and bicyclists were incurring any liability worth mention, public outrage
> would have caused legislatures to require them to carry liability insurance.
> (As they have recently shown here in California, they aren't worried about
> incurring the wrath of two-wheelers.)
> 
> I think the modern apathy towards the value of human life on the roads is the
> essence of evil.  The attitude is: If it's expedient, just don't worry about
> it.
> 
> Several posters opined that giving the woman a long jail term would be cruel,
> or that it was unnecessary, or that it wouldn't deter anyone else or even her
> in the future.  To me, all of this just doesn't matter.  The point is, at
> least for the term of her jail sentence, she absolutely won't kill anyone with
> her car again.  Pulling her license would also have this effect, except that
> this is unenforceable in our current society.  (When's the last time *you*
> were pulled over?)
> 
> I recently found myself in a gun safety instruction course being taught by an
> NRA instructor.  I've always thought of the NRA as a collection of gun nuts
> and heartless bad guys, but that instructor's first sentence completely
> destroyed my previous impression.
> 
> He said, "THERE ARE NO GUN ACCIDENTS."  Anyone who has taken such a course
> knows the principles and attitude taught.  Always treat a gun as if it were
> loaded, particularly if you have not checked it yourself.  Guns are serious;
> guns can kill.  You are responsible for not killing someone with a gun.  Fail
> safe.  *Fail* *safe*.
> 
> Imagine what it would be like to live in a world where drivers followed that
> principle.  Fail safe.  "I won't run this red light, because a pedestrian
> might step into the crosswalk when his light turns green."  "I won't try to
> squeeze by this bicyclist because he might have to swerve to miss something,
> and if we connect, he will likely be seriously injured or killed."  "I won't
> pull out in front of this motorcyclist, even though it's unlikely that I would
> be hurt in my car, because he may not be able to stop, and would probably be
> killed."  "Whether I cause an avoidable death is more important than whether
> or not I am legally culpable."  "I can take a few extra seconds to save my
> fellow human's life."  "I care."
> 
> What a place that would be.
> 
> Peace,
> Mike
> -- 
> --Mike Coleman (coleman@cs.ucla.edu), Ringmaster, Boelter Hall Roach Circus--
> 	    It could be worse--you could be bicycling in Florida.

That certainly is one of the points of the bike thread.  The other is that
causing death or injury with a car is not considered a serious offense even if
the death was due to severe negligence.  

A comment of bicycler law observance: mostly they don't and qualify for
Heinlein's second phrase (..."stupid.").  Bicylers (and motorcylers and car
drivers) should always consider the consequences of their actions (such as
riding in bike paks blocking all lanes on a two lane road and wondering why a
car coming around a curve runs them all down; or cars wandering all over the
bike lanes instead of driving in the 15 feet they are alloted, etc.) - but
rarely will any of those groups of road users consider anything - that requires
an IQ greater than the number of wheels on the vehicle, and even if you drive
an 18 wheeler, it would seem most drivers don't qualify.

Ed Oates, Oracle (my opinions, not the guys who pay my salary).