From: schaffer@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Doug Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Kill a Biker, Go to Jail. NOT!!!
Organization: U. of Calgary Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 00:02:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.220820.19084@cbfsb.cb.att.com> ashaw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (andrew.shaw) writes:
>From article <1992Apr3.220019.16983@ncsu.edu>, by steve@bucolix.ece.ncsu.edu (Steve Garnier):
[bunch'o'stuff deleted]
>> 
>> "Accidents *do* happen."  Suuuuuuurrrrre.  You want to label the fact that 
[stuff deleted]
>> simply because the cager never observed the cyclist.  Yes, that is a mistake
>> on the part of the cager; a very fatal mistake...but it is not an "accident".  
>What do you think an accident is?  An accident is a mistake.  As
>differentiated from an intentional act.
>
>> The cyclist didn't have time to take corrective action.  The only thing you 
>> can accuse the cyclist of is not being defensive enough to anticipate every
>> stinking brain-dead action that fools-in-cars are prone to.  Too often, 
>> members of our society, instead of addressing the real issues of vehicular
>> safety in a manner consistent with rational beings, merely label vehicle 
>> collisions as "accidents", and therefore absolve themselves of scrutinizing 
>> and taking constructive action against the real causes of such trauma: idiocy,
>> intoxication, poor operator-training, minimal licensing qualification criteria,
>> extremely low operator performance expectations, and irrational and 
>> inconsistent enforcement policies.  But don't call this kind of crap an
>> "accident" because it's not; when somebody dies like this, it's manslaughter,
>> and there's very, very rarely "no-fault".  To me, the word "accident" implies
>> "no-fault".
>
>To me it implies one or more mistakes.  The driver made a mistake in
>pulling out.  The motorcyclist made a mistake in operating a vehicle
                   ^^^^^
>with inadequate protection.

I believe the discussion was centered around a cyclist, as in bicyle, but
the original post (not included) may prove otherwise.  In any respect, just 
what would adequate protection for a motorcyclist be? 5000 lbs of steel?
Should this be manditory for all bicyclists as well, in order to ensure
*they* do not make this fatal mistake when biking (boy...that getcha some
exercise !! :-)

Is inattentiveness or incompetence enough to absolve a driver of the
consequences of "accidents" he or she causes?  

>>>For this reason motorcycles are known to be dangerous.
>>
>> Oh, Boy!  What an absolutely fantastic gem of knowledge this is!  Read on...

I agree 100%  Boy if I'd known then what I know now...I certainly wouldn't
have gone and bought one (Mom woulda been happy:-).  I probably wouldn't 
have bought my Civic 7 years ago either.  Much too dangerous!  Everyone
knows it.  Certainly wouldn't have bought a mountain bike!  Oh no!  I'd
never have gotten my stereo...I could go deaf..yipes (my *head* might even
explode if I turn it up *REAL* load (which, by the way, I never do :-) :-)
In fact, I'd want to get rid off all of my electrical appliances.  Do you 
know the harm that all those dangerous electrical appliances cane do to a 
persone with *inadequate protection*??!!  I guess I'll just live in my 5000 
lb steel cage and feel safe and sound.  But wait, there is still electricity
that is flowin in my house.  That's gonna have to go.  I'd hate for it to 
mix it up with my steel cage, which suddenly seems like *inadequate 
protection*.  Oh...Why did I have to be born into this fatal world??? :-)

The operator's responsibility, of *any* vehicle, is to operate it in a
competent and careful manner.  This is a responsibility that too many in
society take *too* lightly.  If people *thought* more (and concentrated on)
what they were doing, and *anticipated* possible "dangerous" circumstances,
then most "accidents" :-( would cease to occur.  (This would have the
added benefit of reducing the number of insurance, uh, people required to
service the truly unexpectable occurences, and hopefully only the "good"
would survive.  As well, insurance *premiums* would plummet, and the
economy would be boosted by all of those extra "disposable" dollars in
circulate.  But I digress... :-)  

Seriously,  its not (or at least *should not* :-( ) be okay to shrug of
accidents, with or without fatalities, to simply "Uh...I wasn't paying
attention.  Oops on me!"
 
>> All sarcasm aside, I would prefer that we start training people to drive/ride

Here, here!  Rather than pass stories about all the stupid things people do,
lets make people better drivers so we no longer get the stories.  (I am
sure we can find something *else* to talk about! :-)

>Well, I'm all for more training and stringent licensing requirements.
>But if you think that you can create the perfect, risk-free environment,
>you are sadly mistaken.
>
>	Andrew

Alas, we are resigned to our fate, because the majority of us, those who 
think we drive better than the majority of those out on the road (wouldn't
that scare some people...if only they could grasp what it really meant? :-),
certainly realize that all that driver education stuff if for all those
other lousy drivers.  Governments don't have the b*lls (I meant bells...
really :-) to create regulations that would require competence to operate a 
vehicle, because the backlash from all of the people who would be deprived
of their *right* to drive on *their* roads would be enormous, not to mention
the fact they they, themselves might be incompetent to drive (a generalization,
I know...).  

Aside:  How much does one square foot of highway cost?  How much highway
can the average taxpayer claim to *own*?  I'd bet it not darn much!

Doug Schaffer, University of Calgary, schaffer@cpsc.ucalgary.ca