Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Nov 20, 2010.
Driver who mowed down kid blames the parents, sues
is a helmet even required in that state?
apparently there is one if under 16
I always disliked those nanny laws. When I was 13 they passed a helmet law for anyone under 18. I went from riding a bike for an hour every weekday and usually 6 to 10 hours on weekends to never riding a bike again. All my friends stopped riding bikes too.
I know kids now probably accept helmets for the most part since they were raised with them as being normal. It was horrible for the health of my age group though. Since you are not going to convince a kid or teenager that grew up seeing helmets as something for dweebs to suddenly start wearing them because of a law. When they could simply stop the recreation and sit around playing cool SNES or Genesis games instead.
So what? Being cool is better than having your health?
Ah, yes, seems as if that's your opinion. How superficial can one be?
PSRI here we come!
Also, the man should first serve his sentence, then sue. After all, the Pedestrian or non-motor bike rider has priority over cars.
I agree, this is utter stupidiy on the part of the town/ local gov't.
In North Carolina, Mecklenburg county specifically, it seems as if you have to reach at least the double digits for DWIs for the county to lock you up.
Shouldn't this immidiately get thrown out of court, maybe even some added sentence for wasting the courts time?
this is what I would call a classes frivous law suit.
This is what I call a really f'ed up legal system.
I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure that even a suit of armor wouldn't have made a difference here.
And we're all supposed to feel sorry for the joy that was robbed from your carefree youth?
Sorry. But if that was all it took to get you off your bike, then riding just must not have been that important to you.
There is a Statue of Limitations on civil suits.
It varies, but 10 years would be extreme.
Um, try to look at this through the eyes of a kid.
Spare me... I was a kid once. I understand that the fear of appearing dorky is enough to frighten away kids from many otherwise enjoyable activities.
But should government be run through the eyes of a kid?
I think our society is juvenile enough as it is, thank you very much.
Funnily enough, in "Nanny State UK" there is no requirement for cyclists to wear a helmet.
Um, who suggested it should be?
I was just noting that you completely dismissed that poster even though he was trying to bring the perspective of a kid to it. Of course kids aren't going to like helmets.
I dismissed the poster because he was playing the sympathy card...
Woe! My lost childhood, stolen by the nanny state and their oppressive desire to protect my brain pan.
If a few dull blades in the U.K. get snuffed, The Empire will continue, unabated.
But the U.S. needs every child, however "limited", to mature, to add to the bottom line.
A 45mph limit must mean there were houses near the road. Therefore driving at 83mph by definition is wrong.
Not really. Countersuits are pretty normal what is troubling is the incredibly low amount the parents are suing for - there must be some kind of limitation.
As far as the bicyclist, 30, with or without a helmet, probably would have been lethal. Looking at images of that road, I think I am seeing a solid yellow line except at intersections, save one stretch that has a second lane in one direction: there is basically nowhere to legally pass in the first place.
At 83 miles an hour, the kid is dead, helmet or no helmet.
Not here, they aren't. A case like this would never see the light of day.
The contemporary British justice system has a quality of succintness that many Americans would find pleasing. Would British courts have allowed the Baker v. Exxon case (Exxon Valdez spill) to drag on for more that 21 years without resolution? At least they would have (probably) ruled in favour of Exxon early on and been done with it.
Ridiculous of this guy to sue yes, he was wrong for his actions and not watching the road and even more so for being drunk behind the wheel, now what puzzles me why was this kid on a road that according to the article is set at a speed limit of 45MPH that is obviously not a residential street or a school zone if that is the posted speed.
Tragic yes, but I do see some stupidity involved on the parents part as well for not monitoring their child responsibly practicing some common sense because this was an inexperienced rider traveling on a fairly fast road. 45MPH streets are kind of dangerous even for a seasoned cyclist and this was a 14 year old. I have known Child Services to be called on parents for lesser common sense issues so this one kind of surprises me.
I wore my helmet when I was a kid. I still don't leave a driveway without it, or putting on my seatbelt.
Granted, I wasn't one of the "cool" kids anyway.