No, an intentional action would be murder. A car is considered a deadly weapon. Just as if you shot someone intentionally.
I assure you- if you drive one inch in the back of me while riding my bike, with horn blowing the whole time, I would simply and easily bring you up on assault charges and you would lose decisively. The laws are very clear about this.
Read some more. The universal laws CLEARLY give reasons behind the rights of cyclists on the roads. As far as rights to the roads, hazards, etc, the simple legal retort (and age old for that matter) is that as long as the cyclist is going as fast as they can, then they are not a hazard on the roadway. This decision was adopted from those regarding farm machinery- they too have every right on the roadways, regardless of absolute speed. Speed is not the issue, so the whole first part of your argument is false.
The simple answer of murder while on the roadway involves road rage- there are plenty of cases of road rage incidents with bicyclists. My cousin was the victim of a road rage incident while he was on the bike. He's alive still, but the driver could have been charged with murder should my cousin have died.
See my above post for reasons behind the red light and stop sign rules.
ANY action which threatens your well being from another person (eg car vs. bike) is assault. If a driver throws his car in reverse when in front of you and stops without hitting you, that's assault. If a driver steers dangerously close to you while passing you while shouting at you the whole time, that's assault. These have both happened to me, and both times the drivers were brought up on assault charges. I had witnesses for both. Your petty arguments for 'reverse assault' are dubious at best, and clearly sarcastic. You need to understand the law before you make such judgements.
For you to insult my wife, without even hearing from her, shows how classless you truly are. Again, your one of the ignorant ones- learn the law, or do us all a favor and stay off the roads.
See my above post. It is indeed ok to do so, for the reasons I stated above. But I agree philosophically- it's up to the cyclist to use discretion. I certainly am very conservative with my actions on the road- if I get hit, I lose no matter what.
It is, indeed, illegal to pass any vehicle while having a solid yellow- these cases are just not brought to court very often. This matter would only come into play if the motorist and/or the cyclist is brought up on charges for some other moving violation offense.
The rest of your argument, including the 2x2 rule, stop signs, and red lights are all covered under the Universal Road Laws. There is a book ('Bicycling and the Law' http://www.amazon.com/Velo-Press-Bicycling-Law-Mionske/dp/B001GZLRMI/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=sporting-goods&qid=1246557546&sr=8-5) which does a very nice job of covering the history, case law, and common sense regarding the law of the land. Good read, especially for cyclists.
The Universal laws exist, mostly as a collection of case law from various parts of the country, to serve as a reference for areas of road law which may not be covered in a particular jurisdiction. They serve as the de facto standard, unless there exists local laws which specifically and directly contradict the Universal code. For example, the universal laws contain legal verbage stating that rear lights are required for safer bike travel at night. So, if you were riding your bike at night without a rear light, and were involved in an altercation, you would be very likely held liable for that detail, regardless of local law, unless otherwise specifically stated. Even then, the judge and/or jury could use case law against your argument if deemed appropriate.
The case laws also state reasons for such decisions. For example, I stated that cyclists do not have to come to a complete stop at stop signs. This is true- it was decided based on the fact that many road cyclists use clipless pedals AND that cyclists are usually traveling at a slow enough rate of speed as to safely pass through an intersection with a stop sign. Clipping out of and back into the pedals to stop could be viewed as a potential hazard at an intersection. Again, discretion must be used wisely by the cyclist. Not all of this is cut and dry, or logical on the surface. But the history behind some of these decisions will shed some light on the reasons for them.
The laws regarding cyclists and motorists on the roads in the US are pretty clear. I've been commuting to work for about 8 years now, and have witnessed or been a part of practically every situation imaginable. Cyclists have all of the same 'rights' to the road as motorists do, except when stated clearly otherwise (eg, on highways- 'no cyclists allowed').
Tidbits: -cyclists can ride as 'close as practicable from the side of the road', meaning they do NOT have to ride within the boundary of the shoulder, especially if there is debris on the far side. -motorists MUST obey all road laws when dealing with cyclists, including passing laws. It is against the law to pass cyclists with a solid yellow 'no pass' line on their side, just as it is when passing a car. Furthermore, motorists must use the same discretion when passing cyclists, say on a hill or around a curve, as they would when passing another automobile. -cyclists have the right to ride 2x2 in the road, but must let traffic pass when appropriate -cyclists MAY take up an entire lane if they deem the situation to be potentially hazardous to them, eg when going over a hill. If the cyclists suspects that their well being will be endangered by a driver wanting to pass them from behind while going over a hill or around a curve, they can effectively stop this from happening by taking up the lane. This is a tricky predicament because the aggressive driver behind you may want to pass anyway -cyclists DO NOT have to come to a complete stop at stop signs, and they CAN travel through red lights. They have to make a concerted effort, however, to show responsibility and safety -at night, bikes MUST have both front and rear lights, clearly visible to the driver, as well as side reflectors, and preferably reflective clothing. -in general, a bicycle is just another vehicle on the roadway. The problem is not with MOST drivers or cyclists- both parties share ignorance when it comes to cyclists. The problem is with a few, but I would say that most drivers are not aware of, or refuse to acknowledge, the laws regarding cyclists.
One last tidbit- someone mentioned in a prior post here that 'cars will always win the battle in a confrontation (paraphrase)'. While that may be true from a physical standpoint, in a court of law, if the motorist hits a cyclist, and the cyclists was obeying the laws of the road, then that's assault with a deadly weapon, and the motorist will be brought up on at least vehicular man-slaughter charges, if not murder (if the cyclist dies).
If an aggressive motorist makes a movement of any sort towards you, or threatens you even if you are not touched or physically harmed, that is assault (if you even fear an aggressive driver, that's assault).
There are some great books regarding the laws surrounding cyclists. And it also helps that my wife is a lawyer!
Wow, talk about stereotypes. Actually, I'm 50% Native American. Care to guess what the other 50% is, since you've got me pegged? I could also assume about you, since you seem to associate Fox News with the GOP in a bad light, that you hold the New York Times editorials as the Holy Truth (yes, religious allusion intended).
Well said. I've been practicing medicine for about 10 years, and I've seen my share of mishaps regarding privacy (even today). The hospital I currently work out of is very strict when it comes to privacy, and the punishments are, for the most part, pretty harsh. But violations, as I've said before, are handled first at a local level, ie the hospital administration, unless a lawsuit is filed. So punishments tend to be non-publicized, but are still appropriate. The public don't hear about remedies unless they're brought to the federal level, so this may skew the effectiveness of HIPAA regulations in general. I'm not sure about this, and I couldn't post any figures that may back this up, but it may be a reason why some think that HIPAA is ineffective. I can tell you that the regulations are confusing, and it HAS increased the cost and decreased the efficiency of the healthcare system in this country- a lot of extra work, paperwork, processing time....
Let me give you a doctors perspective: HIPPA was created and implemented to, among other things, control the outrageous number of frivolous lawsuits arising from "breeches of privacy". Yes, it helps with privacy issues in medicine, and is needed for said reason. The lawsuits became a real burden in the 90's, just when medical malpractice lawsuits skyrocketed, as did insurance premiums. The Clinton's just sat back and watched, which doesn't surprise me- they've always been anti-doctor (I still remember that famous tour of American hospitals that Hillary went on in the early 90's, in order to see what needed to be done to improve our medical system. Her conclusion? "Doctors make too much money". She opened the floodgates to HMO's, and brought us dangerously close to socialized medicine. Our situation has somewhat stabilized now that Bush has at least spoken up for doctors, but the lawyers and insurance companies, in the meantime, have cleaned house and set a dubious precedent for lawsuits and reimbursements in medicine). HIPPA curbed the rate of lawsuits which were based on the privacy issues, but put restrictions on ALL communications between health care providers and the general population. The rules set forth by HIPPA are confusing at best, so the general attitude is, "don't tell anybody anything about anyone". It's better to deal with a disgruntled patients relative or power of attorney then it is to deal with government fines and expensive lawsuits. It doesn't surprise me that nurses aren't more forthcoming with medical information. Also, someone mentioned the Bush administration's cavalier attitude towards privacy issues. This really has nothing to do with the Bush administration. At least his administration laid down the framework for a privacy laws, which HELPED medicine, which is more than I can say for the Clintons. As far as enforcement is concerned- hospitals will handle issues locally at first. The government won't get involved until a lawsuit is filed, and then it'll come in the form of penalties to the hospital. I dread the day that Hillary gets into office, as do many other health care providers.
Slashdot Mirror
No, an intentional action would be murder. A car is considered a deadly weapon. Just as if you shot someone intentionally.
I assure you- if you drive one inch in the back of me while riding my bike, with horn blowing the whole time, I would simply and easily bring you up on assault charges and you would lose decisively. The laws are very clear about this.
Please learn the laws.
Read some more. The universal laws CLEARLY give reasons behind the rights of cyclists on the roads. As far as rights to the roads, hazards, etc, the simple legal retort (and age old for that matter) is that as long as the cyclist is going as fast as they can, then they are not a hazard on the roadway. This decision was adopted from those regarding farm machinery- they too have every right on the roadways, regardless of absolute speed. Speed is not the issue, so the whole first part of your argument is false.
The simple answer of murder while on the roadway involves road rage- there are plenty of cases of road rage incidents with bicyclists. My cousin was the victim of a road rage incident while he was on the bike. He's alive still, but the driver could have been charged with murder should my cousin have died.
See my above post for reasons behind the red light and stop sign rules.
ANY action which threatens your well being from another person (eg car vs. bike) is assault. If a driver throws his car in reverse when in front of you and stops without hitting you, that's assault. If a driver steers dangerously close to you while passing you while shouting at you the whole time, that's assault. These have both happened to me, and both times the drivers were brought up on assault charges. I had witnesses for both. Your petty arguments for 'reverse assault' are dubious at best, and clearly sarcastic. You need to understand the law before you make such judgements.
For you to insult my wife, without even hearing from her, shows how classless you truly are. Again, your one of the ignorant ones- learn the law, or do us all a favor and stay off the roads.
See my above post. It is indeed ok to do so, for the reasons I stated above. But I agree philosophically- it's up to the cyclist to use discretion. I certainly am very conservative with my actions on the road- if I get hit, I lose no matter what.
It is, indeed, illegal to pass any vehicle while having a solid yellow- these cases are just not brought to court very often. This matter would only come into play if the motorist and/or the cyclist is brought up on charges for some other moving violation offense.
The rest of your argument, including the 2x2 rule, stop signs, and red lights are all covered under the Universal Road Laws. There is a book ('Bicycling and the Law' http://www.amazon.com/Velo-Press-Bicycling-Law-Mionske/dp/B001GZLRMI/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=sporting-goods&qid=1246557546&sr=8-5) which does a very nice job of covering the history, case law, and common sense regarding the law of the land. Good read, especially for cyclists.
The Universal laws exist, mostly as a collection of case law from various parts of the country, to serve as a reference for areas of road law which may not be covered in a particular jurisdiction. They serve as the de facto standard, unless there exists local laws which specifically and directly contradict the Universal code. For example, the universal laws contain legal verbage stating that rear lights are required for safer bike travel at night. So, if you were riding your bike at night without a rear light, and were involved in an altercation, you would be very likely held liable for that detail, regardless of local law, unless otherwise specifically stated. Even then, the judge and/or jury could use case law against your argument if deemed appropriate.
The case laws also state reasons for such decisions. For example, I stated that cyclists do not have to come to a complete stop at stop signs. This is true- it was decided based on the fact that many road cyclists use clipless pedals AND that cyclists are usually traveling at a slow enough rate of speed as to safely pass through an intersection with a stop sign. Clipping out of and back into the pedals to stop could be viewed as a potential hazard at an intersection. Again, discretion must be used wisely by the cyclist. Not all of this is cut and dry, or logical on the surface. But the history behind some of these decisions will shed some light on the reasons for them.
The laws regarding cyclists and motorists on the roads in the US are pretty clear. I've been commuting to work for about 8 years now, and have witnessed or been a part of practically every situation imaginable. Cyclists have all of the same 'rights' to the road as motorists do, except when stated clearly otherwise (eg, on highways- 'no cyclists allowed').
Tidbits:
-cyclists can ride as 'close as practicable from the side of the road', meaning they do NOT have to ride within the boundary of the shoulder, especially if there is debris on the far side.
-motorists MUST obey all road laws when dealing with cyclists, including passing laws. It is against the law to pass cyclists with a solid yellow 'no pass' line on their side, just as it is when passing a car. Furthermore, motorists must use the same discretion when passing cyclists, say on a hill or around a curve, as they would when passing another automobile.
-cyclists have the right to ride 2x2 in the road, but must let traffic pass when appropriate
-cyclists MAY take up an entire lane if they deem the situation to be potentially hazardous to them, eg when going over a hill. If the cyclists suspects that their well being will be endangered by a driver wanting to pass them from behind while going over a hill or around a curve, they can effectively stop this from happening by taking up the lane. This is a tricky predicament because the aggressive driver behind you may want to pass anyway
-cyclists DO NOT have to come to a complete stop at stop signs, and they CAN travel through red lights. They have to make a concerted effort, however, to show responsibility and safety
-at night, bikes MUST have both front and rear lights, clearly visible to the driver, as well as side reflectors, and preferably reflective clothing.
-in general, a bicycle is just another vehicle on the roadway. The problem is not with MOST drivers or cyclists- both parties share ignorance when it comes to cyclists. The problem is with a few, but I would say that most drivers are not aware of, or refuse to acknowledge, the laws regarding cyclists.
One last tidbit- someone mentioned in a prior post here that 'cars will always win the battle in a confrontation (paraphrase)'. While that may be true from a physical standpoint, in a court of law, if the motorist hits a cyclist, and the cyclists was obeying the laws of the road, then that's assault with a deadly weapon, and the motorist will be brought up on at least vehicular man-slaughter charges, if not murder (if the cyclist dies).
If an aggressive motorist makes a movement of any sort towards you, or threatens you even if you are not touched or physically harmed, that is assault (if you even fear an aggressive driver, that's assault).
There are some great books regarding the laws surrounding cyclists. And it also helps that my wife is a lawyer!
Wow, talk about stereotypes. Actually, I'm 50% Native American. Care to guess what the other 50% is, since you've got me pegged? I could also assume about you, since you seem to associate Fox News with the GOP in a bad light, that you hold the New York Times editorials as the Holy Truth (yes, religious allusion intended).
Well said. I've been practicing medicine for about 10 years, and I've seen my share of mishaps regarding privacy (even today). The hospital I currently work out of is very strict when it comes to privacy, and the punishments are, for the most part, pretty harsh. But violations, as I've said before, are handled first at a local level, ie the hospital administration, unless a lawsuit is filed. So punishments tend to be non-publicized, but are still appropriate. The public don't hear about remedies unless they're brought to the federal level, so this may skew the effectiveness of HIPAA regulations in general. I'm not sure about this, and I couldn't post any figures that may back this up, but it may be a reason why some think that HIPAA is ineffective. I can tell you that the regulations are confusing, and it HAS increased the cost and decreased the efficiency of the healthcare system in this country- a lot of extra work, paperwork, processing time....
Nice, mature post. Do me a favor, before you vote next time, do some research on this issue, if it concerns you so.
Let me give you a doctors perspective: HIPPA was created and implemented to, among other things, control the outrageous number of frivolous lawsuits arising from "breeches of privacy". Yes, it helps with privacy issues in medicine, and is needed for said reason. The lawsuits became a real burden in the 90's, just when medical malpractice lawsuits skyrocketed, as did insurance premiums. The Clinton's just sat back and watched, which doesn't surprise me- they've always been anti-doctor (I still remember that famous tour of American hospitals that Hillary went on in the early 90's, in order to see what needed to be done to improve our medical system. Her conclusion? "Doctors make too much money". She opened the floodgates to HMO's, and brought us dangerously close to socialized medicine. Our situation has somewhat stabilized now that Bush has at least spoken up for doctors, but the lawyers and insurance companies, in the meantime, have cleaned house and set a dubious precedent for lawsuits and reimbursements in medicine). HIPPA curbed the rate of lawsuits which were based on the privacy issues, but put restrictions on ALL communications between health care providers and the general population. The rules set forth by HIPPA are confusing at best, so the general attitude is, "don't tell anybody anything about anyone". It's better to deal with a disgruntled patients relative or power of attorney then it is to deal with government fines and expensive lawsuits. It doesn't surprise me that nurses aren't more forthcoming with medical information. Also, someone mentioned the Bush administration's cavalier attitude towards privacy issues. This really has nothing to do with the Bush administration. At least his administration laid down the framework for a privacy laws, which HELPED medicine, which is more than I can say for the Clintons. As far as enforcement is concerned- hospitals will handle issues locally at first. The government won't get involved until a lawsuit is filed, and then it'll come in the form of penalties to the hospital. I dread the day that Hillary gets into office, as do many other health care providers.