3 ms·
TL;DR — No.
by imwhimsical 13y ago
TL;DR — No.
- Lagged2Death 13y agoYou'd better read it this time maybe.
- imwhimsical 13y agoI stand corrected (and misunderstood). When I said "No." I meant it's ethically wrong to kill cyclists, and not "O.K". I was merely answering the question posed in the title. I agree my use of "TL;DR" probably made sure everybody took this the wrong way, and was technically out of place, too.
- rcthompson 13y agoYou must not have read the article, because that's definitely not the TL;DR. Sentences like this tell a very different story: > We do not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run. That sure sounds to me like society has de facto decided "It's OK to kill cyclists as long as you aren't drunk and you stick around to apologize afterward."
- tsotha 13y agoOr society has de facto decided there's no point in sending someone to jail for a legitimate accident.
- rcthompson 13y agoSo you're saying that 100% of collisions between cars and bikes are either the cyclist's fault or "legitimate accidents", and 0% are the motorist's fault?
- briandh 13y agoHe just said "accidents". He didn't say who was at fault.
- tsotha 13y agoThere's a big difference between civil liability and criminal culpability. If you're not drunk or driving recklessly, and you have no criminal intent, hitting someone isn't illegal even if you're 100% at fault. Nor should it be.