Road raging cyclist...will probably go to jail.

[boss]

mmm... taking your argument to its logical conclusion you see very little difference between someone forgetting themselves and carelessly opening their car door and someone lying in ambush and flinging the car door open, just as a cyclist passes, with deliberate intent to wipe them out.

Don't think that my life and the life of other cyclists is trivial to me.

This is indeed the problem though - deliberate doorings and accidental doorings have the same result, and you have absolutely no way of ever knowing which is the real intent. Unfortunately, you've drawn the line in the sand and it exposes the riding population to possible death because your attitude towards door opening isn't anywhere near serious enough.

I think you'd treat gun handling, knife use, and driving at speed much more seriously than door opening, even though there is a very real chance that they can all result in the same thing. There are no accidental doorings, just negligent car users. There are laws against such door use already... the only problem is that few seem to appreciate they can kill people by being a deadbeat who doesn't care about their actions.

I know! We should shoot anyone who makes a mistake ever. Then nobody will ever make a careless mistake again.

[Aushiker]

Pushing someone is exactly the same stage of intent as pushing open the car door.

WRONG...........One is done WITH INTENT to cause harm.........the other was done WITHOUT INTENT to cause harm.

If you can't see the incrediblely close parallel, it saddens me that your life and the lives of other cyclists is so trivial to you.

Talk about screwing a point of view in order to try and get a point across

100% with greyhoundtom here.

Andrew

[Aushiker]

I for one would never get physical with a woman, let alone an elderly one.

There are times when it is appropriate ...

Andrew

[human909]

We as a society have cracked down on drink driving because the negligence of such actions leads to many deaths and injuries. 50 years ago it was the norm. Now through education and strong punishments society shuns and heavily punishes drink driving. There is no reason that negligence resulting in deaths of vulnerable road users shouldn't be treating in a different fashion.

In my opinion we have taken the drink driving demonisation too far. We a drunk driver is held responsible for the accident when the OTHER party ran the red light then something is wrong!

The guy deserves some quality time in the dog house. The mark of a person or a society is how they treat the most vunerable[sic],

Hmmm... How do you apply that to the way society and the police treat cyclists?

[Sydguy]

The article I just read says the guy had been drinking and cycling on the footpath. He refused to be interviewed by Police and is completely unremorseful for the outcome of his actions let alone the fact he assaulted an elderly lady then left the scene.

If it was my mother I would want him shot, and would happily carry out the sentence pro bono. A reasonable outcome would be a minimum 10 years inside. All the romance in the showers might help him to understand what it is like to be vunerable and taken advantage of.

JM

[Alien27]

mmm... taking your argument to its logical conclusion you see very little difference between someone forgetting themselves and carelessly opening their car door and someone lying in ambush and flinging the car door open, just as a cyclist passes, with deliberate intent to wipe them out.

Don't think that my life and the life of other cyclists is trivial to me.

This is indeed the problem though - deliberate doorings and accidental doorings have the same result, and you have absolutely no way of ever knowing which is the real intent. Unfortunately, you've drawn the line in the sand and it exposes the riding population to possible death because your attitude towards door opening isn't anywhere near serious enough.

I think you'd treat gun handling, knife use, and driving at speed much more seriously than door opening, even though there is a very real chance that they can all result in the same thing. There are no accidental doorings, just negligent car users. There are laws against such door use already... the only problem is that few seem to appreciate they can kill people by being a deadbeat who doesn't care about their actions.

Your putting thoughts and slight twists of logic into my head that just aren't there. Don't think about what you think I would think. Just have a think about the concept of intent and ponder why it is a widely accepted, and legally enshrined, basic principal of justice. Question the implications on society of a justice system that treated accidental deaths in a comparable manor to murder. The system can and does in most cases determine whether there was intent, if there is doubt then

Remember that on any given day, all of us make many decisions (often subconsciously) at work, at home or travelling to and from, that could, if an error is made and someone else is in the wrong place at the wrong time, lead to the death of that person.

Its not black and white, there is no line in the sand, everything is varying shades of grey. Intent is not everything but neither is the seriousness of the actions outcome, both issues along with a myriad of other considerations need to be taken into account.

[birdbrain]

jimboss wrote:
The other side is pushing an elderly woman. I for one would never get physical with a woman, let alone an elderly one.

Same here. Disregard the "brain snap" theory, he was a gutless thug who pushed an old lady and she died. Hope they lock him up for a very long time. He had the option of just leaving of course but I guess he thought the old bitch needed to be taught a lesson.

[Alien27]

We as a society have cracked down on drink driving because the negligence of such actions leads to many deaths and injuries. 50 years ago it was the norm. Now through education and strong punishments society shuns and heavily punishes drink driving. There is no reason that negligence resulting in deaths of vulnerable road users shouldn't be treating in a different fashion.

I'm all for that. However it took a considerable effort and a brave government of the day to educate and push us to our senses. It was a very unpopular move at the time however the government saw the stats and embarked on a massive education campaign that eventually brought us as a society around. That is exactly what is needed now not just for dooring but for all cycling related safety issues.

In my opinion we have taken the drink driving demonisation too far. We a drunk driver is held responsible for the accident when the OTHER party ran the red light then something is wrong!

The guy deserves some quality time in the dog house. The mark of a person or a society is how they treat the most vunerable[sic],

Hmmm... How do you apply that to the way society and the police treat cyclists? Not sure what you are getting at here? he wasn't trying to apply it to the way anybody treats cyclists

Mine in RED above

+ 1 Sydguy, I'm not normally a capital punishment sort for guy but seeing as your mum is my mum, I would be willing to bend my principals a little in this instance.

[Xplora]

I'm of a much less forgiving sort, sadly... accidents are accidents. They are actually very rare. There is a LOT you can do to prevent accidents.

When it comes to dangerous acts, you are expected in a free and democratic society to increase your care while committing that act. Walking down the path requires MUCH less care than driving a car. You are unlikely to kill people or destroy buildings if you lose control of your legs. It is not my responsibility as a cyclist to warn you that I'm coming down the road and you should be careful when opening the door. You are supposed to check when you try and get out. You bear the responsibility. Not me, because I can't change the fact I am going down the road. You can change the timing of your exit. The risk to you staying in the car for 5 seconds longer is almost zero compared to the risk to me by you throwing the door open.

It saddens me that others feel differently. If you are going to create danger when there is none, you need to be careful. You can't put that responsibility on everyone else...

[boss]

I'm of a much less forgiving sort, sadly... accidents are accidents. They are actually very rare. There is a LOT you can do to prevent accidents.

When it comes to dangerous acts, you are expected in a free and democratic society to increase your care while committing that act. Walking down the path requires MUCH less care than driving a car. You are unlikely to kill people or destroy buildings if you lose control of your legs. It is not my responsibility as a cyclist to warn you that I'm coming down the road and you should be careful when opening the door. You are supposed to check when you try and get out. You bear the responsibility. Not me, because I can't change the fact I am going down the road. You can change the timing of your exit. The risk to you staying in the car for 5 seconds longer is almost zero compared to the risk to me by you throwing the door open.

It saddens me that others feel differently. If you are going to create danger when there is none, you need to be careful. You can't put that responsibility on everyone else...

All of that is fine. Sure, people need to take responsibility for their actions. They need to think before they do stuff. Yep, sweet. Nothing controversial there.

It's when you have talked about punishment, previously, that you've thought about it ass backwards. You think that two similar consequences deserve similar punishments.

While on face value that doesn't sound bad, it's not the approach that the law takes. Indeed, when one thinks it through, the approach of the law is far more common sensical to your average human being.

Essentially the law considers the intentions of the person who is brought before the courts. That is why there is a distinction between manslaughter and murder.

[Alien27]

... accidents are accidents. They are actually very rare. There is a LOT you can do to prevent accidents.

When it comes to dangerous acts, you are expected in a free and democratic society to increase your care while committing that act. Walking down the path requires MUCH less care than driving a car. You are unlikely to kill people or destroy buildings if you lose control of your legs. It is not my responsibility as a cyclist to warn you that I'm coming down the road and you should be careful when opening the door. You are supposed to check when you try and get out. You bear the responsibility. Not me, because I can't change the fact I am going down the road. You can change the timing of your exit. The risk to you staying in the car for 5 seconds longer is almost zero compared to the risk to me by you throwing the door open.

It saddens me that others feel differently. If you are going to create danger when there is none, you need to be careful. You can't put that responsibility on everyone else...

I don't disagree with any of that. And none of that is in any way, incompatible with my position

[Xplora]

It's just that intent has no connection to the punishment and the consequences for the victim. Dooring = utter carelessness. It's not an accident when the car user has an assumed responsibility to check the road, it's complete negligence.

[high_tea]

It's just that intent has no connection to the punishment and the consequences for the victim.

Sure it does. There's murder, manslaughter, dangerous driving causing death, careless driving and various negligent-act offences, among other things. Intent - as well as things like the inherent dangerousness of the conduct and the forseeability of the outcome - feature in various ways.

I'm not wild about how these laws are applied, mind you, but I think the problem there is attitudes in general and attitudes to motoring in particular. Sadly these things can't be changed with an act of Parliament.

[high_tea]

The article I just read says the guy had been drinking and cycling on the footpath. He refused to be interviewed by Police and is completely unremorseful for the outcome of his actions let alone the fact he assaulted an elderly lady then left the scene.

If it was my mother I would want him shot, and would happily carry out the sentence pro bono. A reasonable outcome would be a minimum 10 years inside. All the romance in the showers might help him to understand what it is like to be vunerable and taken advantage of.

JM

Lock this character up by all means, but what you gloatingly refer to as "romance in the showers" is something that no civilised society should contemplate as a punishment.

[hunch]

Do we know how the lady slowed him down? Was she crossing a road on foot? Driving slowly? I would be interested to know what led to this terrible incident. Nothing can excuse the guys actions.

If this article from 2010 when the event occurred is believable, bicycle use was incidental to the attack...

http://www.smh.com.au/national/footy-stars-mother-dies-after-bag-snatch-20100522-w2xf.html

...still surprised when "cyclist" rather than thief or mugger was used to describe the offender on ABC news last night.

Seems very coincidental this was published today in a News suburban rag, undoubtedly to generate a few clicks....

http://manly-daily.whereilive.com.au/news/story/resident-lobbies-for-rider-registration/

[flow.rider]

Bit of a mish mash but better than nothing.

I believe most violence is taught or is a side affect from unresolved emotions.

Very few people are born violent.

As a people we have more than enough time and recources to solve such problems.

I have many ideas and thoughts on this subject.
Like any problem first we need to realize there is a problem.
Then we need simply to begin to look.
Human beings are amazingly creative problem solvers.

Why is that our entire society is led by a system of governance that relies heavily on violence, threats of violence and economic control of everyone and every thing?

As long as humans are not free we will have problems.
Some people think it is the other way around.
I say read a history book.
Control has been done and redone many many times. It does not work.
The force required cannot be sustained.

Also how can we be expected not to be violent ourselves if our leaders set such an example? Luckily many of us have higher values and moral attitudes than our governments and self proclaimed leaders and some of us even see them for what they really are.

I think its amazing as species we can still produce good people despite our leaders endless wars and resulting trauma.

I'm not saying let out the murderers but I am saying we have no right to treat any human without dignity and respect no matter what they have done

Luckily more and more are waking up every day.
I'm excited to see what tomorrow will bring.

Many might call me an idealist and I say "if we are not heading towards idealism, what the f are we heading towards?"

[boss]

The article I just read says the guy had been drinking and cycling on the footpath. He refused to be interviewed by Police and is completely unremorseful for the outcome of his actions let alone the fact he assaulted an elderly lady then left the scene.

If it was my mother I would want him shot, and would happily carry out the sentence pro bono. A reasonable outcome would be a minimum 10 years inside. All the romance in the showers might help him to understand what it is like to be vunerable and taken advantage of.

JM

Lock this character up by all means, but what you gloatingly refer to as "romance in the showers" is something that no civilised society should contemplate as a punishment.

The funny thing is that most developed countries, it's par for the course for weaker individuals to be taken advantage of. Yes, that includes rape.

Civilised society is as naive as it is civilised.