Fireworks Are Even More Dangerous Than You Think

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> Letting your kids play in the street is never a good idea. Letting
> your kids play with illegal fireworks isn't too bright, either. But
> the combination can be deadly.
>
> KTLA's top story this morning is a tragic one: in two separate
> incidents, two young children, who were setting off fireworks in the
> middle of the street, were struck and killed by automobiles.
>
> The parents of those kids should be charged with negligent homicide.
> They should also be forced to pay restitution to the two drivers for
> physical damage to their vehicles and emotional trauma.

Sure, those drivers had no responsibilty to pay attention and drive
within their sight distance in a residential area, it's all the kids'
fault. The drivers were in a hurry, driving carefully would be a
burden that might delay their arrival by a whole minute... or even
TWO!!!!

You rival Brent is the dumbass department.
------

- gpsman

gpsman wrote in message

>Sure, those drivers had no responsibilty to pay attention and drive
>within their sight distance in a residential area, it's all the kids'
>fault. The drivers were in a hurry, driving carefully would be a

No, you're wrong there. It's not all the kids' fault...It's the parents
fault, and nobody but the parents fault. On my street, turning right
onto a residential street from a main thoroughfare, with houses on both
sides, it is impossible to see the kiddies until you're on them, half
way into your turn.

Cheri

Cheri

N8N wrote: <brevity snip>

> I remember one night, turning onto the street on which I lived at the
> time, and having to nail the brakes because not one but TWO bicyclists
> were standing still in the very middle of the road.

Sounds to me as if you shouldn't be driving down the middle of the
road.

> So here I am with the ass end of my car hanging
> out onto the main road, getting yelled at by two bikers for
> "endangering" their stupid asses. (meanwhile,
> I'm in danger myself of having the back half of my car removed by
> oncoming traffic...)

Sounds to me like they were in a crosswalk (or at least crossing at a
corner) and, of course, they were traveling at a lower velocity than
you approved and so were perceived by you to be "standing".

> I envision that the situation in which these children were killed was
> probably similar.

I envision your event as you, cutting off the corner and crossing the
middle of the road in the process in order to maintain your velocity
and shave 0.1 seconds off your travel time.

> A little more speed, a child instead of an adult on
> a bicycle, a driver maybe not paying attention for only a split second,
> and tragedy could easily occur.

Yeah, that's what I keep saying. It's impossible to maintain focus
every second so people should at least drive carefully and observe the
speed limits in a minor effort to avoid vehicle tragedies. Few here
agree that even resembles a reasonable idea.

> I don't
> know where this common idea comes from that a street is some sort of a
> playground. A sidewalk I could understand if not agree with, but a
> *STREET?*

Children play in the street. Everybody has had the opportunity to see
children playing in the street. They've played in the streets since I
was a boy and did it myself. I imagine they will play in the street as
long as there are children and streets. I accept that as fact, drive
accordingly and consider "where the idea came from" irrelevant. I
suggest everyone do the same.
-----

- gpsman

Around 7/6/2006 10:09 AM, N8N wrote:

> gpsman wrote:
>> N8N wrote: <brevity snip>
>>
>>> I remember one night, turning onto the street on which I lived at the
>>> time, and having to nail the brakes because not one but TWO bicyclists
>>> were standing still in the very middle of the road.
>> Sounds to me as if you shouldn't be driving down the middle of the
>> road.
>
> Sounds to me like you're a moron. On a narrow residential street, the
> "middle of the road" is where the cars travel, as there's really only
> enough room for one car to pass through. The sides of the roads have
> cars parked there.

Example:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=k&...01299,0.002516
or http://tinyurl.com/ruyd2

This was probably taken midday, when few people were home. Imagine it at
night, with both sides filled except where there is a driveway.
Essentially, a one lane road.


>>> I don't
>>> know where this common idea comes from that a street is some sort of a
>>> playground. A sidewalk I could understand if not agree with, but a
>>> *STREET?*
>> Children play in the street. Everybody has had the opportunity to see
>> children playing in the street. They've played in the streets since I
>> was a boy and did it myself. I imagine they will play in the street as
>> long as there are children and streets. I accept that as fact, drive
>> accordingly and consider "where the idea came from" irrelevant. I
>> suggest everyone do the same.
>
> Where the hell did you grow up? I've never seen or heard of this being
> common. Streets are for travel, yards/playgrounds/whatever are for
> playing. That's the way it's always been, IME.

I grew up on a suburban cul-de-sac with little traffic, and yet my
parents never allowed me to /play/ in the street. For this kid, streets
were only there to be crossed - carefully!

Served me well when my family moved near the University of Chicago,
where playing in the street will get you run over (like my dog was) or
worse.


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Cheri wrote:
> gpsman wrote in message
>
>> Sure, those drivers had no responsibilty to pay attention and drive
>> within their sight distance in a residential area, it's all the kids'
>> fault. The drivers were in a hurry, driving carefully would be a
>
> No, you're wrong there. It's not all the kids' fault...It's the parents
> fault, and nobody but the parents fault. On my street, turning right
> onto a residential street from a main thoroughfare, with houses on both
> sides, it is impossible to see the kiddies until you're on them, half
> way into your turn.

If that's the case, it behooves drivers on your street to drive VERY slowly
so they have time to react to stuff like that. (Not that that absolves the
parents of responsibility, but the drivers have responsibilities too.)


--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

In article >, DTJ wrote:

> I disagree. A white shirt is not enough. You are making that
> statement based on your vision, when it should be based on minimally
> accepted vision for getting a license. The older you get, the less
> able you are to see at night. Reflectors help some, white shirts do
> not help enough.

I am glare sensitive, but my vision is perfect. What I've seen morons do
is park their vehicles a night on the side of the road (sometimes facing
the wrong way) with glaring headlamps on and then stand in the middle of the
road alongside said vehicle. Guess what? I can't see them... all I see is
glare from their vehicle's headlamps.

What our resident speed kills morons don't understand is that no speed is
slow enough to be safe in these sort of situations where people hang out
in the road in blind spots or children darting out into the road. Any
non-zero speed is not safe in these situations. There is no going slow
enough to make them safe. There is only going slow enough to make them
mostly non-fatal, and that is 5mph. Unless the speed kills trolls drive
5mph everywhere and are lobbying for universal 5mph speed limits, their
position of drivers compensating for this idiotcy is simply unsupportable
because there is no way to compensate for it fully and maintain a
non-zero speed. 5mph is about the max if you want a expectation of
survival of the peds who will still get hit, even at that speed.

In article >, Steve Sobol wrote:

> If that's the case, it behooves drivers on your street to drive VERY slowly
> so they have time to react to stuff like that. (Not that that absolves the
> parents of responsibility, but the drivers have responsibilities too.)

There is no driving slow enough. There is either not playing/darting in
to the street or not driving or bicycling for that matter. You cannot
make the road safe for that sort of behavior, it's not possible. The best
that could be done is force everyone to operate at 5mph or less and
increase the survival rate of those hit. They'll still be hit because
they'll just pop out closer to the vehicles. However the girl on the
tricycle hit by the bus would still be dead at 5mph as she pulls into the
road 2 feet in front of the bus's front wheels in an area the bus driver
cannot even see.

Brent P wrote: <brevity snip>
>
> I am glare sensitive, but my vision is perfect.
>

<spittake>
I guess you don't see the faulty logic of that conclusion. If you have
a vision deficiency, your vision is not perfect.

>
> What I've seen morons do
> is park their vehicles a night on the side of the road (sometimes facing
> the wrong way) with glaring headlamps on and then stand in the middle of the
> road alongside said vehicle. Guess what? I can't see them... all I see is
> glare from their vehicle's headlamps.
>

Sounds like you ought to drive more carefully in that situation.

> What our resident speed kills morons don't understand is that no speed is
> slow enough to be safe in these sort of situations where people hang out
> in the road in blind spots or children darting out into the road.
>

I missed anyone posting those conclusions. Which portion of the road
contains the blind spots where people hang out... usually?

> Any
> non-zero speed is not safe in these situations. There is no going slow
> enough to make them safe.

Well then, the solution for that situation is.... stop. Duh. Do you
propose continuing to move your vehicle when you are essentially blind?
Are you a proponent of conditional licensing for the blind?
-----

- gpsman

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 22:19:58 -0700, Steve Sobol >
wrote:

>Cheri wrote:
>> gpsman wrote in message
>>
>>> Sure, those drivers had no responsibilty to pay attention and drive
>>> within their sight distance in a residential area, it's all the kids'
>>> fault. The drivers were in a hurry, driving carefully would be a
>>
>> No, you're wrong there. It's not all the kids' fault...It's the parents
>> fault, and nobody but the parents fault. On my street, turning right
>> onto a residential street from a main thoroughfare, with houses on both
>> sides, it is impossible to see the kiddies until you're on them, half
>> way into your turn.
>
>If that's the case, it behooves drivers on your street to drive VERY slowly
>so they have time to react to stuff like that. (Not that that absolves the
>parents of responsibility, but the drivers have responsibilities too.)

So you want us to drive slow enough to get killed by drivers behind
us, just so your ignorant protege can play in the road.

>Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
>Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

Ah, now I understand.