huh? Can you cite some examples where drivers are protected where they wouldn't be if it was not for USA( or not poor).
https://www.google.com/search?q=vehicular+manslaughter+ny&sa...
Did you even look up that “fact” before asserting it as your incontrovertible truth?
Source: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2014/01/31/nypd-16059-pedestrian...
Of the 96 cases covered of a pedestrian being killed by a motorvehicle that didn't involve a DUI, a police chase, or premeditated murder, only a single one was charged with vehicular homicide. So yeah, it's been bad for a while. The most drivers used to get was a small fine and a moving violation and then go about their lives. Heck, I watched a woman get killed by a cab maybe 15 years ago and nothing happened to the driver at all.
A law finally passed in 2014 to address the legal precedent after a 9 year old walking with his dad in a cross walk with the light was run down by a cab and the drive got a small fine and a minor traffic infraction. Here are some details: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/10/the-outrageous-unjust...
In my original post, I should have said more than a few years ago rather than in the last few years, but I can't edit it now.
In order of right of way, On Foot, On Bike, On Horseback, In Car.
It makes sense, the consequences to me as a cyclist to a car hitting me are far more severe than to the driver so the onus should be on the driver as the operator of the two tonne metal box.
And that applies only if you are not poor?
Also that seems wrong ( see United states vs other countries) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide
No one is disputing that well known fact.
I am asking why this applied to "because USA". Do other countries not let rich people choose better lawyers?
In which country does this not apply? What makes this apply only to US?
> Of course that is to be expected in USA, since drivers are constantly so protected, unless they are poor.
I am referring to this @jessaustin. How is rich getting lenient sentences across the board relevant here? What does that have to do with driving.
In USA, while crime in general is punished harshly, killing people with a car is a good way not to do any prison time and pay minimal fines. It's an issue of fairness, especially when poor people routinely see e.g. "taillight out" citations they can't afford to pay turn into years-long struggles with the criminal persecution system. If this topic interests you, look into the various reports about Ferguson MO.
Your questions in this thread, while aggressive, never hit upon exactly what troubled you about my initial short parenthetical comment that I only wrote to qualify the overall short post. Was it "USA", "drivers", "poor", "protected", or "negligence"? Was there any one word you would have removed?
Oh, right, because we don't actually want road construction workers to be killed...
ps. you left off the "half a" immediately before "dozen". It does change the meaning.
Disagreeing with the method of communication or cheap tricks employed does not imply disagreement with the original issue. I actually am severely disturbed and disillusioned by the not so creeping authoritarianism that is overtaking our country. I just don’t think FUD is ever an acceptable method of evangelism. I don’t see why people are having that hard of a time differentiating between the two.
Summarizing a complicated, controversial situation with a single number is always going to get into disputes about definitions. I'd say don't focus on the count() query.
Too bad, you jumped in front of a moving car.
Apparently bills in a dozen states that protect drivers who unintentionally (only that word is in scare quotes) hit protesters count as laws restricting protests. Other laws counted include laws for tampering with power equipment and laws that merely raised the fines for trespassing on restricted grounds.