[Tapper]

H.D., on 30 October 2010 - 09:32 AM, said:

Morgy, you paid no attention to the article if you don't think they sued the parents:

Quote

She, her mother and others are being sued by the estate of a woman who said she was severely hurt when hit by bicycles that Juliet and a boy were racing down a footpath in April 2009.

Secondly, it wasn't on the street, it was on the side-walk where people walk regularly and bikes aren't supposed to be in lots of American cities.

We have special bike lanes here in Holland, and we keep the four year olds on the sidewalk on their bikes when they play. Because they're hardly visible for other road users, they're tiny and vulnerable, the max speed they can achieve will be 15 km/h or so, probably less, so getting hit by a grown person who is out there jogging will hurt more.

Every year, there are cases of small kids on bikes getting hit when they're on the road.
That's a danger you invite when you tell them to go there. It often isn't their fault, either - often, it's a parking accident where the car steers into or out of the parking spot in reverse, sometimes it's a truck or SUV who pushes a kid into the sidewalk or crushes her against parked cars because it is big and the kid is in a dead angle.

And that's bike friendly Holland. Having seen how you people drive in Chicago and how biker-unfriendly the traffic and the streets are (even in urban areas), keeping your tiny kid on the sidewalk is a much better safety precaution than putting them on the street.

This of course has nothing to do with the legality of the cause, but it should matter to the jury.

[HoosierDaddy]

This is ridiculous. Here's why:

Negligence there:

Quote

There it's specified three base requirements: (1) economic loss, (2) negligence, and (3) sufficient connection between negligence and the resulting damages.

What I stated earlier, specifically: (1) damage; (2) a duty that is breached [that's negligence kids]; (3) proximate cause [how the duty breached is the most apt cause of the damage done] that is only missing the most fundamental part was the damage done to a party owed to someone that had a duty owed to them, which is the fundamental argument here that no one gets but me. Fair enough.

Edit: Tapper, that would matter to a jury there. Not in the United States. Which is the law that both controls and needs to be considered in discussion.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 30 October 2010 - 10:35 AM

[Morgoth]

Well, if they did it for shits and giggles it's negligent. If they did it specifically to fulfill a diabolic plan to get rid of all little old ladies then it would be purposeful and as such the negligence and connection part becomes redundant (as the main rule). There would still be a demand for economic loss in order to acquire damages however.

I'm trying to think of which part of criminal law this would fall under. The supreme court have decided that if you've trained your dog to attack someone, it is as if you did the attack yourself. I'm not entirely sure if they'll say the same about a child even though the principle is somewhat the same, but if they do, the parents would be responsible after statute 228 of the criminal-act, which governs your casual, day to day violence. If the old lady is proven to have died of the bike incident, then they could get a total of 5 years each, though that's the maximum penalty mind, so I doubt they'd get more than 2 or 3.

[Morgoth]

H.D., on 30 October 2010 - 10:34 AM, said:

This is ridiculous. Here's why:

Negligence there:

Quote

There it's specified three base requirements: (1) economic loss, (2) negligence, and (3) sufficient connection between negligence and the resulting damages.

What I stated earlier, specifically: (1) damage; (2) a duty that is breached [that's negligence kids]; (3) proximate cause [how the duty breached is the most apt cause of the damage done] that is only missing the most fundamental part was the damage done to a party owed to someone that had a duty owed to them, which is the fundamental argument here that no one gets but me. Fair enough.

Edit: Tapper, that would matter to a jury there. Not in the United States. Which is the law that both controls and needs to be considered in discussion.

Letting your 4 y.o kid bike on the sidewalk would never constitute as negligence in regards to this i'm quite sure (in Norway that is). Which is why I created the scenario I did with the parents in order to illustrate.

[Tapper]

H.D., on 30 October 2010 - 10:34 AM, said:

This is ridiculous. Here's why:

Negligence there:

Quote

There it's specified three base requirements: (1) economic loss, (2) negligence, and (3) sufficient connection between negligence and the resulting damages.

What I stated earlier, specifically: (1) damage; (2) a duty that is breached [that's negligence kids]; (3) proximate cause [how the duty breached is the most apt cause of the damage done] that is only missing the most fundamental part was the damage done to a party owed to someone that had a duty owed to them, which is the fundamental argument here that no one gets but me. Fair enough.

Edit: Tapper, that would matter to a jury there. Not in the United States. Which is the law that both controls and needs to be considered in discussion.

We don't even have juries, and I'm rather glad of that

What puzzles me, though: are you arguing that the child (or her parents, or whatever third party the legal stuff says is accountable) is also responsible/ can be held accountable for the follow-up (the death of the lady)?

Of course, none of us know of the injuries she sustained, and she was old, but few accidents involving a 30 kg child and a 4 kilo bike which will probably hit at shin height (tiny wheels) or at best a steer hitting the lady's rump, are directly lethal in and by itself...

Anyway, I rate this story in the category: common sense will sort it out.

[HoosierDaddy]

Morgoth, on 30 October 2010 - 10:43 AM, said:

H.D., on 30 October 2010 - 10:34 AM, said:

This is ridiculous. Here's why:

Negligence there:

Quote

There it's specified three base requirements: (1) economic loss, (2) negligence, and (3) sufficient connection between negligence and the resulting damages.

What I stated earlier, specifically: (1) damage; (2) a duty that is breached [that's negligence kids]; (3) proximate cause [how the duty breached is the most apt cause of the damage done] that is only missing the most fundamental part was the damage done to a party owed to someone that had a duty owed to them, which is the fundamental argument here that no one gets but me. Fair enough.

Edit: Tapper, that would matter to a jury there. Not in the United States. Which is the law that both controls and needs to be considered in discussion.

Letting your 4 y.o kid bike on the sidewalk would never constitute as negligence in regards to this i'm quite sure (in Norway that is). Which is why I created the scenario I did with the parents in order to illustrate.

I have no idea why it has done so here either, other than what I have given as plausible reasons. There ARE plausible reasons to have it be taken to court which have been invented by myself as well. I think we all agree it's a bunch of bullshit, most likely. But, I will take the defensive for something that I think is defensible, despite how retarded it is. I might hate the system, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in it.

[Morgoth]

H.D., on 30 October 2010 - 10:47 AM, said:

I have no idea why it has done so here either, other than what I have given as plausible reasons. There ARE plausible reasons to have it be taken to court which have been invented by myself as well. I think we all agree it's a bunch of bullshit, most likely. But, I will take the defensive for something that I think is defensible, despite how retarded it is. I might hate the system, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in it.

I guess thats the main difference. In Norway the courts have the right to refuse cases that are clearly without merit. If the judge feels that there's no way it'll succeed then they can chose not to spend time and state money running it through the system.

Mind, if you're anal about it you can appeal the decision not to hear your case. Some people enjoys having the SC tell them that they're being idiots.

This post has been edited by Morgoth: 30 October 2010 - 10:56 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

"Without merit" is different than what I was getting at. "Spurious" cases get tossed here easily as well, as our threshold for idiocy is quite higher. I think that is well shown at this point.

[Tsundoku]

Morgoth, on 30 October 2010 - 10:56 AM, said:

H.D., on 30 October 2010 - 10:47 AM, said:

I have no idea why it has done so here either, other than what I have given as plausible reasons. There ARE plausible reasons to have it be taken to court which have been invented by myself as well. I think we all agree it's a bunch of bullshit, most likely. But, I will take the defensive for something that I think is defensible, despite how retarded it is. I might hate the system, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in it.

I guess thats the main difference. In Norway the courts have the right to refuse cases that are clearly without merit. If the judge feels that there's no way it'll succeed then they can chose not to spend time and state money running it through the system.

Mind, if you're anal about it you can appeal the decision not to hear your case. Some people enjoys having the SC tell them that they're being idiots.

Yet another example of How To Set Up A Properly Functioning Country. I want this here, but I think it is much more needed in the USA.

[Morgoth]

H.D., on 30 October 2010 - 11:04 AM, said:

"Without merit" is different than what I was getting at. "Spurious" cases get tossed here easily as well, as our threshold for idiocy is quite higher. I think that is well shown at this point.

awwwww


The American system makes sense within the culture for which it was made. Mind, it might've gotten a bit out of hand.

[HoosierDaddy]

I'm done trying. God forbid an actual fucking expert try to explain. You all know it far better than I do.

[Morgoth]

Cindy Who-Hoo?

[Tsundoku]

H.D., on 30 October 2010 - 11:10 AM, said:

I'm done trying. God forbid an actual fucking expert try to explain. You all know it far better than I do.

Thanks for the effort anyway, I actually gained some insight into your system. Though I STILL think it could work a lot better if it changed some fundamentals - like we should do too.

[Morgoth]

Like stop using juries in civil lawsuits.

[pathos]

My input is this:

What would Judge Dredd Do? I mean he IS the law.


Interesting stuff though.

[Mentalist]

hmmm

in Canada, the cutoff age for Child negligence is 6, I believe.

from the article that got circulated round these parts on the case, the cutoff in the States appears to be 5. since the girl was "just 3 months shy of 5", the judge decided she could be seen as negligent.

overall, it's hard to comment on the case without facts. In Canada, the case would go through a 2-step test.

first, you'd have to prove prove negligence (i.e, was there a duty owed, was it breached, was it foreseeable/proximate)
at which point, the Court would consider whether or not, from the PoV of public policy, it is wise to enforce the duty.

this is only done in cases that are breaking new ground though.

RE: children tortfeasors, the court looks at "what would a reasonable x year old in a similar circumstance would've done" to establish the standard of care. from the scraps of that article, i'm presuming that's how it works in the states, too.

[Tsundoku]

Business as usual.

Attack of the Nnnnnneeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrds

------------------------------------

http://www.news.com....0-1225946508166

Haynes offers Star Trek fans chance to get inside the Enterprise engine room

* By staff writers
* From: news.com.au
* November 02, 2010 9:27AM

The Haynes manual breaks down the many various USS Enterprise models. Picture courtesy Haynes Source: Supplied
Star Trek

Space technology - unreliable in bridge meltdowns. Someone hand Scotty a Haynes. Source: Supplied

Haynes says its USS Enterprise manual will be available for Christmas in Australia. Picture courtesy Haynes Source: Supplied

IT'S the owners' manual that any self-respecting starship engineer in the year 2151 wouldn't be seen without.

As Earth's first warp-five capable starship in the Federation fleet, there's a lot to get your head around in the engine room of the USS Enterprise, but one trusty British company has come up with a decidedly low-tech solution.

Haynes, whose iconic range of automobile user manuals help teens and devotees alike keep their cars on the road 10 years after it is sensible to do so, have published a DIY guide to the most famous space voyager of them all.

The 160-page guide covers the entire range of USS Enterprise models, from Captain Jonathan Archer's original NX-01 from the most recent TV series through to the NCC-1701 under the control of Captain Kirk and her replacement, the NNC-1701-E.

While it might be 140-odd years ahead of its time, the manual will be available this month, guaranteeing Trekkies a perfect Christmas Day of ignoring the family and poring over the details of Triton-class spatial torpedoes and polarised duranium hulls.

"Haynes Enterprise Manual covers the various Enterprises – some in more depth than others – at a level that is accessible to anyone," Haynes Publishing Book Division editor Derek Smith told the official Star Trek website.

"So it was really about getting the level of technical detail just right.

"What’s also important is that the book shows how the design of these ships evolved from NX-01 through to NCC-1701-E.

"Along the way we go into more detail about the key technologies used on board. People want to know how warp engines work. We explain that.

"People want to know how transporters work. We explain that."

Haynes even hired the graphic designer who wrote the technical manual for Star Trek scriptwriters - Michael Okuda - to watch over the project and ensure the technology was consistent throughout their special edition.

Each Enterprise model gets the full Haynes cutaway treatment, with details of the bridge, engines and transporter rooms.

Aspiring Scottys even get a step-by-step guide to stripping down their starcraft and rebuilding her for those awkward moments when Zefram Cochrane's warp drive fails to make the jump into hyperspace.

Haynes said it hoped the manual would be available in Australia "some time in November".

It will retail for $32.95 and will be available at www.haynes.com.au and through Dymocks, A&R, Borders and speciality bookstores.

-----------------------------------------

I can't help thinking of those convention kids back on Earth in Galaxy Quest, which I admit I really enjoyed.

[Tsundoku]

Follow-on article:

--------------------------------

http://www.news.com....0-1225947119042

We're sorry for claiming Captain Kirk was in command of Captain Picard's starship

* By Peter Farquhar, Technology Editor
* From: news.com.au
* November 03, 2010 10:23AM

Captain Jean Luc Picard was in command of the USS Enterprises D and E. And they never made hyperspace. Source: The Daily Telegraph

* There were many USS Enterprises
* Kirk didn't captain them all
* Patrick Stewart is handsome

YESTERDAY, a news.com.au article incorrectly stated that the Star Trek starship USS Enterprise-E, otherwise known as model NNC-1701-E, was the successor to Captain Kirk's original USS Enterprise.

It has since been brought to our attention that the NNC-1701-E in fact came two models after Captain Kirk retired and was under the command of Captain Jean Luc Picard.

Read the original, poorly-researched article here

User "Your Mum's Lunch" led the charge of those who correctly pointed out that after losing the original Enterprise to the Klingons, Captain Kirk was given the Excelsior Class Enterprise-B as a stop-gap measure until the refit of the Enterprise-A was completed.

Technology - Product Finder

Kirk's last ship was the Ambassador Class Enterprise-C.

Enterprise-D and Enterprise-E were in fact, the first of the Galaxy Class models and were under the command of Captain Picard.

There were also some concerns about whether the incorrect use of the term "hyperspace" in describing warp drive technology may harm the original Star Trek concept, particularly the books.

News.com.au apologises unreservedly for the error.

There was no intention whatsoever to suggest Captain Kirk may have commanded the Galaxy Class Starships Enterprise-D and Enterprise-E.

Any damage to the Star Trek brand incurred by the use of the term "hyperspace" is regretful.

No malice was intended and a correction to the original article will be made.

We also agree that Patrick Stewart is a handsome man, a sentiment expressed by several readers.

Addendum - We're also sorry for any errors in this apology.

------------------------------------

Read the comments pages for this and the previous articles for the sheer levels of pedantic nerd rage.

[MTS]

Ahahaha nerd rage...always good for a laugh. I loved how a couple of people were actually seriously debating Patrick Stewart's handsomeness.

[MTS]

Just saw this in the paper.

 149870_449019140867_512180867_5860898_2288993_n.jpg (77.48K)
Number of downloads: 0