On 6/20/2010 4:44 PM, Stu wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:32:19 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 6/20/2010 12:21 PM, Stu wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:53:03 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> But statistically they aren't any safer than yammering into a phone that
>>>> you hold to your ear.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Where's the stats? I find that very hard to believe.
>>
>> Here are a few sources:
>>
>> <http://www.lps.uci.edu/SSHonors/HFES2006.pdf>
> Quote from web page" The purpose of this research was to provide a
> direct comparison of the driving performance of a cell phone driver
> and a drunk driver in a controlled laboratory setting. "
>
> Not from actually vehicle crashes where cell phones were used, but
> from a laboratory setting.
>
>> <http://www.distracteddriving.ca/english/documents/FrancoisBellavance_001.pdf>
> Quote from web page "The analysis of the responses to the
> questionnaire showed that compared to non-users, cell phone users are
> more exposed to collision: they drive more often as part of their
> work; they drive more kilometres per year; they drive more often after
> 8 pm; they manipulate more often the radio, CD or tapes; they have
> higher education levels."
>
> So these people in the study were on the road much more than average
> drivers, hence they were more prone to accidents because of the
> extended road use. Was it the cell phones or the much larger chance of
> accident by road time?
>
> Lets be serious here for a minute, you can find facts to prove almost
> anything. If these stats are looked at carefully, they can be skewed
> to prove anything.

So address the rest of them.

On 6/20/2010 5:42 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> In >,
> "J. > wrote:
>
>> On 6/20/2010 8:37 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>> Why these people don't just get a headset, I can't imagine. Bad enough
>>> many of them are almost oblivious to their surroundings,
>>> now they're just driving using one hand. This has made for some
>>> very interesting parking maneuvers I've seen. Could you put the
>>> damned thing down for a second to pull into a space?
>>
>> In many states a headset is unlawful--it's kind of a bizarre law as it's
>> OK to drive or ride with earplugs, but if you have a speaker in the
>> earplug it's not OK. Some allow you to use a headset that just covers
>> or fills one ear, others don't allow them at all.
>
> I've never seen a handsfree headset for a cellphone that uses both ears,
> only one.
>
> The California Driver's Manual says:
>
> "While driving do not wear
> a headset or earplugs in both ears."

California is a one-ear state. Florida and Massachussetts are
no-headset states.

Subject

At the beginning of this thread, posted a note that a motorcycle
office making a traffic stop had been hit by a car driving on the berm
of the I-405 here in L/A.

It was announced on the local news tonight that the officer has died.

At a minimum, manslaughter charges will be filed, IMHO.

Lew

In article >,
"Lew Hodgett" > wrote:

> Subject
>
> At the beginning of this thread, posted a note that a motorcycle
> officer making a traffic stop had been hit by a car driving on the berm
> of the I-405 here in L/A.
>
> It was announced on the local news tonight that the officer has died.
>
> At a minimum, manslaughter charges will be filed, IMHO.
>
> Lew

Odds are it was deliberate. Cop killers do not get cut any slack... and
that's as it should be. I hope he gets life in prison.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

On Jun 20, 9:10*am, Dave Smith > wrote:
> Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > Yeah. *The law won't help much if people don't obey it and the police
> > don't enforce it:
>
> > 1. *Some people do fine with talking and driving. *Some don't, the same
> > people who can't drive and watch a pickup baseball game at the local
> > park as they drive by.
>
> I consider myself to be a good driver. I have a lot of accident free
> miles under my belt. *I cannot concentrate on driving while talking on a
> cell phone. *I can do one or the other, but not both.

And there is a lot of research saying this. And there is no real
difference between handheld or speaker phone types. Apparently the
need to concentrate on what the person on the phone is saying means
that you cannot safely monitor road conditions.

My suspicion is that one needs to listen very carefully for cues about
what the person is saying/thinking and it takes a lot of brain power.

>
> > 2. *The police talk on their two way radios while they drive. *I suspect
> > they will be reluctant to cite people who are doing the same thing with
> > their cell phones. *
>
> i think that the two way radio is less distracting. You only need one
> hand when key the mic when speaking. You don't have to hold it to your
> ear to listen. Police radio conversations are *very brief and use codes
> to speed things up. *While they may be temporarily distracting, they are
> short and business related,

I hadn't thought of that but it makes a lot of sense. You are not
attending to tone of voice or subtle messages. The radio is just
passing clean simple info. Maybe temporarily distracting but nowhere
near as distracting as try to interpret voice tone or snarky remarks
from the boss as you are driving.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

On Jun 21, 6:10*pm, Dan Abel > wrote:
> In article >, "Jean B." >
> wrote:
>
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> > > Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > >> Yeah. *The law won't help much if people don't obey it and the police
> > >> don't enforce it:
>
> > >> 1. *Some people do fine with talking and driving. *Some don't, the
> > >> same people who can't drive and watch a pickup baseball game at the
> > >> local park as they drive by.
>
> > > I consider myself to be a good driver. I have a lot of accident free
> > > miles under my belt. *I cannot concentrate on driving while talking on a
> > > cell phone. *I can do one or the other, but not both.
>
> [snip]
>
> > >> 3. *Where I think the law might help is when the police officer sees
> > >> someone who obviously can't handle talking on a cell phone while
> > >> driving, like parked at a green light or stop sign. *If they see the
> > >> cell phone parked on their ear, they can easily cite them for it.
>
> > There was a recent report that said that folks who multitasked
> > tended to be awful at it. *Also, that the one thing they tended to
> > excel at was talking on the phone--but that that was because they
> > were blocking out things related to driving!!!
>
> I don't think I agree, Jean. *I think most people can multitask

I think I've seen something like the same report. It did not say that
people cannot multi-task just that the ability was overrated. The
ability or opportunity to concentrate on one task intensively tends to
get better results. So if you're a lawyer you probably don't want to
be writing a contract while taking dispositions.

>
> I can't say that I understand why sticking a phone up against the ear
> makes it so hard for some people. *We've all had the experience of
> talking in the car. *Sometimes a passenger will stop in midsentence
> because they see something happening outside. *After the driver is back
> on "auto-pilot", they'll resume talking. *When a driver is alone, they
> can turn on the radio and listen to music, news, a story or a ball game. *
> Sometimes they'll miss a piece due to driving, but that's OK. *So,
> people should be able to talk on the cell phone while driving, the same
> way. *They are talking on the phone, and concentrating on that with part
> of their mind, but realizing that driving is their primary task, and
> when something happens to catch their attention, they have to be able to
> switch out of "phone" mode and into "driving" mode. *Some people just
> can't do that. *

The research that I have read says that just about anyone tested (no
idea of how representative of the general population but the studies
cover 2-3 countries at least and usually are university or gov't
sponsored research institutes) drives much worse when using a
telephone.. Actually the research says that a drunk driver is better
in many ways than is a driver on a cell phone.

The best hypothesis is that talking on a telephone is quite another
thing than talking to another car occupant or listening to the radio,
etc. This seems to be because when speaking on the phone one loses
all sorts of nonverbal cues to what a person is saying. Therefore one
has to concentrate much more on what is being said, presumably
including things like tone of voice, volume and whatever else.

>Now, the big question is whether it makes any difference
> if those people are talking using a hands free phone. *

None basically according to all the research that I've seen. It has
nothing to do with hands, it is all a factor or cognitive loading.

I suspect not,
> but I still don't understand why somebody can drive and talk to their
> passenger, but not drive and talk with a phone jammed up against their
> ear.

See above.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Omelet wrote:

>> At a minimum, manslaughter charges will be filed, IMHO.
>>
>> Lew
>
> Odds are it was deliberate. Cop killers do not get cut any slack... and
> that's as it should be. I hope he gets life in prison.

I have no details about the incident, but I would not jump to the
conclusion that a cop hit at the side of a highway on a traffic stop is
intentional. It happens a lot. When I was working we used to work
closely with the provincial police and three of the guys out of the
local detachment were killed on the job.

In one case, the cop had left our inspection station to check out a car
that had run out of gas on a bridge about 15 miles down the road. He
stopped behind the car with his lights flashing. He was parked on the
upward slope of the overpass, so his lights would have been visible for
miles. A truck ran right over his cruiser and he was killed.

In the second case, the cop was assisting another officer at a roadside
traffic stop. He was standing outside the driver's window and was
clipped by a passing car.... hit and run. It turned out to be an old man
who didn't know he had hit anything.

On the third case, the cop was on paid duty doing speed enforcement in a
construction zone. He was parked on the grass to the right of the paved
and the gravel shoulder. There are several coincidences here. I had
just met that cop a few days earlier and he had just moved into a house
on the next road, directly behind my house. The other is that a former
co-worker witnessed the whole thing. The truck was driving along in the
left of two lanes. He moved from the left lane to the right, across the
paved should, the gravel shoulder and right over top of the cruiser. He
had fallen asleep at the wheel.....at 8 am.


The fact is that a lot of cops are killed by cars on traffic stops.
They use lights and flashers to alert people to their presence, but the
lights can be more of a distraction. The lights also seem to be a lure
for drunks. Sometimes the cops just get complacent and stand too close
to the edge of the road, or step out in front of traffic. You can't be
too careful because there are too many distracted drivers. They day
dream, read, curl their hair, apply makeup, talk on cell phones, send
text messages etc.

In article
>,
John Kane > wrote:
> > I don't think I agree, Jean. *I think most people can multitask
(snip)
> get better results. So if you're a lawyer you probably don't want to
> be writing a contract while taking dispositions.

> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Especially if you've got a sour disposition while you're trying to take
that deposition. "-)


--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
On June 25, celebrating 65 years of joy and wonder. I have the joy
and everyone else just wonders. Only 2 more days. :-)
Shop early and shop often. Good gin and cheap chocolate preferred.
Or cash. :-)

"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> John Kane > wrote:
>> > I don't think I agree, Jean. I think most people can multitask
> (snip)
>> get better results. So if you're a lawyer you probably don't want to
>> be writing a contract while taking dispositions.
>
>> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>
> Especially if you've got a sour disposition while you're trying to take
> that deposition. "-)

Peh
--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:36:40 -0500, Omelet >
wrote:

> In article >,
> "Lew Hodgett" > wrote:
>
> > Subject
> >
> > At the beginning of this thread, posted a note that a motorcycle
> > officer making a traffic stop had been hit by a car driving on the berm
> > of the I-405 here in L/A.
> >
> > It was announced on the local news tonight that the officer has died.
> >
> > At a minimum, manslaughter charges will be filed, IMHO.
> >
> > Lew
>
> Odds are it was deliberate. Cop killers do not get cut any slack... and
> that's as it should be. I hope he gets life in prison.

I think cops here have been trained not to stand on the driver's side
anymore due to the threat of injury.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

Food Snob® > wrote:

>
> He should have to pay for a hunting license, deer tag, and then be
> responsible for disposing of the deer. That's how we do it in Miz-
> zou'-rah.
>>
>> Steve
>
> --Bryan

No self respecting Missourian refers to the state that way unless he's
either not native born, or a three-eye from the bootheel.

Burger King King
All fear my shiny plastic head

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
>
> >> At a minimum, manslaughter charges will be filed, IMHO.
> >>
> >> Lew
> >
> > Odds are it was deliberate. Cop killers do not get cut any slack... and
> > that's as it should be. I hope he gets life in prison.
>
> I have no details about the incident, but I would not jump to the
> conclusion that a cop hit at the side of a highway on a traffic stop is
> intentional. It happens a lot. When I was working we used to work
> closely with the provincial police and three of the guys out of the
> local detachment were killed on the job.
>
> In one case, the cop had left our inspection station to check out a car
> that had run out of gas on a bridge about 15 miles down the road. He
> stopped behind the car with his lights flashing. He was parked on the
> upward slope of the overpass, so his lights would have been visible for
> miles. A truck ran right over his cruiser and he was killed.
>
> In the second case, the cop was assisting another officer at a roadside
> traffic stop. He was standing outside the driver's window and was
> clipped by a passing car.... hit and run. It turned out to be an old man
> who didn't know he had hit anything.
>
> On the third case, the cop was on paid duty doing speed enforcement in a
> construction zone. He was parked on the grass to the right of the paved
> and the gravel shoulder. There are several coincidences here. I had
> just met that cop a few days earlier and he had just moved into a house
> on the next road, directly behind my house. The other is that a former
> co-worker witnessed the whole thing. The truck was driving along in the
> left of two lanes. He moved from the left lane to the right, across the
> paved should, the gravel shoulder and right over top of the cruiser. He
> had fallen asleep at the wheel.....at 8 am.
>
>
> The fact is that a lot of cops are killed by cars on traffic stops.
> They use lights and flashers to alert people to their presence, but the
> lights can be more of a distraction. The lights also seem to be a lure
> for drunks. Sometimes the cops just get complacent and stand too close
> to the edge of the road, or step out in front of traffic. You can't be
> too careful because there are too many distracted drivers. They day
> dream, read, curl their hair, apply makeup, talk on cell phones, send
> text messages etc.

Okay, I get your point... It's why I feel that pulled over drivers
should pull over to the RIGHT shoulder, not the left on the freeway.
It'd give the cop at least a little more protection. :-(
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:36:40 -0500, Omelet >
> wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Lew Hodgett" > wrote:
> >
> > > Subject
> > >
> > > At the beginning of this thread, posted a note that a motorcycle
> > > officer making a traffic stop had been hit by a car driving on the berm
> > > of the I-405 here in L/A.
> > >
> > > It was announced on the local news tonight that the officer has died.
> > >
> > > At a minimum, manslaughter charges will be filed, IMHO.
> > >
> > > Lew
> >
> > Odds are it was deliberate. Cop killers do not get cut any slack... and
> > that's as it should be. I hope he gets life in prison.
>
> I think cops here have been trained not to stand on the driver's side
> anymore due to the threat of injury.

Last time I got pulled over (and I pulled off in to the grass), the cop
did come over to the passenger side. That seems to vary tho'.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

Sycophant got all weird:

>> Doubt it was deliberate.
>>
>> A Lexus driving on the berm trying to get around traffic in that part
>> of L/A comes more under the heading of arrogance.
>>
>> Lew
>
> Or stupidity...
>
> Do you think it should be tolerated?

Does ANYBODY think it should be tolerated?

Bob

Omelet wrote:
>
>> Officer was hit by a car driving on the berm.
>
> That was why I thought it might have been deliberate.

Because it means the policeman was at the passenger window and the
driver went around the stopped car on the outside. Never having seen LA
traffic it would be easy to reach that conclusion.

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by
incompetence.

I lived in Los Angeles metro for 24 years and I spent a lot of time
commuting on the I-405. Jammed traffic is common at 3AM. Free flowing
traffic is nearly unknown during the work day yet the crawling traffic
still consistantly beats the surface streets. There are lots of
non-locals and/or arrogant idiots who think it will help to drive on
the shoulder or berm. It doesn't help and it does contribute to the
danger level. That's why the competent locals don't bother trying.

It used to be a joke about Cadillac drivers that's now about Lexus
drivers - If you don't like my driving stay off the sidewalk. The joke
is about incompetence not about deliberately causing wrecks.

Clueless tourist or arrogant idiot demonstrating incompetence is not the
same thing as deliberate. Clueless tourist or arrogant idiot isn't a
reason to get a pass on a jail sentence, either. It is a reason for a
sentence shorter than life. No good answers when it comes to negligence.

Dan Abel wrote:
>
>
>>> Do you think it should be tolerated?
>>
>> I don't think that anyone said it should be tolerated. I thought the
>> issue was whether or not it was intentional. If it was a matter of
>> arrogance, IMNSHO it should be dealt with much more leniently than if it
>> were intentional, but more harshly than an accidental mishap.
>
> Sounds reasonable. I'm a little confused by this whole thing, and have
> been waiting for somebody to post a URL with the facts. What's this
> "berm" thing? The California Driver Handbook does not have the word in
> it. My dictionary does, but I have trouble relating those definitions
> to a major freeway in Southern California.
>


I was confused about the "berm" thing too and was not sure if the OP
meant the shoulder or the berm, which would be the sloped terrain
alongside the highway, usually meant as a sound barrier if there is
enough room.


I found this article:
Incident Details
Cause of Death: Struck by vehicle
Date of Incident: Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Weapon Used: Not available
Suspect Info: Not available

Officer Philip Ortiz succumbed to injuries sustained two weeks earlier
when he was struck by a vehicle on I-405 in West Los Angeles.
He was issuing a traffic citation to a driver when another car, which
was driving on the shoulder passing other vehicle, struck him and his
motorcycle.
Officer Ortiz was pinned the wreckage and had to be extricated by the
responding rescue crew. He was transported to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical
Center where he remained until passing away.
Office Ortiz had served with the California Highway Patrol for 28 years.
He is survived by his wife, parents, and sister.

http://themunz.wordpress.com/


Working beside highways is dangerous at the best of times.

blake murphy wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:12:43 -0700, sf wrote:

>> Understand this. Any time a cop is hit, it's *not* an accident.
>
> um, what?
>
> blake

<shrug> who knows what she was trying to say?
I've certainly seen cops who have been *accidentally* hit. Perhaps by
distracted negligent drivers, but an accident all the same.

Goomba wrote:
> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:12:43 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>>> Understand this. Any time a cop is hit, it's *not* an accident.
>>
>> um, what?
>>
>> blake
>
> <shrug> who knows what she was trying to say?
> I've certainly seen cops who have been *accidentally* hit. Perhaps by
> distracted negligent drivers, but an accident all the same.


FWIW, it is now law in Ontario that you must change lanes or slow down
if there is a police or other emergency vehicle at the side of the road
with flashing lights.

On 6/24/2010 11:54 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> Goomba wrote:
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:12:43 -0700, sf wrote:
>>
>>>> Understand this. Any time a cop is hit, it's *not* an accident.
>>>
>>> um, what?
>>>
>>> blake
>>
>> <shrug> who knows what she was trying to say?
>> I've certainly seen cops who have been *accidentally* hit. Perhaps by
>> distracted negligent drivers, but an accident all the same.
>
>
> FWIW, it is now law in Ontario that you must change lanes or slow down
> if there is a police or other emergency vehicle at the side of the road
> with flashing lights.

In Louisiana you must pull off the highway to the far right if there is
a shoulder there. Traffic traveling in the same direction must pull to
the far left and slow down drastically or face a ticket when facing an
emergency vehicle with the lights flashing. A friend of mine learned the
hard way that not doing so would cost a $200+ ticket.

When meeting a funeral procession lead by a police vehicle you must pull
over to your right and stop on a two-lane road and just pull over and
slow down on a four-lane road. Failure to do so will cost a couple of
hundred dollars. Watched a guy try to cut through a funeral procession
crossing a major intersection the other day and the police had him out
on the road face down while they handcuffed him. Served the arrogant
******* right. Common sense says you should do all of the above.
Unfortunately Louisiana seems to have a preponderance of drivers without
common sense, like the ones who drive down my 25-mile per hour street at
45 or 50 while chatting on the cell phone. I am always amazed when it is
not a teenager.

Goomba wrote:
> blake murphy wrote:
>> sf wrote:
>
>>> Understand this. Any time a cop is hit, it's *not* an accident.
>
>> um, what?
>
> <shrug> who knows what she was trying to say?

Maybe it's like firearms - Since the invention of the brass cartridge
there's no such thing as an accidental discharge. Guns don't go off by
accident. They do go off by negligence. Not the same thing.

Lightning strikes by random accident. If there were flashing lights and
a car pulled over the wreck was at best by negligence.

It depends on how you define accident. To include negligence or not.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Goomba wrote:
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>> sf wrote:
>>>> Understand this. Any time a cop is hit, it's *not* an accident.
>>> um, what?
>> <shrug> who knows what she was trying to say?
>
> Maybe it's like firearms - Since the invention of the brass cartridge
> there's no such thing as an accidental discharge. Guns don't go off by
> accident. They do go off by negligence. Not the same thing.
>
> Lightning strikes by random accident. If there were flashing lights and
> a car pulled over the wreck was at best by negligence.
>
> It depends on how you define accident. To include negligence or not.

Accidents are generally the result of negligence. I previously about
being in an accident in the first new car just a few weeks after I
bought it. I saw the other car approaching at high speed as it entered a
curve on a wet, leaf covered road and I knew he was going to wipe out,
so I immediately pulled over an stopped. Sure enough, he did lose
control and slide a long way. He slid further than I had expected
because he slid far enough to wrap his car around the front of my new
car. IMO, it as an accident on my part. As the cop said, I just
happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was negligence
on the part of the other driver, driving so fast that even I knew he was
about to lose it.

BTW.... the term motor vehicle "accident" seems to have fallen out of
favour and it is more common to hear t being referred to as a crash.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:30:34 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
> wrote:

> Goomba wrote:
> > blake murphy wrote:
> >> sf wrote:
> >
> >>> Understand this. Any time a cop is hit, it's *not* an accident.
> >
> >> um, what?
> >
> > <shrug> who knows what she was trying to say?
>
> Maybe it's like firearms - Since the invention of the brass cartridge
> there's no such thing as an accidental discharge. Guns don't go off by
> accident. They do go off by negligence. Not the same thing.
>
> Lightning strikes by random accident. If there were flashing lights and
> a car pulled over the wreck was at best by negligence.
>
> It depends on how you define accident. To include negligence or not.

I'm saying a traffic lane is too wide for a cop to be hit "by
accident" by anything other than a semi truck and anyone who passes on
the shoulder is deliberately committing murder if they kill a cop
while doing it. Can that be any more clear?

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

Dave Smith wrote:

> BTW.... the term motor vehicle "accident" seems to have fallen out of
> favour and it is more common to hear t being referred to as a crash.

Yes, that is the terminology we now use in trauma care. For some reason
TPTB feel that saying "accident" can still imply guilt where as "crash"
somehow allows for pure chance accident. I don't know that I actually
buy into that...and I help teach this stuff! LOL

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 17:45:58 -0400, Goomba >
wrote:

>Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> BTW.... the term motor vehicle "accident" seems to have fallen out of
>> favour and it is more common to hear t being referred to as a crash.
>
>Yes, that is the terminology we now use in trauma care. For some reason
>TPTB feel that saying "accident" can still imply guilt where as "crash"
>somehow allows for pure chance accident. I don't know that I actually
>buy into that...and I help teach this stuff! LOL

I seriously doubt the word "crash" is used... much more likely the
word would be *collision*. Police reports have always used collision,
never crash/accident... accident is a judgement... sometimes
collisions are on purpose. "Crash" is too vague/juvenile.

sf wrote:


> I'm saying a traffic lane is too wide for a cop to be hit "by
> accident" by anything other than a semi truck and anyone who passes on
> the shoulder is deliberately committing murder if they kill a cop
> while doing it. Can that be any more clear?

Sorry sf, but the only thing that you are making clear is your
difficulty with the difference between negligence leading to an
"accident" and a willful criminal act. If you kill someone through an
flagrant violation of rules traffic laws, but had no intention to crash
into someone and kill him, that may be homicide. In order for it to be
murder, the driver would have had to have the intent to run over and
kill the officer.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:22:34 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
>
> > I'm saying a traffic lane is too wide for a cop to be hit "by
> > accident" by anything other than a semi truck and anyone who passes on
> > the shoulder is deliberately committing murder if they kill a cop
> > while doing it. Can that be any more clear?
>
> Sorry sf, but the only thing that you are making clear is your
> difficulty with the difference between negligence leading to an
> "accident" and a willful criminal act. If you kill someone through an
> flagrant violation of rules traffic laws, but had no intention to crash
> into someone and kill him, that may be homicide. In order for it to be
> murder, the driver would have had to have the intent to run over and
> kill the officer.

It is illegal to pass or drive on the shoulder, so I don't believe any
of that "it was an unfortunate accident" crap. I am very prejudiced
and my mind is closed on the subject. The driver is guilty and
should have the book thrown at him/her.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

>>> I'm saying a traffic lane is too wide for a cop to be hit "by
>>> accident" by anything other than a semi truck and anyone who passes on
>>> the shoulder is deliberately committing murder if they kill a cop
>>> while doing it. Can that be any more clear?
>> Sorry sf, but the only thing that you are making clear is your
>> difficulty with the difference between negligence leading to an
>> "accident" and a willful criminal act. If you kill someone through an
>> flagrant violation of rules traffic laws, but had no intention to crash
>> into someone and kill him, that may be homicide. In order for it to be
>> murder, the driver would have had to have the intent to run over and
>> kill the officer.
>
> It is illegal to pass or drive on the shoulder, so I don't believe any
> of that "it was an unfortunate accident" crap. I am very prejudiced
> and my mind is closed on the subject. The driver is guilty and
> should have the book thrown at him/her.

There is no doubt that he is guilty of something... unsafe passing on
the right, careless driving, perhaps even criminal negligence causing
death..... but not murder. There is no point in charging him with
murder. A decent lawyer would argue that there was no intention of
killing anyone, and without intent there is no basis for a murder
charge. He wouldn't even bother copping to a lesser charge and just go
straight to trial and walk.

I am sure that you are outraged by this careless and dangerous act, just
as many of the rest of us are. However, there is a pretty good criminal
justice system and people should only be charged with an offence that
they have actually committed, or that there is a reasonable belief that
they have committed. The prudent thing to do is to lay a charge under
the appropriate section of the law and let the circumstances and the
results be considered in the sentence.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> Let's have a trial then take the SOB out back and hang 'em<G>.
>
> Can't say I disagree; however, the justice system protects us all,
> including this SOB.


Having once had to face criminal charges myself, I appreciate that there
is a system to protect the accused. In my case, it was malicious
prosecution to put pressure on me to drop charges against someone else.

brooklyn1 wrote:

> I seriously doubt the word "crash" is used... much more likely the
> word would be *collision*. Police reports have always used collision,
> never crash/accident... accident is a judgement... sometimes
> collisions are on purpose. "Crash" is too vague/juvenile.

We use "crash" frequently (perhaps verbal laziness as we're not
concerned with legalese when talking about our patients at that point)
but you're right, the police use the term collision usually.

sf wrote:

> It is illegal to pass or drive on the shoulder, so I don't believe any
> of that "it was an unfortunate accident" crap. I am very prejudiced
> and my mind is closed on the subject. The driver is guilty and
> should have the book thrown at him/her.
>
Are shoulders of the road the only place police officers are
accidentally plowed down? Nope. How 'bout the one in the middle of the
intersection directing traffic?

On 6/24/2010 7:23 PM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:22:34 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> sf wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm saying a traffic lane is too wide for a cop to be hit "by
>>> accident" by anything other than a semi truck and anyone who passes on
>>> the shoulder is deliberately committing murder if they kill a cop
>>> while doing it. Can that be any more clear?
>>
>> Sorry sf, but the only thing that you are making clear is your
>> difficulty with the difference between negligence leading to an
>> "accident" and a willful criminal act. If you kill someone through an
>> flagrant violation of rules traffic laws, but had no intention to crash
>> into someone and kill him, that may be homicide. In order for it to be
>> murder, the driver would have had to have the intent to run over and
>> kill the officer.
>
> It is illegal to pass or drive on the shoulder, so I don't believe any
> of that "it was an unfortunate accident" crap. I am very prejudiced
> and my mind is closed on the subject. The driver is guilty and
> should have the book thrown at him/her.

Guilty of _what_ though? "Murder" isn't a catch all for "he did
something I don't approve of and somebody died". It is in most
jurisdictions a carefully defined offense and for the charge of murder
to be brought the action must meet the defined conditions.
>

On 6/24/2010 8:13 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>>> I'm saying a traffic lane is too wide for a cop to be hit "by
>>>> accident" by anything other than a semi truck and anyone who passes on
>>>> the shoulder is deliberately committing murder if they kill a cop
>>>> while doing it. Can that be any more clear?
>>> Sorry sf, but the only thing that you are making clear is your
>>> difficulty with the difference between negligence leading to an
>>> "accident" and a willful criminal act. If you kill someone through an
>>> flagrant violation of rules traffic laws, but had no intention to
>>> crash into someone and kill him, that may be homicide. In order for
>>> it to be murder, the driver would have had to have the intent to run
>>> over and kill the officer.
>>
>> It is illegal to pass or drive on the shoulder, so I don't believe any
>> of that "it was an unfortunate accident" crap. I am very prejudiced
>> and my mind is closed on the subject. The driver is guilty and
>> should have the book thrown at him/her.
>
> There is no doubt that he is guilty of something... unsafe passing on
> the right, careless driving, perhaps even criminal negligence causing
> death..... but not murder.

Does Californica have "negligent homicide" on the books?

> There is no point in charging him with
> murder. A decent lawyer would argue that there was no intention of
> killing anyone, and without intent there is no basis for a murder
> charge. He wouldn't even bother copping to a lesser charge and just go
> straight to trial and walk.
>
> I am sure that you are outraged by this careless and dangerous act, just
> as many of the rest of us are. However, there is a pretty good criminal
> justice system and people should only be charged with an offence that
> they have actually committed, or that there is a reasonable belief that
> they have committed. The prudent thing to do is to lay a charge under
> the appropriate section of the law and let the circumstances and the
> results be considered in the sentence.
>
>
>

J. Clarke wrote:
> On 6/24/2010 12:25 PM, Dan Abel wrote:

>> Sounds reasonable. I'm a little confused by this whole thing, and
>> have been waiting for somebody to post a URL with the facts. What's
>> this "berm" thing? The California Driver Handbook does not have the
>> word in it. My dictionary does, but I have trouble relating those
>> definitions to a major freeway in Southern California.
>
> Colloquially it is the shoulder of the road, or on modern US
> controlled-access highways the "breakdown lane".

No kidding. To me a berm is a mound of dirt. Like you'd
build up a berm to keep cars from going too far off the
road instead of a guard rail.

nancy

J. Clarke wrote:

>> Sounds reasonable. I'm a little confused by this whole thing, and have
>> been waiting for somebody to post a URL with the facts. What's this
>> "berm" thing? The California Driver Handbook does not have the word in
>> it. My dictionary does, but I have trouble relating those definitions
>> to a major freeway in Southern California.
>
> Colloquially it is the shoulder of the road, or on modern US
> controlled-access highways the "breakdown lane".

Having worked for the government department responsible for building and
maintaining highways I can deal you that it is called the shoulder.
There are paved shoulders and gravel shoulders. A berm is either a
section of ground that has been elevated, and can be a man made berm
either as a sound barrier or just a place to dump earth that has been
removed from another location or as a sound barrier. It is also the
elevated earth next to the shoulder which can be from natural
development or an accumulation of winter sand spreading or bad grading.
Road graders usually trim them back to to prevent ponding and to improve
drainage.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:30:34 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote:

> Goomba wrote:
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>> sf wrote:
>>
>>>> Understand this. Any time a cop is hit, it's *not* an accident.
>>
>>> um, what?
>>
>> <shrug> who knows what she was trying to say?
>
> Maybe it's like firearms - Since the invention of the brass cartridge
> there's no such thing as an accidental discharge. Guns don't go off by
> accident. They do go off by negligence. Not the same thing.
>
> Lightning strikes by random accident. If there were flashing lights and
> a car pulled over the wreck was at best by negligence.
>
> It depends on how you define accident. To include negligence or not.

frankly, i took it as paranoia.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:02:13 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

> Guilty of _what_ though? "Murder" isn't a catch all for "he did
> something I don't approve of and somebody died". It is in most
> jurisdictions a carefully defined offense and for the charge of murder
> to be brought the action must meet the defined conditions.

Murder. It may have been a spur of the moment decision, but he killed
someone. Perhaps the driver meant to graze, but they wouldn't be able
to convince me otherwise if I was in the jury box. Anyone who
deliberately and illegally drives to the right on the shoulder when a
car is pulled over on it and there is a person standing on the right
has more in mind than just passing. As I said, my mind is closed on
the subject so I'll never be put in a position to render a judgment.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> Sounds reasonable. I'm a little confused by this whole thing, and have
> been waiting for somebody to post a URL with the facts. What's this
> "berm" thing? The California Driver Handbook does not have the word in
> it. My dictionary does, but I have trouble relating those definitions
> to a major freeway in Southern California.

Someone posted the wording in the actual report. It used the word
shoulder. It looks like someone not familiar with LA metro roads
switched the word shoulder for the word berm thinking they were the
same. They are the same for a lot of country highways. They are not
the same for freeways in LA metro.

The description sounds like the policeman was standing at the passenger
window of a car on the right shoulder or maybe at the driver window of a
car on the left shoulder. Some idiot went around driving on the
shoulder and didn't see the policeman until he got slammed. In LA metro
there's often some idiot driving on the shoulder getting into trouble.
The shoulder is for cars stopped for tickets, mechanical problems and
such.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:39:31 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> Having worked for the government department responsible for building and
> maintaining highways I can deal you that it is called the shoulder.
> There are paved shoulders and gravel shoulders. A berm is either a
> section of ground that has been elevated, and can be a man made berm
> either as a sound barrier or just a place to dump earth that has been
> removed from another location or as a sound barrier. It is also the
> elevated earth next to the shoulder which can be from natural
> development or an accumulation of winter sand spreading or bad grading.
> Road graders usually trim them back to to prevent ponding and to improve
> drainage.

Thank you. As usual, the article was poorly written.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On 6/25/2010 10:39 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>> Sounds reasonable. I'm a little confused by this whole thing, and have
>>> been waiting for somebody to post a URL with the facts. What's this
>>> "berm" thing? The California Driver Handbook does not have the word in
>>> it. My dictionary does, but I have trouble relating those definitions
>>> to a major freeway in Southern California.
>>
>> Colloquially it is the shoulder of the road, or on modern US
>> controlled-access highways the "breakdown lane".
>
> Having worked for the government department responsible for building and
> maintaining highways I can deal you that it is called the shoulder.
> There are paved shoulders and gravel shoulders. A berm is either a
> section of ground that has been elevated, and can be a man made berm
> either as a sound barrier or just a place to dump earth that has been
> removed from another location or as a sound barrier. It is also the
> elevated earth next to the shoulder which can be from natural
> development or an accumulation of winter sand spreading or bad grading.
> Road graders usually trim them back to to prevent ponding and to improve
> drainage.

Google "colloquially".

On 6/25/2010 2:40 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:02:13 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > wrote:
>
>> Guilty of _what_ though? "Murder" isn't a catch all for "he did
>> something I don't approve of and somebody died". It is in most
>> jurisdictions a carefully defined offense and for the charge of murder
>> to be brought the action must meet the defined conditions.
>
> Murder.

If you want to bring that charge, counselor, you may, but the defendant
is going to walk.

> It may have been a spur of the moment decision, but he killed
> someone.

Which does not make the offense "murder".

> Perhaps the driver meant to graze, but they wouldn't be able
> to convince me otherwise if I was in the jury box.

You first have to prove that the driver _meant_ to hit the officer at
all. You have not done that, you have just assumed that he was aiming
at the cop.

> Anyone who
> deliberately and illegally drives to the right on the shoulder when a
> car is pulled over on it and there is a person standing on the right
> has more in mind than just passing.

Objection, counselor is testifying. What leads you to believe that he
even noticed that there was a car pulled over and a person standing on
the right?

And do you mean "on the right of the car that is parked there" or do you
mean "on the right side of the road"?

> As I said, my mind is closed on
> the subject so I'll never be put in a position to render a judgment.

You are correct. You will never serve on a jury for this offense if you
answer honestly in voir dire.