Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday April 30 2019, @01:34AM   Printer-friendly
from the bipedal-locomotion dept.

Phys.org:

The authors are calling on national and local governments to set targets for the proportion of trips made on foot, by bicycle and by public transport, including national targets of:

  • Doubling the proportion of trips walked to 25 per cent by 2050.
  • Doubling the proportion of cycling trips in each of the next decades, with the ultimate goal of 15 per cent of all trips being on bicycles by 2050.
  • Increasing the proportion of all trips by public transport to 15 per cent by 2050.

The report's authors further recommend:

  • The government develop a national promotion and education campaign to persuade people to walk or cycle to schools and work-places
  • That investment is made in liveable cities and creating urban environments designed for people, rather than cars
  • That new regulations are introduced to make walking and cycling safer

The report prominently cites health concerns as a key reason to not drive, because people need to exercise more. Is it a tacit acknowledgement of electric vehicles' (EVs) imminent takeover of global car fleets?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @07:56AM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @07:56AM (#836569)

    I used to be a lawyer for a school district. In my state, you have three options: kids can walk, kids take bus, or kids have designated driver. Now, if kids live within a certain distance of the school and are above a certain age, then they can either walk or have a designated driver. If they live beyond that distance, they can either take the bus or have a designated driver. Schools can also charge a reasonable fee for bussing, which leads, in part, to lots of drivers.

    Now, for liability purposes, schools get a list of what every kid does for transportation. If your kid takes the bus, they will head count and send them on the bus. If your kid walks, then they will head count and release those kids in groups. If you have a designated driver, then they will release the kid to that driver and only that driver. If your kid is going to Jimmy's house instead of yours or there is some emergency, or whatever, then they need that (what my district called a "diversion") in writing or they will follow the written plan. Also, too many diversions and the school can charge the parents.

    Which leads to why kids are picked up and dropped off at the door. The school is verifying that they are being picked up by the right people or going to the right bus. Parents literally cannot pick them up a block away from the school, because the moment even the slightest wrong thing happens that school gets sued. Hell, my school district now shuts the door to the vehicles when kids get in after verifying the child is in a proper restraint. We got sued because some kid was injured when mom shut the van door on his fingers when he was climbing in and we lost because he hadn't vacated our property according to his plan, so we still had a duty to prevent that injury.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +4  
       Interesting=2, Informative=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @08:29AM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @08:29AM (#836576)

    If your kid walks, then they will head count and release those kids in groups.

    Which leads to why kids are picked up and dropped off at the door. The school is verifying that they are being picked up by the right people or going to the right bus.

    Wow, what a bunch of snowflakes America has become. My first few years were in Poland. I *walked* to school starting 2nd day of the 1st grade. And I took public transit 1 stop (like 5 in America) if I didn't feel like walking that day (maybe raining?). And I walked when it was -30C outside in America too. And that was already time when snowflakes started getting driven to school.

    We got sued because some kid was injured when mom shut the van door on his fingers when he was climbing in and we lost because he hadn't vacated our property according to his plan, so we still had a duty to prevent that injury.

    Wow, talk about fucked up system. How about, when kids leave the school, it's their problem? Sign a release form if you need to. School doesn't have a duty to prevent any injury. School has a duty to provide a safe environment to teach. Providing a safe environment does not imply preventing injury.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @06:31PM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @06:31PM (#836795)

      Legally, the kid had not left the school yet. Therefore, our duty of care still applied. In addition, our state does not let a parent or guardian waive negligence claims in a release without consideration to the child directly, approval by a court of competent jurisdiction, or color of law, neither of which applied. Our statutory protection did not apply either. Duty to warn also did not work, because our disclaimer did not delineate that injury or class of injuries and the school could not include a general disclaimer (e.g. "all risks known or unknown") as a matter of public policy. Therefore, the only other avenue would have been to argue Assumption of Risk, which does not apply to the child but does allow us to be indemnified by mom for contribution under comparative fault. After a year and a half, complicated joinder, and third-party practice, that strategy was mostly successful but we were still on the hook for 10% (although the in trust structure was subject to a post-judgment settlement because they wanted cash now, to pay mom's share of the contingency fee). So now, like I said, the district makes sure kids are properly restrained and shuts the door themselves to prevent that in the future and make group insurance cheaper.

      You can blame the schools all you want, but the schools wouldn't be covering their asses so much if next-friend suits didn't cause them to call their attorneys all the time. Suffice to say, something bad happens to the kid and the parents want blood; money is a good substitute, however, and the schools have deep pockets with big budgets.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @07:07PM (6 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @07:07PM (#836826)

        Can you back up enough from your legal training and experience to see how wastefull and frankly, silly, this has all become?

        Can you suggest any way to get back to something more sane?

        Or, is "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" the only way forward??

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @07:29PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @07:29PM (#836840)

          I totally get that. I'm just saying that the schools are doing the best they can given what they are working with. The problem isn't even the lawyers, it is the parents who sue at every minor bump. It is the news that over-sensationalizes every little thing that happens to a kid walking home so that parents think they are happening everywhere. The whole thing just breeds paranoia on all sides, because everyone is worried that the one time they are not, is the one time they get screwed.

          Sure, there are multiple things that could be changed in either post I gave that would have made is so we won, but good luck getting any of those past the State General Assembly because no politician wants to get screwed because of negative ads run by the opponent or something egregious happens to a kid and the would-be tortfeasor is protected by the change in the law.

          • (Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Tuesday April 30 2019, @08:40PM (4 children)

            by Oakenshield (4900) on Tuesday April 30 2019, @08:40PM (#836876)

            I totally get that. I'm just saying that the schools are doing the best they can given what they are working with. The problem isn't even the lawyers, it is the parents who sue at every minor bump.

            So you are saying that every parent is suing Pro Se? No? I thought so. The problem is the lawyers that promise a winning lottery ticket to parents and are suing on their behalf. As a officer of the court, lawyers should not be encouraging this behavior, but they gotta get paid, don't they?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @09:01PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @09:01PM (#836884)

              Right, because people weren't going to third parties to mediate their disputes before lawyers came around. But even if that were true, I'd rather there be lawyers around than have angry and aggrieved people resort to self-help and vigilante "justice."

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @11:36PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @11:36PM (#836961)

                Because all those aggrieved parents after slamming their own kids' fingers in the door of their cars would be taking justice into their own hands against those poor school administrators.

                I never get picked for jury duty because I refuse to assign blame for some idiot's own actions to another only because they have deeper pockets. It's a shame that others can be so easily persuaded. Most of the stupidity that parents must put up with from idiot school administrators is from fear of assholes who can easily convince shysters to let them play the lawsuit lottery.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 01 2019, @03:25AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 01 2019, @03:25AM (#837055)

                  So, you don't like lawyers and lawsuits. Then tell me the solution to the following in your dream world without lawyers and lawsuits: if you are hit by a car that drives through your domicile's window because it was bumped on the road by a truck, what do you do when both drivers refuse to pay?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 01 2019, @03:30AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 01 2019, @03:30AM (#837058)

              You do realize that small claims courts are full of cases where people represent themselves? Or watch daytime television, and see how many people there are suing another for a couple hundred dollars to thousand dollars. Lawyers aren't the problem, it is the people who want to shift the burden to someone else. There is a class of people who do destructive behaviors will do them whether there are those who are enablers for those actions or not.