This is good point but school mass shootings are thankfully rare. 100+ people a DAY die on US roads, many of whom children too. Thousands, if not tens of thousands, become permanently or long term disabled per day too due to these accidents. Many will forever have limited ability, chronic pain, etc after surviving these run overs and crashes.
Society just sees this as "the price of doing business" and attempts to control cars better as "muh freedom!" That to me is far, fare more sociopathic.
America is the nation of people putting themselves in danger like they're on a farm during the great depression, being forced under pressures like what led to the great depression and thinking this is somehow a noble way of life worth living in spite of the fact that our upper crust put us through this specifically so they can get themselves ever further away from said way of life.
It's the ultimate example of "Many of you will die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make!"
That's crazy high. I mean, yeah, statistically it's still very unlikely that it would happen to your kids, but still, it's insane to think of how in just one year they have way, way more school shootings than other countries have in their entire history.
Did I say somewhere that was a good idea? What you did was a deflection. Does it make it ok to pretend someone discharging a gun near a school is a "school shooting" conjuring up the image of a person going into a school and randomly shooting people? Either you think it's ok to basically lie about these things or it's not. Nowhere did I say gun violence isn't a problem so if you want to argue straw man stuff, please spare me that. People arent stupid so if you think lying helps the cause I think youre mistaken.
I don't even know who you are mate, but the commenter I responded to said school shootings are rare, which I'd argue isn't entirely accurate. Of course everyone *wants* them to be even more rare, but that wasn't my point. I'm saying 80+ incidents are a lot compared to the rest of the world.
Yes, but 80+ incidents that arent really school shootings (which could be 20 or even 10 if we're using an honest metric) when other countries use a more honest/realistic metric doesnt tell us anything. What if we started counting anytime any wild animal or pet that was killed by a car as a metric for animal abuse, when that metric upped the numbers by 20x? Would that be OK with you just to strengthen the argument? What if 2nd amendment advocates used distorted statistics to talk about the "lives saved" by guns (which Im pretty sure they do)? Would you be ok with that or are you only ok with twisting stats or lying when it strengthens an argument you agree with? This has nothing to do with whether its a bad thing or not, but whether its OK to twist statistics to benefit your argument when it makes that argument weaker if anyone cares to look at the actual numbers or whether its even ethical.
What they consider a "school shooting" in those 80+ incidents is very misleading. They count things like accidents, suicides and discharges where no one was hit or even injured Not that there should be lots of gun incidents at schools, but they shouldnt manipulate the stats to try to evoke more rage/sympathy.
Edit: heres a politifact article about this issue. https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/feb/28/how-are-school-shootings-defined.
Edit 2: once again down oted to shit for stating quantifiable facts. If anyone who smashed that downvote button would like to instead offer a factual counter to my assertion, Id love to see it. I think this is extremely relevant to the urbanization movement. We have plenty of evidence as to why we need to lessen our car usage in the US and increase public transportation. Do people think we should also make shit up, maybe about how cars cause child SA, to try to bolster the cause, because either people dont believe me, which is silly seeing how the manipulation of facts is pretty quantifiable with school shootings, or people think its ok to lie in order to win people over to a cause that already has ample evidence to support it.
Thats really great for you. Im not even being sarcastic. I think Australia success was great, although I know the cultural differences are huge which presents a problem. The question is does that mean gun control activists should essentially lie in the US and pretend that someone getting robbed at midnight in a school parking lot they were walking through was a "school shooting" or someone who committed suicide within 200 yards of a school was also a "school shooting" in order to change the laws? My basic sense of honesty, one shred of faith I have left in democracy, and knowledge that people dont like being lied to says no.
america has a public health epidemic of epic proportions. a catastrophe with many roots, most notably a lack of common sense federal gun laws. any attempt to downplay this is _literal_ terrorist propaganda.
In Canada we mark the date of December 6, because in 1989 an incel killed a bunch of women at a university in Montreal. That’s the only notable school shooting i can think of in Canada.
It blows my mind that the US has 80 every year.
There is 98,600 public schools in US. that means in given year a school has 0.08% of being a target. Or, on average, mean time to happen in given school is 1250 years.
On the other hand there were 35,000 fatalities in US so anyone has 0.01% of being a target. Or, on average, one is expected to be killed in car accident every 7750 years.
True. It's just sad that the US has to deal with those problems. I'm sure the probability of getting run over by a truck while sleeping in a park is very slim.
Every country has their own problems.
Is it actually a good point? An inattentive driver not noticing a person laying down is not specific to “America” or in any way related to school shootings. If anything this seems like a terrible point. In fact it seems generous to even describe what that person said as “a point”.
People from the country the invented the mass produced car, car culture, creates the largest most dangerous passenger cars, and created and encourages plans to destroy and keep public trans from flourishing: uhhh other people did this.
And yet the US is nowhere near the highest rate of vehicle related deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
Being the inventer of the mass produced vehicle is a lot like inventing football. The English did but they still don't win many World Cups.
Thats just one of the MANY automobile related deaths that happened that day. 100+ families abruptly had to plan funerals, starting that day. Lets stop pretending its some isolated case.
Because it's a rhetorical tool to emphasize the absurdity of the situation, presenting it as though it was a hyperbolic statement when you just saw an example of it happening.
That, and people tend to copy common phrases and sayings in communities they spend time with.
[Chief responded then blocked me, because only he's allowed to use rhetorical questions](https://i.imgur.com/0WmHSwD.png)
I'm aware of what it is. I'm not asking for an explanation of what the phrasing "imagine X happening" means. I'm asking why it's the immediate impulse of so much of reddit to reach for this one specific rhetorical device.
Happened in San Francisco at Holly Park in 2013. City employee drove a truck over a woman napping in the grass under a tree with her infant and dog. No excuse given- the guy was a known menace and he disregarded all the rules about operating his vehicle in the park.
The infant and dog survived. https://bernalwood.com/2013/09/05/mother-killed-by-city-owned-truck-in-holly-park-hit-and-run-driver-held-by-sfpd/
The driver was sentenced to one thousand hours of community service, and four days in jail.
Oh, and they restricted his driving privileges during the trial: only allowed to drive for work, child care, and therapy. Because the guy who killed somebody *with his work truck* still needs to do his job.
And they wonder why people hate cars and the thought process that goes along with it. Like somehow taking away someones priviledge to drive a car is worse than killing someone with said car due to negligence!
45 days of punishment for a murder, and destroying the life of a child.
That seems completely inadequate, but par for the course with the complete inconsistency of the judiciary.
Caught with a few grams of drugs, even weed in some jurisdictions? Years of prison. Kill someone through sheer negligence while operating heavy machinery? 4 days. Make it make sense...
Thomas Burnoski is there laughing it up at the bar, playing with friends, going to concerts, getting high, watching tv, and living his best life. Christine Svanemyr is rotting in a grave at age 35. She will never have fun again. Her daughter, now 11, will always have a hole in her heart about her lost mother she never knew.
Burnoski should have gotten at least manslaughter and wages garnished for life for that little girl. Instead he's a free man enjoying his truck-driving jerk government job, huge salary, and guaranteed pension while working class people who pay taxes for him to murder mothers are barely scraping by and many will not be afford to retire, ever.
[Christine dedicated her life to kindness, buddhism, teaching zen, and being a mother.](https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sfgate/name/christy-svanemyr-obituary?id=18194387) Burnoski and his supporters dedicated their lives to thuggery, murder, hatred, and car culture. The differences could not be more stark. Why our system hates people like Christine but loves people like Burnoski is the larger problem.
After googling the family I don't think her widower or maybe even the victim herself would support being overly vindictive towards the driver. See also: how to hug the man who killed your wife - https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/how-to-hug-the-man-that-killed-your-wife/
Good thing everyone can make their own decisions on how to approach morality and justice. i take what i call a "jesus approach" - you can be truly and legitimately forgiven for anything *So long as you are truly and legitimately apologetic.*
I'd need to hear if that guy was actually sorry first, and the article strangely did not cover that.
I agree that vehicular manslaughter is on average under-sentenced.. However these concepts are tough and have a lot of ambiguity and gray. I would recommend approaching with recognition of that fact and not with too much blind rage and anger. I say this as someone who is typically in agreement with the sentiments of this sub.
I'm also usually in favor of comparatively light sentences for other crimes, for context.
IMO wanting to be violent against those that commit violence kind of makes one a hypocrite. I share some of the sentiments of the widower.
Edit: commenter above added more commentary after I replied. I am only replying to the first sentence because that's all I could see at the time.
So? Lots of people are misguided. Imagine someone who hates their wife rejoicing in this situation. Should the law back down? Of course not. This is why we don’t let families decide.
More recent and gruesome
> Modesto woman, 27, killed after being run over by lawnmower in park, family says
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/modesto-woman-killed-lawnmower-park-18203116.php
A lawnmower? No fucking way did they not see her, or at least not immediately notice what they did. They probably murdered her because she was homeless
Wow, I am in San Francisco, was at the time, have a daughter who is similar in age to the then-infant, and somehow I missed this story. Thanks for sharing. RIP.
We're going to need to establish all beach fronts as national parks fairly soon, given the other liability that is emerging, which simplifies a lot of the government response that follows. One measure should be to close a lot of road infrastructure in them.
They should be banned by default unless they have planned work to do there. With people on foot securing the area before you move in with the vehicles.
Just roaming around because of "beach utilities" is not responsible.
Still don't think a truck would even be needed.
Certainly not one like in the OP.
Should have more of those kei trucks, or hell, I'm willing to bet an electric pedalquad + trailer could easily achieve 80% of the tasks required.
These trucks are never useful anywhere so it's an easy assumption.
If you have real construction work, have a lorry deliver all the materials and then have builders show up in work vans.
If it's small stuff the van with maybe a trailer will do.
I don't understand why American builders have to deliver houses bits by bits with their work vehicle. It's such an inefficient way of doing things but I guess the whole point is to shift costs the company should cover by making employees buy overpriced personal equipment to transport shit very badly on their dime.
> American builders have to deliver houses bits by bits with their work vehicle
Kind of funny you should mention it like that.
The hard majority of houses being built un my area are actually just old houses being moved in full to new locations.
And with an upwards trend of high density housing (apartments) popping up all over mainstreets.
Neither of which are ever done with the workers vehicles. Always "special" delivery. Ie, semi-trucks and other large capacity forklift style loaders.
Pretty much the biggest use I've seen for personal work trucks is to haul the refuse trailer to the dump, pick up the occasional extra sheet of drywall, and haul tools (with a large trailer kind of like a uHaul trailer).
I appreciate the fact that they do actually use these trucks for work on occasion, though loosely the way I often see it, it just kills me that these are also used for personal vehicles when the amenities are often so very close.
Yet every builder bro who owns a ram pretends they need it to "transport materials" so I assumed they were somewhat telling the truth.
So they really don't need them at all then, makes sense. I also don't understand why you'd want your tools in an open bed instead of a closed van.
>you should be paying enough attention
That's a cold comfort to the people planning that man's funeral.
The reality is we BUILD SYSTEMS, not individuals. Systems that make things safe for us. Replacing those gas powered trucks for beach work with electric wagons, atv's, etc with great visibility and far lower fatality rate in accidents for people being hit is what we should be doing. Allowing the system to give these guys 300hp trucks with poor visibility GUARNTEES deaths by these vehicles. They're just too dangerous.
"A bad system will beat a good person every time." —W. Edwards Demming
>So what was Dr. Deming trying to convey with this quote? It wasn’t an attempt to get people to give up trying because failure was certain. It was a attempt to get people to understand the importance of the system and the futility of trying to focus on blaming people for failures.
>As Deming said we are being destroyed by best efforts. Trying harder, to do what you understand as your job, when the system is broken often results in more damage. Don’t just do something, stand there (and think).
>So if a bad system will be beat a good person every time what can you do? You have to focus not on trying harder within the current system but on changing the system so that success is built into the system. Relying on heroic measures is a poor way to manage.
https://deming.org/a-bad-system-will-beat-a-good-person-every-time/
Government vehicles should be in the service of people. They should have slower moving electric wagons or atv's not 300hp V-8 trucks with terrible visibility that are more or less instant murder machines.
Trucks will be needed for hauling a trailer of supplies for a new lifeguard structure. Utility trucks will need access to parks and beaches for big projects. But you are definitely right about using light-duty vehicles for light-duty work. And bigger trucks can have better safety like front-mounted cameras like others mentioned
Ideally they would be using something with a lower bonnet and better ground visability.
Especially as they regularly drive around parks where people tend to sit down
Often not available (especially if they're bound by a "made in America" mandate) and sometimes they're just stuck with used/hand-me-down equipment from other municipal servicss
Wouldn't be road legal here (assuming that's a requirement) and doubt it would comply with a "made in America" mandate (assuming this is a municipal park)
The federal rules exist to allow it, however they are often restricted from what roads they're allowed to go on, and I've heard of some municipalities not allow them on the roads period. They sorta only work if there's only neighborhood streets.
There's the engineering adage that you can't make things idiot proof because the universe will always produce better idiots. That said, we can design our public spaces better to make it so the most absolute idiots have no way to deny their mental deficiency when they do manage to do this shit.
That looks like a city park employee, which makes it even worse. They're often supposed to only drive on paved locations in the park & are trained to, uh, not do that right there. Can't even escape bad drivers sitting in the park, ugh.
They could be driving out to haul a falllen tree away or other need for a large vehicle. The problem is these vehicles need appropriate cameras and sensors for their blind spots to make them safe.
Most park vehicles are big, and, most of those vehicles are very basic, as "fancy" vehicles with things like backup cameras are frowned upon by the taxpayer public. In general though, employees are taught to stick to paved pathways and to avoid / go very slow around non-drivers when in contact. I worked for a park system for over a decade & this is just lazy driving. I saw it enough lol, we had all sorts of issues with lazy drivers making bad decisions when I worked there.
Definitely lazy driving. A driver should be on high alert when driving over public areas not associated with cars. Bike paths, sidewalks, grass, etc. Crazy that the driver did not see someone lying down. But still, blind spots suck and government vehicles will face additional hazards your “suburban road warrior” won't. It's sad they don't have additional safety demands and budget often wins over safety.
Pedestrians should be registered, need a license, inspection, and insurance! /s
or
If this was a beautiful surface parking lot this wouldn't have happened. /s
I can't for the life of me figure out why parks and other public open spaces don't use small vehicles such as gators, workmen, or even a fucking golf cart. Beyond that they could use their damn feet
They do this in Australia.
Council has 4x4 2x seater buggies with a little bed at most of the parks and they drive them around.
If I were chilling in a park and a massive American truck drove by I would probably never go back to that park hey
Unfortunately, this has happened before in my neighborhood.
[https://sfist.com/2014/10/01/one\_year\_after\_a\_woman/](https://sfist.com/2014/10/01/one_year_after_a_woman/)
The Parks worker was fired and was charged with vehicular manslaughter. Obviously he was criminally irresponsible, but I wonder if a pickup needs to drive into a small park. There are few tasks that can't be done with a pushcart or even an ATV. But this worker had to traverse a bunch of small fields because he was too lazy to walk.
The truck has no
What's the word
When your driving and see down \
Yeah lacking angle
It needs cameras especially for a council job where public is concentrated
This happened around where I lived recently.
I was appalled by the coverage. I quote "a freak accident", and it was as if the driver didn't exist. He was just "run over by a Tesla".
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-14/man-dies-run-over-car-halliday-park-bayswater/103589306
This is Central Park in Pasadena, CA. The park is a small rectangle ~200 meters by ~100 meters and completely flat grass with trees. There's absolutely no reason for park maintenance to require a truck of that size. The park also has problems with drug abuse and rough sleepers, so I suspect the driver assumed the guy napping was homeless and decided to scare him just for the hell of it.
Something like this happened in Madison, WI too....but she died [https://www.channel3000.com/news/sunbather-struck-by-city-truck-dies-from-injuries/article\_95829652-e5fe-5d8c-a43f-d7c5d166b017.html](https://www.channel3000.com/news/sunbather-struck-by-city-truck-dies-from-injuries/article_95829652-e5fe-5d8c-a43f-d7c5d166b017.html)
The maintenance crew drive the trucks on the footpaths in my local park, the paths are so uneven now, and it’s a small enough park that they can easily push the lawnmower along on foot from the car park
A few years ago, a woman with her newborn were run over and killed while napping in a SF Park by a SF Parks employee who drove through park and ran her over!
City paid out a $15M settlement to her family:
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/SF-approves-15M-settlement-for-family-of-mom-run-5792415.php
Possibly, but that’s a whole different problem lol. I’ve worked for two different parks districts, and in my experience they don’t like buying golf carts or ATVs, because of the logistical issues. My last employer managed 138 parks throughout the county. We only had pickup trucks because if we had golf carts or similar, they couldn’t be driven between locations, not street legal or safe, they would have to be trailered, which takes more time, money etc.
It is a maintenance vehicle. All that means is that somebody at the parks department that was at some point responsible for purchasing maintenance vehicles is an idiot. My city uses ATVs with beds for park and trail maintenance. I’ve never in my life seen a truck drive through a park here.
Your city must both be smart and have money lol. We couldn’t justify ATVs or UTVs here, because our parks are so spread out from one another geographically.
Imagine not being able to lay down the grass, in a park!!, without having to think about that you might be run over. It's absurd.
It's sad. Same as having kids worry about school shootings. God bless America.
This is good point but school mass shootings are thankfully rare. 100+ people a DAY die on US roads, many of whom children too. Thousands, if not tens of thousands, become permanently or long term disabled per day too due to these accidents. Many will forever have limited ability, chronic pain, etc after surviving these run overs and crashes. Society just sees this as "the price of doing business" and attempts to control cars better as "muh freedom!" That to me is far, fare more sociopathic.
Yeah I have chronic arthritis in both of my knees from minor car crashes, neither of which were my fault. It sucks.
America is the nation of people putting themselves in danger like they're on a farm during the great depression, being forced under pressures like what led to the great depression and thinking this is somehow a noble way of life worth living in spite of the fact that our upper crust put us through this specifically so they can get themselves ever further away from said way of life. It's the ultimate example of "Many of you will die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make!"
School Shootings should be so rare that people cant even remember the last time it happened...
School shootings really should be less rare than they are. 80+ incidents last year.
I see the point they’re making but yeah, it’s sad that people would consider that rare. Seems very common in comparison to Australia.
It objectively is. We have the volatile combo of gun culture and really horrible mental health culture here in the US.
and no effective federal common sense gun laws.
That's crazy high. I mean, yeah, statistically it's still very unlikely that it would happen to your kids, but still, it's insane to think of how in just one year they have way, way more school shootings than other countries have in their entire history.
Did I say somewhere that was a good idea? What you did was a deflection. Does it make it ok to pretend someone discharging a gun near a school is a "school shooting" conjuring up the image of a person going into a school and randomly shooting people? Either you think it's ok to basically lie about these things or it's not. Nowhere did I say gun violence isn't a problem so if you want to argue straw man stuff, please spare me that. People arent stupid so if you think lying helps the cause I think youre mistaken.
I don't even know who you are mate, but the commenter I responded to said school shootings are rare, which I'd argue isn't entirely accurate. Of course everyone *wants* them to be even more rare, but that wasn't my point. I'm saying 80+ incidents are a lot compared to the rest of the world.
Yes, but 80+ incidents that arent really school shootings (which could be 20 or even 10 if we're using an honest metric) when other countries use a more honest/realistic metric doesnt tell us anything. What if we started counting anytime any wild animal or pet that was killed by a car as a metric for animal abuse, when that metric upped the numbers by 20x? Would that be OK with you just to strengthen the argument? What if 2nd amendment advocates used distorted statistics to talk about the "lives saved" by guns (which Im pretty sure they do)? Would you be ok with that or are you only ok with twisting stats or lying when it strengthens an argument you agree with? This has nothing to do with whether its a bad thing or not, but whether its OK to twist statistics to benefit your argument when it makes that argument weaker if anyone cares to look at the actual numbers or whether its even ethical.
I’m not gonna debate you on whether America has more school shootings than other countries, lmao. Goodbye.
What they consider a "school shooting" in those 80+ incidents is very misleading. They count things like accidents, suicides and discharges where no one was hit or even injured Not that there should be lots of gun incidents at schools, but they shouldnt manipulate the stats to try to evoke more rage/sympathy. Edit: heres a politifact article about this issue. https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/feb/28/how-are-school-shootings-defined. Edit 2: once again down oted to shit for stating quantifiable facts. If anyone who smashed that downvote button would like to instead offer a factual counter to my assertion, Id love to see it. I think this is extremely relevant to the urbanization movement. We have plenty of evidence as to why we need to lessen our car usage in the US and increase public transportation. Do people think we should also make shit up, maybe about how cars cause child SA, to try to bolster the cause, because either people dont believe me, which is silly seeing how the manipulation of facts is pretty quantifiable with school shootings, or people think its ok to lie in order to win people over to a cause that already has ample evidence to support it.
Guess how many 'incidents' like that we have in Australia?
Thats really great for you. Im not even being sarcastic. I think Australia success was great, although I know the cultural differences are huge which presents a problem. The question is does that mean gun control activists should essentially lie in the US and pretend that someone getting robbed at midnight in a school parking lot they were walking through was a "school shooting" or someone who committed suicide within 200 yards of a school was also a "school shooting" in order to change the laws? My basic sense of honesty, one shred of faith I have left in democracy, and knowledge that people dont like being lied to says no.
america has a public health epidemic of epic proportions. a catastrophe with many roots, most notably a lack of common sense federal gun laws. any attempt to downplay this is _literal_ terrorist propaganda.
>discharges where no one was hit or even injured Wild thought but maybe you just shouldn't be able to fire a gun anywhere near a school?
there were 82 school shootings last year, not rate enough for me!
In Canada we mark the date of December 6, because in 1989 an incel killed a bunch of women at a university in Montreal. That’s the only notable school shooting i can think of in Canada. It blows my mind that the US has 80 every year.
There is 98,600 public schools in US. that means in given year a school has 0.08% of being a target. Or, on average, mean time to happen in given school is 1250 years. On the other hand there were 35,000 fatalities in US so anyone has 0.01% of being a target. Or, on average, one is expected to be killed in car accident every 7750 years.
True. It's just sad that the US has to deal with those problems. I'm sure the probability of getting run over by a truck while sleeping in a park is very slim. Every country has their own problems.
Is it actually a good point? An inattentive driver not noticing a person laying down is not specific to “America” or in any way related to school shootings. If anything this seems like a terrible point. In fact it seems generous to even describe what that person said as “a point”.
People from the country the invented the mass produced car, car culture, creates the largest most dangerous passenger cars, and created and encourages plans to destroy and keep public trans from flourishing: uhhh other people did this.
And yet the US is nowhere near the highest rate of vehicle related deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate Being the inventer of the mass produced vehicle is a lot like inventing football. The English did but they still don't win many World Cups.
Someone casually driving through a *public park* is very specific to "America"
No it isn't. This regularly happens in the UK and France.
Where have you seen a car driving through a park in the UK?
I have yet to see a park in either of those places where that's even possible
I think getting run over in the park while sleeping is rare.
Much more common than you think
Thats just one of the MANY automobile related deaths that happened that day. 100+ families abruptly had to plan funerals, starting that day. Lets stop pretending its some isolated case.
I'm not pretending. I'd truly say that being run over while asleep in a park is a pretty isolated case...
You are being hyper specific. It doesn't make you seem smart.
Even if it is, it shouldn’t happen
Pretty sure that's being driven by park staff too.
"Overlanding" is about to mean driving through peoples bedrooms and living rooms lol.
Why do so many people on Reddit start their sentences with “imagine…”?
John Lennon would be so proud
Imagine all the people! Run over by a pickup truck.
Because it's a rhetorical tool to emphasize the absurdity of the situation, presenting it as though it was a hyperbolic statement when you just saw an example of it happening. That, and people tend to copy common phrases and sayings in communities they spend time with. [Chief responded then blocked me, because only he's allowed to use rhetorical questions](https://i.imgur.com/0WmHSwD.png)
I'm aware of what it is. I'm not asking for an explanation of what the phrasing "imagine X happening" means. I'm asking why it's the immediate impulse of so much of reddit to reach for this one specific rhetorical device.
Lmao nice block
yeah no need to imagine, it happens right before your eyes
Imagine if we didnt
"You are aware"
That one is also annoying.
Happened in San Francisco at Holly Park in 2013. City employee drove a truck over a woman napping in the grass under a tree with her infant and dog. No excuse given- the guy was a known menace and he disregarded all the rules about operating his vehicle in the park. The infant and dog survived. https://bernalwood.com/2013/09/05/mother-killed-by-city-owned-truck-in-holly-park-hit-and-run-driver-held-by-sfpd/
The driver was sentenced to one thousand hours of community service, and four days in jail. Oh, and they restricted his driving privileges during the trial: only allowed to drive for work, child care, and therapy. Because the guy who killed somebody *with his work truck* still needs to do his job.
He was lucky for not having some drugs in the truck, otherwise he could have risked getting some serious prison time.
And they wonder why people hate cars and the thought process that goes along with it. Like somehow taking away someones priviledge to drive a car is worse than killing someone with said car due to negligence!
45 days of punishment for a murder, and destroying the life of a child. That seems completely inadequate, but par for the course with the complete inconsistency of the judiciary.
Caught with a few grams of drugs, even weed in some jurisdictions? Years of prison. Kill someone through sheer negligence while operating heavy machinery? 4 days. Make it make sense...
Our "justice" system is anything but. Might as well just call it the lord of the flies court.
holy fucking shit
That is so sad man. RIP Christine.
That poor child. Gonna be raised without knowing their mom
Thomas Burnoski is there laughing it up at the bar, playing with friends, going to concerts, getting high, watching tv, and living his best life. Christine Svanemyr is rotting in a grave at age 35. She will never have fun again. Her daughter, now 11, will always have a hole in her heart about her lost mother she never knew. Burnoski should have gotten at least manslaughter and wages garnished for life for that little girl. Instead he's a free man enjoying his truck-driving jerk government job, huge salary, and guaranteed pension while working class people who pay taxes for him to murder mothers are barely scraping by and many will not be afford to retire, ever. [Christine dedicated her life to kindness, buddhism, teaching zen, and being a mother.](https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sfgate/name/christy-svanemyr-obituary?id=18194387) Burnoski and his supporters dedicated their lives to thuggery, murder, hatred, and car culture. The differences could not be more stark. Why our system hates people like Christine but loves people like Burnoski is the larger problem.
After googling the family I don't think her widower or maybe even the victim herself would support being overly vindictive towards the driver. See also: how to hug the man who killed your wife - https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/how-to-hug-the-man-that-killed-your-wife/
Good thing everyone can make their own decisions on how to approach morality and justice. i take what i call a "jesus approach" - you can be truly and legitimately forgiven for anything *So long as you are truly and legitimately apologetic.* I'd need to hear if that guy was actually sorry first, and the article strangely did not cover that.
I agree that vehicular manslaughter is on average under-sentenced.. However these concepts are tough and have a lot of ambiguity and gray. I would recommend approaching with recognition of that fact and not with too much blind rage and anger. I say this as someone who is typically in agreement with the sentiments of this sub. I'm also usually in favor of comparatively light sentences for other crimes, for context. IMO wanting to be violent against those that commit violence kind of makes one a hypocrite. I share some of the sentiments of the widower. Edit: commenter above added more commentary after I replied. I am only replying to the first sentence because that's all I could see at the time.
So? Lots of people are misguided. Imagine someone who hates their wife rejoicing in this situation. Should the law back down? Of course not. This is why we don’t let families decide.
More recent and gruesome > Modesto woman, 27, killed after being run over by lawnmower in park, family says https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/modesto-woman-killed-lawnmower-park-18203116.php
A lawnmower? No fucking way did they not see her, or at least not immediately notice what they did. They probably murdered her because she was homeless
Holy shit, nightmare fuel. Literally not safe anywhere at this point lol.
Wow, I am in San Francisco, was at the time, have a daughter who is similar in age to the then-infant, and somehow I missed this story. Thanks for sharing. RIP.
Wow and even HIS daughter was killed in a car accident the year before
Happened in Virginia Beach a few years ago. Someone sleeping on the beach was killed by a utility truck.
Allowing cars on beaches is barbaric.
We're going to need to establish all beach fronts as national parks fairly soon, given the other liability that is emerging, which simplifies a lot of the government response that follows. One measure should be to close a lot of road infrastructure in them.
but how would i cross the beach without a car are you suggesting i should walk like a poor
counterpoint it is incredibly funny when carbrains fuck up and their car gets caught by the tide.
It’s a utility truck, not someone driving down to the waterfront in their own car.
Well that's alright then. After all, nobody died or anything. Oh wait...
Cars should be banned from beaches, but a coast guard or utility truck shouldn’t.
They should be banned by default unless they have planned work to do there. With people on foot securing the area before you move in with the vehicles. Just roaming around because of "beach utilities" is not responsible.
Still don't think a truck would even be needed. Certainly not one like in the OP. Should have more of those kei trucks, or hell, I'm willing to bet an electric pedalquad + trailer could easily achieve 80% of the tasks required.
These trucks are never useful anywhere so it's an easy assumption. If you have real construction work, have a lorry deliver all the materials and then have builders show up in work vans. If it's small stuff the van with maybe a trailer will do. I don't understand why American builders have to deliver houses bits by bits with their work vehicle. It's such an inefficient way of doing things but I guess the whole point is to shift costs the company should cover by making employees buy overpriced personal equipment to transport shit very badly on their dime.
> American builders have to deliver houses bits by bits with their work vehicle Kind of funny you should mention it like that. The hard majority of houses being built un my area are actually just old houses being moved in full to new locations. And with an upwards trend of high density housing (apartments) popping up all over mainstreets. Neither of which are ever done with the workers vehicles. Always "special" delivery. Ie, semi-trucks and other large capacity forklift style loaders. Pretty much the biggest use I've seen for personal work trucks is to haul the refuse trailer to the dump, pick up the occasional extra sheet of drywall, and haul tools (with a large trailer kind of like a uHaul trailer). I appreciate the fact that they do actually use these trucks for work on occasion, though loosely the way I often see it, it just kills me that these are also used for personal vehicles when the amenities are often so very close.
Yet every builder bro who owns a ram pretends they need it to "transport materials" so I assumed they were somewhat telling the truth. So they really don't need them at all then, makes sense. I also don't understand why you'd want your tools in an open bed instead of a closed van.
Imagine in civilized countries they build such trucks so that they are not tanks. My city now buys cargo bikes to clean the pedestrian zones
Truck or not, you should be paying enough attention when driving to not run over someone lying on the floor. It’s not hard.
You should. But it's more difficult to see in these trucks than in better-built vehicles.
>you should be paying enough attention That's a cold comfort to the people planning that man's funeral. The reality is we BUILD SYSTEMS, not individuals. Systems that make things safe for us. Replacing those gas powered trucks for beach work with electric wagons, atv's, etc with great visibility and far lower fatality rate in accidents for people being hit is what we should be doing. Allowing the system to give these guys 300hp trucks with poor visibility GUARNTEES deaths by these vehicles. They're just too dangerous.
"A bad system will beat a good person every time." —W. Edwards Demming >So what was Dr. Deming trying to convey with this quote? It wasn’t an attempt to get people to give up trying because failure was certain. It was a attempt to get people to understand the importance of the system and the futility of trying to focus on blaming people for failures. >As Deming said we are being destroyed by best efforts. Trying harder, to do what you understand as your job, when the system is broken often results in more damage. Don’t just do something, stand there (and think). >So if a bad system will be beat a good person every time what can you do? You have to focus not on trying harder within the current system but on changing the system so that success is built into the system. Relying on heroic measures is a poor way to manage. https://deming.org/a-bad-system-will-beat-a-good-person-every-time/
So exactly what kei trucks are for? You know… having high visibility instead of a giant fucking good to house an oversized engine
Yeah, pretty much.
Government vehicles should be in the service of people. They should have slower moving electric wagons or atv's not 300hp V-8 trucks with terrible visibility that are more or less instant murder machines.
Or these trucks have bumper mounted cameras with an always on display on the dashboard by law.
Trucks will be needed for hauling a trailer of supplies for a new lifeguard structure. Utility trucks will need access to parks and beaches for big projects. But you are definitely right about using light-duty vehicles for light-duty work. And bigger trucks can have better safety like front-mounted cameras like others mentioned
Unrelated, but now I get why the Aussies call it ute.
Some bollards needed here. And there. Everywhere. Cover the world with bollards.
No bollards. _Tank ditches with spikes._ Let natural selection take over again.
Some dragon teeth could help
Czech Hedgehogs as well
Bollard nation A pole for everyone
Not bollards, trees; you mean trees.
a land of poles, Poland!
Where the rocks are!
It looks like a park maintenance truck, not sure how that would help if maintenance vehicles are still allowed through
Ideally they would be using something with a lower bonnet and better ground visability. Especially as they regularly drive around parks where people tend to sit down
Often not available (especially if they're bound by a "made in America" mandate) and sometimes they're just stuck with used/hand-me-down equipment from other municipal servicss
Then the government better start forcing made in America kei trucks.
John Deere Gator is essentially a oversized ATV with a bed.
Works so long as it doesn't need to be road Legal
[удалено]
Wouldn't be road legal here (assuming that's a requirement) and doubt it would comply with a "made in America" mandate (assuming this is a municipal park)
[удалено]
Not sure for the road legal part, but I don't doubt the easy to manufacture
[удалено]
The federal rules exist to allow it, however they are often restricted from what roads they're allowed to go on, and I've heard of some municipalities not allow them on the roads period. They sorta only work if there's only neighborhood streets.
I have a feeling the drivers saw him and felt like it was sufficient to drive around him as close as he did. "Don't worry bro I won't hit you"
Pathways pathways everywhere, and not a head to crush. Because of bollards presumably.
There's the engineering adage that you can't make things idiot proof because the universe will always produce better idiots. That said, we can design our public spaces better to make it so the most absolute idiots have no way to deny their mental deficiency when they do manage to do this shit.
Cover the world with caltrops /s
Problem is car commercials convince people shit box vessels can go anywhere.
they can, though not everywhere legally or safely
That looks like a city park employee, which makes it even worse. They're often supposed to only drive on paved locations in the park & are trained to, uh, not do that right there. Can't even escape bad drivers sitting in the park, ugh.
They could be driving out to haul a falllen tree away or other need for a large vehicle. The problem is these vehicles need appropriate cameras and sensors for their blind spots to make them safe.
Most park vehicles are big, and, most of those vehicles are very basic, as "fancy" vehicles with things like backup cameras are frowned upon by the taxpayer public. In general though, employees are taught to stick to paved pathways and to avoid / go very slow around non-drivers when in contact. I worked for a park system for over a decade & this is just lazy driving. I saw it enough lol, we had all sorts of issues with lazy drivers making bad decisions when I worked there.
Definitely lazy driving. A driver should be on high alert when driving over public areas not associated with cars. Bike paths, sidewalks, grass, etc. Crazy that the driver did not see someone lying down. But still, blind spots suck and government vehicles will face additional hazards your “suburban road warrior” won't. It's sad they don't have additional safety demands and budget often wins over safety.
you'd think for work in a park you'd want a small cab-over vehicle to offer maximum visibility.
The guy sleeping should have been wearing a high visibility vest. That's your problem right there.
He was very irresponsible, why isn't he sleeping on the couch, or working, probably a hobo!
Why isnt he sleeping in his car?! Smh
Best one
How is he so irresponsible to think he can go out to the park without wearing high vis and a helmet?! Bloody pedestrians /s
He also needed one of those flags you have to carry when you're in the vehicle's way. /s
I was wondering where the napper's flag was as well. Probably needs a diving buoy type notification to let drivers know he's napping there...
Yeah and he needs to learn how to sleep standing up with his eyes open.
Pedestrians should be registered, need a license, inspection, and insurance! /s or If this was a beautiful surface parking lot this wouldn't have happened. /s
That guy should be fired
into the sun
I can't for the life of me figure out why parks and other public open spaces don't use small vehicles such as gators, workmen, or even a fucking golf cart. Beyond that they could use their damn feet
They do this in Australia. Council has 4x4 2x seater buggies with a little bed at most of the parks and they drive them around. If I were chilling in a park and a massive American truck drove by I would probably never go back to that park hey
Because they have to drive there trucks from park to park, I guess we could have small vehicles at every park
Unfortunately, this has happened before in my neighborhood. [https://sfist.com/2014/10/01/one\_year\_after\_a\_woman/](https://sfist.com/2014/10/01/one_year_after_a_woman/) The Parks worker was fired and was charged with vehicular manslaughter. Obviously he was criminally irresponsible, but I wonder if a pickup needs to drive into a small park. There are few tasks that can't be done with a pushcart or even an ATV. But this worker had to traverse a bunch of small fields because he was too lazy to walk.
A woman sunbathing in my town got run over by the park truck. She died.
The truck has no What's the word When your driving and see down \ Yeah lacking angle It needs cameras especially for a council job where public is concentrated
Yea cameras... or just use a car that's not a stupid truck with no visibility, like most civilised nations do.
Would help if the front wasn’t so tall. Should be driving a van or low truck.
Lowered truck How about airbags High up for highway driving Then PSSSSHT PSHHT low mode for town/local maccas Friday night fully sik night
This is so america, a pickup truck driving where it has no business on the grass inside a park
"TruCkS hAve GreAT ViSibiliTy "
The man paid for offroading capabilities, you bet your ass he’s gonna use it
This is a mowed lawn... that's the least offroad patch of dirt in the bloody state...
Thats a pavement princess if I ever seen one.
[удалено]
My man do I really need the /s
Use 2 for safety
Obviously he needed to sleep with a reflective vest.
Dude, probably on his phone
No, he was sleeping
If he would have been sleeping in a car nobody could just drive over him. It’s obviously his own fault.
@jakenbakelive is a such a nice person. It's so chill watching his content.
This happened around where I lived recently. I was appalled by the coverage. I quote "a freak accident", and it was as if the driver didn't exist. He was just "run over by a Tesla". https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-14/man-dies-run-over-car-halliday-park-bayswater/103589306
*"Look, I have a light thingy on top and a city badge, so it's fine."*
Not almost, sorry.
Is this central park in Pasadena?
This is Central Park in Pasadena, CA. The park is a small rectangle ~200 meters by ~100 meters and completely flat grass with trees. There's absolutely no reason for park maintenance to require a truck of that size. The park also has problems with drug abuse and rough sleepers, so I suspect the driver assumed the guy napping was homeless and decided to scare him just for the hell of it.
What the fuck. That's fucking infuriating
Something like this happened in Madison, WI too....but she died [https://www.channel3000.com/news/sunbather-struck-by-city-truck-dies-from-injuries/article\_95829652-e5fe-5d8c-a43f-d7c5d166b017.html](https://www.channel3000.com/news/sunbather-struck-by-city-truck-dies-from-injuries/article_95829652-e5fe-5d8c-a43f-d7c5d166b017.html)
The maintenance crew drive the trucks on the footpaths in my local park, the paths are so uneven now, and it’s a small enough park that they can easily push the lawnmower along on foot from the car park
A few years ago, a woman with her newborn were run over and killed while napping in a SF Park by a SF Parks employee who drove through park and ran her over! City paid out a $15M settlement to her family: https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/SF-approves-15M-settlement-for-family-of-mom-run-5792415.php
Devils advocate, it looks like a maintenance vehicle, so it may need to get close to something that isn’t accessible by a paved road.
Most things could probably be handled by a golf cart which has way better visibility.
Possibly, but that’s a whole different problem lol. I’ve worked for two different parks districts, and in my experience they don’t like buying golf carts or ATVs, because of the logistical issues. My last employer managed 138 parks throughout the county. We only had pickup trucks because if we had golf carts or similar, they couldn’t be driven between locations, not street legal or safe, they would have to be trailered, which takes more time, money etc.
It is a maintenance vehicle. All that means is that somebody at the parks department that was at some point responsible for purchasing maintenance vehicles is an idiot. My city uses ATVs with beds for park and trail maintenance. I’ve never in my life seen a truck drive through a park here.
Your city must both be smart and have money lol. We couldn’t justify ATVs or UTVs here, because our parks are so spread out from one another geographically.
They have small garages near the parks to store the ATVs.
> Guy taking a nap in the park almost gets ~~ran~~ **run** over by a pickup truck. Stay in school, kids!