Ship of Fools: Prison for people who crash their cars

Thread: Prison for people who crash their cars Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023081

Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on :

Here in the Land of the Free (and right to arm bears) there seems to have been a growing trend towards meting out prison terms to drivers who crash their cars and injure or kill someone in the process.

The trend seems to have started with the incarceration of drunk drivers in the 1980s.

Recent cases have involved sober drivers who through foolishness or inattention have collided with others. A notable case in the local news has involved a woman who collided with a man standing in the expressway ramp at night trying to pour gasoline into his car:

http://www.startribune.com/projects/147800075.html

We also have the case of recently freed Fong Lee, whose car crashed after speeding away. Lee claimed it did so on its own but was not believed until the inherent propensity of certain models of Toyota to do this was more widely understood.

http://www.startribune.com/local/east/101435649.html

Another example is the Janklow crash, resulting in a prison term. In this case there was a well documented history of recklessness, which perhaps make the prison term a little easier to understand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Janklow

I wonder whether shipmates see this sort of thing as a necessary and just response to unsafe driving.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

This sort of thing happens across the pond in the UK too. But I'm not sure if it's a recent trend or whether this has always been how these cases are treated.

We are talking of accidents, but where someone always has to be punished, yes?

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

If you kill someone, however you do it, there's always a possibility of prison time, whether for murder in some degree or other, or for manslaughter. Why should it be any different if there's a vehicle involved?

I'd be more concerned with the process of determining whether or not it was really an accident, and how much the person really was (or wasn't) to blame.

Our prisons are overcrowded, though, and our culture is very punitive. I'd want to see other means of dealing with the situation first. E.g., if it's a DUI offense, mandatory rehab might be a better idea. And in any case, I would always favor restitution - not fines that the state keeps, but real restitution. I'm not sure that's even a part of our "justice" system.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

When someone causes a collision while texting resulting in injuries; then, yes, they would be charged with negligent driving in the first degree which is considered a felony in Washington State. Other examples: excessive speeding; reckless driving; driving beyond what conditions allow; driving while drowsy. But you can also be charged with negligent driving while eating or drinking food; putting on make up while driving; even shaving while driving--did I mention talking on cell phones?

Now, if there is a death, then you could be charged with voluntary manslaughter in that you were doing something you knew to be illegal when you caused the death.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

One of the early people I got to know in prison was there because he was driving drunk without a licence (following multiple drink-driving convictions) and encountered a police checkpoint. He ran the checkpoint and subsequently had a head-on collision with another vehicle. His best friend, who was also in the car, was killed, and two other people were seriously injured. For this he was sentenced to six years' jail time.

During that time he blandly asserted to me that as soon as he was out he would drive again, because otherwise he couldn't get around, to work, and so on.

A few months ago I ran into him in prison again. He must have made good on his word (he's since been transferred and I haven't got the low-down on the exact circumstances that put him back inside).

For some people, unfortunately, prison seems to be the only effective way of keeping them off the roads.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Occasionally, there is a glimmer of understanding, rather than a knee-jerk absolution because it was a car involved: Steve Johnstone - drunken murderer on YouTube.

Why should the driving of a car make one especially privileged to cause mayhem?

The related video RIP Mill Park Tree is quite good as well.

Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :

People (and that includes me) sometimes drive badly. Unfortunately when that happens people suffer and/or die. If drivers are routinely punished effectively then the rest of us may pick up our game when behind the wheel. I don't have a problem with that.

[ 19. May 2012, 21:10: Message edited by: The Rogue ]

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

With some of the bad drivers I see here on Canada's west coast jail would seem fair, especially if you are someone who drinks & drives, operates under influence of drugs. I had a friend who got rammed by some who was both drunk & high. He was jailed but is out by now and my friend is still dead.
As for people texting & using cell phones
maybe jail would be over kill but severe fines definitely a good idea. In BC it is now an offense to talk on your cell phone
while driving. Use your common sense people . [Votive]

[ 20. May 2012, 00:40: Message edited by: PaulBC ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Oh, for common sense!

I must own up to not being a driver but believe me, that's a major contribution to road safety. I'm impatient, have a disability that would affect my eligibility to drive and there are bad driving genes in my family.

My feeling is that because so many people drive it is regarded as something anyone can do. On this basis accidents will happen. That is bollocks. Accidents result from errors or defects and these can be eradicated and prevented by better and inherently cars (check), better roads (check, but improvements still needed), stricter legislation (check) and better driving, on which the jury is out (intentional reference).

Persuading the 30 million or so drivers in the UK to drive safely is one hell of a job, but as it kills about five times more than the death toll in workplace accidents (of which 20 % involve vehicles!), it's necessary. As so many people are allowed to drive, from the age of 17 to the end of their lives on the basis of a one-off test, many aren't going to concentrate 100% all the time. I'm sure drivers concentrate a lot less than a pilot of a light aircraft does, and I doubt tose two tasks are vastly more difficult.

That leads me to the conclusion that if there's an incident an enquiry ought to establish what went wrong, which could be due to:

Vehicle defect
road defect
reckless, dangerous or careless driving or driving without due care and attention*

and all the legal options ought to be available. Road vehicles, while they are an essential tool and do so much good also result in a lot of harm being done, so the option of imprisonment for motorists is needed, especially for repeated incidents of dangerous driving without insurance, which is a particular problem in South Wales.

*This includes drivers of vehicles that aren't directly involved; we've all heard about people who haven't been in accidents but have seen plenty.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Here in the Land of the Free (and right to arm bears) there seems to have been a growing trend towards meting out prison terms to drivers who crash their cars and injure or kill someone in the process.

Good.

If I went around doing some other activity that wasn't meant to harm anyone but which was inherently dangerous - say I enjoyed swinging a knife around my head - and someone got unintentionally injured towards it, I hope the courts would take a justly dim view of my excuse that it was only an accident.

I've twice ended up in A&E due to someone else not paying attention while driving. Both of those drivers' trips were local and could have been avoided by walking, cycling, getting the bus or just planning their days better. Why should they be allowed to endanger me for the sake of their own convenience, without the same possibility of punishment that they would get if they inujured me in any way not involving a car?

Driving a car gives privileges you at the expense of others' safety. You should take responsibility for that: if you cause harm, you take the blame.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

'Accident' is almost always a misnomer for a crash which could have been avoided and which quite often seriously injures or kills someone. The car-worshipping culture which is perhaps understandable if not excusable in a vast country like the US with minimal public transport, is dangerous and pernicious on this overcrowded island. Jeremy Clarkson has a lot to answer for... and a lot of blood on his hands.

Of course harsh sentences should be given to those who damage or destroy the lives of others because of their ignorant and selfish refusal to treat their vehicles as lethal weapons.

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

California is the car capital of the U.S. and during my commuting years I saw it all - applying makeup, reaching into the briefcase in the backseat and even changing clothes while driving. Texters scare the crap out of me. When I was in my 20's I had five people who weren't paying attention to their driving run stop signs and T-bone me and one who rear ended me at 80 mph and offered only "It's not my car and I don't know how to drive a stick shift". Years down the line and the physical injuries are wreaking havoc with middle age added in.

It's been long past time cracking down on not only drivers who are under the influence, but those who knowingly engage in driving behavior that puts other drivers at risk.

When car companies have a defect I'm all for monster fines and monster law suit awards that hurt them in the pocket. Ford skimped on a part in the 70's - 90's that would have prevented several fatal fires. When massive judgments were awarded they started paying attention.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
'Accident' is almost always a misnomer for a crash which could have been avoided and which quite often seriously injures or kills someone.

This is why I hate the word "accident" as it implies that it was something unavoidable. That harsh truth is that nearly all crashes (or whatever you want to call them) are caused by driver error.

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

There are a lot of sites out there that comment on the driving standards in the States and how they could be improved... a lot of them suggest using the UK more as a model..

Having "driving without due care and attention" and a more stringent driving test may well be the way forward... oh, and more stringent driving instructor training and registration...

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
oh, and more stringent driving instructor training and registration...

Have you any idea what's involved at the moment?

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

Both Alan and Spike make good points. However, there is a kind of collective amnesia which is essential to the social agreement by which mass driving is made possible. A busy road contains a significant population of people using potentially lethal machines completely independent of each other. The idea that this could happen with absolutely no crashes unless there was significant error on the part of one of the operators seems to me at least questionable.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Both Alan and Spike make good points. However, there is a kind of collective amnesia which is essential to the social agreement by which mass driving is made possible. A busy road contains a significant population of people using potentially lethal machines completely independent of each other. The idea that this could happen with absolutely no crashes unless there was significant error on the part of one of the operators seems to me at least questionable.

On the other hand, I believe many significant errors occur that do not result in any more than a bit of 'roadrage', resulting in swearing and cursing, unnecessary use of the horn and an increase in blood pressure. There's a shedload of complacency about, caused by the compartive rarity of vehicle-to-vehicle contact and the survivability of lower-speed crashes (so long as you're in a car).

As for driving instructor training, that's in pretty good order. Driver learning and examining are an entirely different matter, and I really don't think a 'license for life' is a good idea. In Britain, and other places where instructors are regulated, I'd legislate for periodic retests by experienced instructors following two or three lessons.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
oh, and more stringent driving instructor training and registration...
Have you any idea what's involved at the moment?

He was suggesting the US followed the UK in this matter.

Jengie

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

Drivers ed used to be offered in the local high schools here before the budget ax fell. There was at least a semester of classroom teaching and a minimum number of hours requirements both with a simulator and with an instructor in a car. I was fortunate to that I only had to share my car with one other student (it had hand controls as we were both paraplegic) so I got way more time than most. I can still hear the voices and words of wisdom of both instructors to this day a few decades later. I think taking drivers ed out of the schools was a huge mistake.

Posted by Full Circle (# 15398) on :

I have long thought that it would be better to have the death penalty for drink and careless driving (and parking inappropriately)than for murder. [Biased]

I am against the death penalty, and delighted to live in a country that does not use it: However, I can see that it would be a deterent to drink drivers & I have never really understood the arguement that it is a deterent to murder.

So like much debate on crime & punishment I think it depends on what you think the purpose of prison is. As a deterent I think it works with driving, as a punishment, sometimes perhaps, but I am less sure. As rehabilitation, it would require safe driving instruction and real reassessment of driving skills

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
On the other hand, I believe many significant errors occur that do not result in any more than a bit of 'roadrage', resulting in swearing and cursing, unnecessary use of the horn and an increase in blood pressure.

Is the difference between those errors which result only in this and those which result in fatalities anything more than chance? If the distinction is more than chance but not consistent, how can it be established? I think these questions need a rather more explicit answer than they have been given to date.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
On the other hand, I believe many significant errors occur that do not result in any more than a bit of 'roadrage', resulting in swearing and cursing, unnecessary use of the horn and an increase in blood pressure.
Is the difference between those errors which result only in this and those which result in fatalities anything more than chance?

No. Drive long enough, you will have an incident in which harm might possibly occur. That more "accidents" don't occur is a combination of engineering, traffic planning and chance.
To the OP, if you are negligent, regardless the activity, there should be consequences. And, as mentioned, vehicles have massive potential for mayhem.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No. Drive long enough, you will have an incident in which harm might possibly occur. That more "accidents" don't occur is a combination of engineering, traffic planning and chance.

That is utter rubbish! It's exactly the sort of complacent attitude towards driving that means that the accident rate isn't lower. The sooner people stop regarding driving as a right and instead fully take on board the huge responsibility that goes with moving a large killing machine at high speed the better.

It's very easy to blame engineering, traffic planning, chance and even the weather, but these are only contributing factors. As I said in an earlier post, over 90% of "accidents" are due to driver error.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

It might not be practical but I've often thought it would help to re-test every driver under 65 at intervals, say maybe every 2 or 5 years. The car gets tested annually but the skills of the person who drives it can deteriorate.

I nearly started a thread in Hell recently about the use of mobile phones and cars. I'm getting pretty fed up with pedestrians who step blithely off the pavement texting, so engrossed that they don't even bother to glance up and see a moving car is a few feet away from them. We need legislation about responsible use of mobiles in public places - it shouldn't be necessary but mobiles are being used quite stupidly these days.

I'm also fed up with drivers trying to turn corners whle on the phone, and lorry drivers who think it's fine to make a call while going at 60mph on a motorway.

[ 20. May 2012, 19:09: Message edited by: Ariel ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No. Drive long enough, you will have an incident in which harm might possibly occur. That more "accidents" don't occur is a combination of engineering, traffic planning and chance.

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
That is utter rubbish! It's exactly the sort of complacent attitude towards driving that means that the accident rate isn't lower.

I don't really see the contradiction. It is perfectly consistent to say that if one drives long enough a harm-prone incident is likely to occur, and also to maintain a vigilant approach that views one's alertness and risk-aversion as a driver as one factor that reduces the likelihood of harm.

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
It's very easy to blame engineering, traffic planning, chance and even the weather, but these are only contributing factors. As I said in an earlier post, over 90% of "accidents" are due to driver error.

But why frame it that way? The fact is that human beings are going to make errors, so if there is a risk-prone area it would be sensible to remove it. For instance I know of a feeder road near me where the give way is not well marked and one would usually assume a traffic-light system that didn't require a give-way there. It seems inevitable that an error will occur there.

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I'm also fed up with drivers trying to turn corners whle on the phone, and lorry drivers who think it's fine to make a call while going at 60mph on a motorway.

Too true. Or the moron who was grinning and waving wildly to his mates on the corner as he veered, over the speed limit, onto my side of the road.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

As I do not own a car, I may have less standing to say anything about this than most people.

As a pedestrian, I have observed plenty of drivers, and thus far I have managed to stay alive, which was not always easy. I think there are many people who should not be allowed to drive. In particular, I am thinking of those who express their emotions by driving faster and taking more risks. On the other hand, I suspect this is not a question of skill but of character flaws, and I don't really want them on the sidewalk with me, either.

I think many people could get by very nicely, most of the time, with vehicles about as large and dangerous as a golf cart, and better yet with a scooter or a bicycle. I don't think such a change is likely, though, so I actually advocate a technological solution: put governors on cars to make them stay within the speed limit; have road signs announce the local speed limit by radio; and put radio transponders on cars to identify them at all times (just as with aircraft). (There are lots of other such ideas.)

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

I am getting increasingly bothered by the tendency to give out prison terms for things that definitely do not merit a prison sentence. How does locking someone up, limiting their chances of ever getting decent work again, stigmatising them for life and probably giving them a drug habit it boost help society at all. It's not as if you can make the disincentive argument either because really I don't think anyone in their right mind sets out to crash their car.

I think in cases where someone can be shown to have made a deliberate choice that has contributed significantly to their injuring or killing another human being then maybe you'd have a case. Drink driving and yacking on your mobile would come under this. But for everything else no way. Most ordinary people would feel awful enough at having hurt another and could be punished by a fine or reparations to the community. Prison is supposed to be for rehabilitation of criminals. People who make innocent mistakes with terrible consequences are not criminals.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No. Drive long enough, you will have an incident in which harm might possibly occur. That more "accidents" don't occur is a combination of engineering, traffic planning and chance.

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
That is utter rubbish! It's exactly the sort of complacent attitude towards driving that means that the accident rate isn't lower.
I don't really see the contradiction. It is perfectly consistent to say that if one drives long enough a harm-prone incident is likely to occur, and also to maintain a vigilant approach that views one's alertness and risk-aversion as a driver as one factor that reduces the likelihood of harm.

That all assumes a constant level of driving. Spike won't like this [Biased]

but one way to make the roads safer would be to reduce the amount of traffic! As I mentioned, both of my injuries were caused by people making completely non-essential journeys.

Being fatalistic doesn't help. If you really thought you were going to kill/injure someone at some point in your life due to driving, would you get behind the wheel with the attitude that most people do today, or with fear and trepidation?

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I am getting increasingly bothered by the tendency to give out prison terms for things that definitely do not merit a prison sentence. How does locking someone up, limiting their chances of ever getting decent work again, stigmatising them for life and probably giving them a drug habit it boost help society at all. It's not as if you can make the disincentive argument either because really I don't think anyone in their right mind sets out to crash their car.

Have you ever heard of Criminal Negligence?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I am getting increasingly bothered by the tendency to give out prison terms for things that definitely do not merit a prison sentence. How does locking someone up, limiting their chances of ever getting decent work again, stigmatising them for life and probably giving them a drug habit it boost help society at all. It's not as if you can make the disincentive argument either because really I don't think anyone in their right mind sets out to crash their car.

I think in cases where someone can be shown to have made a deliberate choice that has contributed significantly to their injuring or killing another human being then maybe you'd have a case. Drink driving and yacking on your mobile would come under this. But for everything else no way. Most ordinary people would feel awful enough at having hurt another and could be punished by a fine or reparations to the community. Prison is supposed to be for rehabilitation of criminals. People who make innocent mistakes with terrible consequences are not criminals.

You can use the case that prison stigmatises people, introduces them to drugs and reduces their future options in respect of many offences, not merely what are classified as 'motoring offences'. Another problem with prisons is that the rarely achieve the rehabilitation that is hoped for. Maybe the only thing imprisonment does is give the more narrow and shallow minded among us the feeling that 'they' are where 'they' belong.

I don't think anyone is suggesting imprisonment for every instance, or even every hundredth, occurrence of driving without due care, or even DUI.

The problem is that some people simply do not care and they display this repeatedly. They drive dangerously, often while disqualified and without insurance in cars that don't have MoT certificates. That trifecta isn't an innocent mistake, that's demonstrably reckless and in Ship parlance is 'acting like a jerk', except that by being in de facto control of a one-ton lump at 70mph has far greater potential for real lasting harm.

What do we do? here are a few ideas.

Forget imprisonment except for the very worst, repeat offenders, and I mean the worst who are a danger to themselves as well as others
Better tuition and tougher examining
Periodic retesting
Permanent driving bans for those who are simply unsuited to sharing the road with others

For punishment I'd substitute restitution, although causing death through reckless or dangerous driving would probably require many years community service as well as a driving ban.

[ 20. May 2012, 22:16: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

The car. The one piece of dangerous heavy machinery that people don't treat like a piece of dangerous heavy machinery.

I have little sympathy for people who get jailed after driving while intoxicated, going way over the speed limit and treating traffic like a fun obstacle course.

Speeding in particular. I seem to remember trying to give some people a physics lesson in Hell once, with little success, with an overview of things like reaction time and braking distance. People believe utterly ridiculous things about their own capacity to avoid an accident when that unexpected, surprising thing happens on the road ahead of them.

[ 21. May 2012, 02:59: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

There is a difference between making a mistake, which at some point is inevitable, and being negligent -which is not. The law, and society generally, seems to be losing this distinction.

The other thing that is weird about driving law, is it is coming to be framed almost entirely in terms of outcome not intention. Most crime requires the forming of a criminal intent - I am going to steal that money that I know doesn't belong to me, I am going to stab you with this knife - the crime alters a bit by consequence (gbh vs murder) but the intention must be there.

So driving whilst drunk has a clear criminal intent, causing death by dangerous driving doesn't. Something without clear intent is almost completely undeterrable, I other words you can't put people off something they are not trying to do.

I have been in a number of car crashes, all of which involved the car behind me running into the back of my vehicle. In two of those cases it was due to my performing an emergency stop to avoid a child running into a road in low speed traffic. Now I don't know if they were too close behind me or if the drivers were momentarily distracted, but I did not feel I was the victim of a crime. I considered those accidents caused by human error. Once in France, my mum was driving, and we came down a steep hill and skidded and the breaks locked (pre-abs days) we thought we were going to hit the round about at the bottom but she managed to turn the car at the last minute. Another vehicle behind us came down, skided and went into the back of us. We had just moved off to the side when a third vehicle came straight down the hill and went over the roundabout. It turned out there was engine oil on the road. The guy who ran into the back of us got stung as French insurers (possibly French law) assume if you go into the back of someone it is your fault. This did not seem fair. And I think that is the problem wth laws of strict liability, they are not fair and punish the innocent with the guilty.

It used to be said, better to let ten guilty men go free, than convict one innocent man - we are moving away from this philosophy too quickly for my liking.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
There is a difference between making a mistake, which at some point is inevitable, and being negligent -which is not. The law, and society generally, seems to be losing this distinction.

The other thing that is weird about driving law, is it is coming to be framed almost entirely in terms of outcome not intention. Most crime requires the forming of a criminal intent - I am going to steal that money that I know doesn't belong to me, I am going to stab you with this knife - the crime alters a bit by consequence (gbh vs murder) but the intention must be there.

So driving whilst drunk has a clear criminal intent, causing death by dangerous driving doesn't. Something without clear intent is almost completely undeterrable, I other words you can't put people off something they are not trying to do.

I have been in a number of car crashes, all of which involved the car behind me running into the back of my vehicle. In two of those cases it was due to my performing an emergency stop to avoid a child running into a road in low speed traffic. Now I don't know if they were too close behind me or if the drivers were momentarily distracted, but I did not feel I was the victim of a crime. I considered those accidents caused by human error. Once in France, my mum was driving, and we came down a steep hill and skidded and the breaks locked (pre-abs days) we thought we were going to hit the round about at the bottom but she managed to turn the car at the last minute. Another vehicle behind us came down, skided and went into the back of us. We had just moved off to the side when a third vehicle came straight down the hill and went over the roundabout. It turned out there was engine oil on the road. The guy who ran into the back of us got stung as French insurers (possibly French law) assume if you go into the back of someone it is your fault. This did not seem fair. And I think that is the problem wth laws of strict liability, they are not fair and punish the innocent with the guilty.

It used to be said, better to let ten guilty men go free, than convict one innocent man - we are moving away from this philosophy too quickly for my liking.

There are some very interesting and salient points here. Unfortunately, for many of them I think a response would need a very careful examination of the relevant laws, and there's absolutely no guarantee that the details are the same from one jurisdiction to the next. Not just for specific offences, but for the general criminal law as well (which sometimes has overarching principles about intent and voluntariness).

I will comment on one specific thing though - yep, insurers frequently have a blanket rule that if you run into the back of someone, it's your fault. Certainly that's the case here in Australia. It doesn't necessarily have any relationship to what a court case would say, though. Insurers are just saving time and effort by presuming.

I also discovered from one accident that they would assume that an accident is your fault if you were engaged in a U-turn - regardless of independent witness statements.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

There is a series of offences here, starting with causing death/injury by a negligent act, up to manslaughter. In recent years there have been a couple of charges of murder, where the prosecution case was that a car had been deliberately driven at the victim.

Ignoring those cases, the usual penalty on conviction is about 6 years gaol for causing death by dangerous driving - an offence which connotes much more than mere negligence. If there's more than 1 victim, the same penalty is applied to each offence. Unlike what appears to be the US practice of full accumulation, standard law here requires that there be partially concurrent sentences. The effect is to add a further year or so for each victim.

To me, this seems a reasonable attitude to adopt. We're not talking of a moment's inattention, but of such matters as driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or changing standard road tyres to those with less adhesion, or driving some distance at a speed well above the applicable limit. These are actions just as criminal as beating up a victim, if less so than using a knife or firearm. They warrant a substantial sentence

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I will comment on one specific thing though - yep, insurers frequently have a blanket rule that if you run into the back of someone, it's your fault. Certainly that's the case here in Australia. It doesn't necessarily have any relationship to what a court case would say, though. Insurers are just saving time and effort by presuming.

I'm quite happy with insurers treating rear-end collisions as guilty until proven innocent. After all, the law makes it abundantly clear that not maintaining a safe stopping distance is the responsibility of the driver following, and it's an offence not to do so...

quote:
Australian Road Rules, p112:
126 A driver must drive a sufficient distance behind a vehicle travelling in front of the driver so the driver can, if necessary, stop safely to avoid a collision with the vehicle.
Offence provision.

In Think2's case, the collision (not accident) could have been prevented if all the drivers were driving at a speed appropriate to the conditions and keeping a safe stopping distance. If you're coming over the top of a steep hill at a speed too high to stop safely if the road conditions turn out to be less favourable then that's a fair case of not driving to the conditions.

[ 21. May 2012, 07:30: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
There is a difference between making a mistake, which at some point is inevitable, and being negligent -which is not. The law, and society generally, seems to be losing this distinction.

The other thing that is weird about driving law, is it is coming to be framed almost entirely in terms of outcome not intention. Most crime requires the forming of a criminal intent - I am going to steal that money that I know doesn't belong to me, I am going to stab you with this knife - the crime alters a bit by consequence (gbh vs murder) but the intention must be there.

So driving whilst drunk has a clear criminal intent, causing death by dangerous driving doesn't. Something without clear intent is almost completely undeterrable, I other words you can't put people off something they are not trying to do.

If you (general "you") are driving in a manner which you KNOW is negligent and think you're special enough to get away with it, that's intent in my book if someone gets hurt or killed because of your irresponsibility there needs to be stiff penalties. It's been proven here. People have pretty much stated to news interviewers that they will not stop texting and driving, for example, and they'll just pay the fine if they get caught.

Even driving while exhausted and sleepy here can you get jailed if you kill someone.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Being fatalistic doesn't help. If you really thought you were going to kill/injure someone at some point in your life due to driving, would you get behind the wheel with the attitude that most people do today, or with fear and trepidation?

It depends on the spin you put on it. If you take the anti-statistical view that "it's fated to happen sooner or later" then why bother trying to be safe. On the other hand, if you take the statistical view that "it's quite likely to happen but I can reduce the probability substantially and then maybe it won't" that's different.

It depends whether one believes nonsense like the gambler's fallacy - the fallacy that one similar event influences the probability of other unrelated events.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
There is a difference between making a mistake, which at some point is inevitable, and being negligent -which is not. The law, and society generally, seems to be losing this distinction.

I think that's a deep point and I agree with it. I've often heard someone arguing that their claiming of 50k in unwarranted expenses was "a mistake" or that their attempt to misrepresent the truth was "mis-speaking". Or on the other hand that a doctor or social worker made a mistake and the press want blood for it.

In the latter instance the mistake may or may not be negligent. But there seems to be an automatic view of moral culpability applied, which isn't always consistently applied in other instances.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

I was confused at first by the first example in the OP. I had never heard of an expressway ramp but the mention of the man filling his car with petrol suggested it was perhaps some sort of express service lane at the petrol station. I couldn't understand how anyone could be driving fast enough in that situation to cause serious injury by collision.

So I followed the link to the article where it was referred to as an interstate ramp. When I did a Google image search on the term, it brought up what in Britain would be called a motorway slip road.

This makes it even more unbelievable that this woman was convicted. How can a driver be blamed for accidentally hitting someone who was filling up his car on a sliproad? Why on earth was he doing it there?

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
This makes it even more unbelievable that this woman was convicted. How can a driver be blamed for accidentally hitting someone who was filling up his car on a sliproad? Why on earth was he doing it there?

She was not convicted for hitting him, she was convicted on two counts - for leaving the scene and for not calling for help.

As for what he was doing there, have you never seen somebody run out of petrol and pull over to the side of the road? It's a poor situation to let happen (but understandable in the economic climate) but not one that excuses a hit and run driver.

[ 21. May 2012, 11:00: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
"from the moment she got up from the day of the crash, she remembers where she went that morning, she remembers everything... But everything at the time of the crash and after became muddled. We just couldn't buy it anymore."

After six days of testimony and nearly 20 hours of deliberation, the weary jury on Thursday convicted Senser of two counts of criminal vehicular homicide for fleeing and not calling for help... as he put gas in his stalled car on a freeway exit ramp.

Maybe one could call the victim's actions contributory negligence, but it seems like the hit and run aspect was what she got done for.

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
"from the moment she got up from the day of the crash, she remembers where she went that morning, she remembers everything... But everything at the time of the crash and after became muddled. We just couldn't buy it anymore."

After six days of testimony and nearly 20 hours of deliberation, the weary jury on Thursday convicted Senser of two counts of criminal vehicular homicide for fleeing and not calling for help... as he put gas in his stalled car on a freeway exit ramp.

Maybe one could call the victim's actions contributory negligence, but it seems like the hit and run aspect was what she got done for.

Agreed. The one thing you NEVER do is flee the scene, unless you're carted off in an ambulance. Fleeing the scene of an accident is a felony charge all on it's own.

[ 21. May 2012, 11:12: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
"from the moment she got up from the day of the crash, she remembers where she went that morning, she remembers everything... But everything at the time of the crash and after became muddled. We just couldn't buy it anymore."

After six days of testimony and nearly 20 hours of deliberation, the weary jury on Thursday convicted Senser of two counts of criminal vehicular homicide for fleeing and not calling for help... as he put gas in his stalled car on a freeway exit ramp.

Maybe one could call the victim's actions contributory negligence, but it seems like the hit and run aspect was what she got done for.
Agreed. The one thing you NEVER do is flee the scene, unless you're carted off in an ambulance. Fleeing the scene of an accident is a felony charge all on it's own.

Question - might she have been looking for a carriageway emergency phone?

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
"from the moment she got up from the day of the crash, she remembers where she went that morning, she remembers everything... But everything at the time of the crash and after became muddled. We just couldn't buy it anymore."

After six days of testimony and nearly 20 hours of deliberation, the weary jury on Thursday convicted Senser of two counts of criminal vehicular homicide for fleeing and not calling for help... as he put gas in his stalled car on a freeway exit ramp.

Maybe one could call the victim's actions contributory negligence, but it seems like the hit and run aspect was what she got done for.
Agreed. The one thing you NEVER do is flee the scene, unless you're carted off in an ambulance. Fleeing the scene of an accident is a felony charge all on it's own.
Question - might she have been looking for a carriageway emergency phone?

In most states, that doesn't matter. The driver of an auto involved in an accident needs to stay at the scene unless they are in need of emergency medical care, there is no excuse. Especially today with just about every driver having a cellphone. Even if the involved person doesn't have one I guarantee you 911 is flooded with calls whenever an accident happens.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Question - might she have been looking for a carriageway emergency phone?

Well she obviously didn't find one at any point during the rest of the day as she didn't ever make a call. She claimed to have had no knowledge of having hit anyone, a story the jury didn't believe.

[ 21. May 2012, 13:38: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Even if the involved person doesn't have [a cellphone] I guarantee you 911 is flooded with calls whenever an accident happens.

In urban areas yes, but unpopulated areas, particularly where it is mountainous have very poor coverage at least in the UK. I'd be surprised if that were any different in the US.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No. Drive long enough, you will have an incident in which harm might possibly occur. That more "accidents" don't occur is a combination of engineering, traffic planning and chance.
That is utter rubbish! It's exactly the sort of complacent attitude towards driving that means that the accident rate isn't lower. The sooner people stop regarding driving as a right and instead fully take on board the huge responsibility that goes with moving a large killing machine at high speed the better.

It's very easy to blame engineering, traffic planning, chance and even the weather, but these are only contributing factors. As I said in an earlier post, over 90% of "accidents" are due to driver error.

Right. Not sure how you read what I wrote to mean what I think you are responding to. Longer version then.
The longer one drives, the more years on the road, the greater the chance one will suffer a moment of inattentiveness or distraction. This moment has the potential to be dangerous, depending upon when it occurs. Careful drivers can crash too. If anything, this is a call against complacency. What do you see wrong with this statement? How does it conflict with your driver error charge?

To the second charge, I am not blaming engineers* for failure, rather I am praising them. They help save us from our own negligence. Properly designed roads with good drainage, clear sight lines, sufficient structural strength and maintenance help save lives. Well designed cars can give the driver an extra margin of safety.

*yes there have even failures of engineering, mechanical and civil, which have contributed to the potential for accidents. Often this is more to politics and budget than the engineers, though.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Question - might she have been looking for a carriageway emergency phone?
Well she obviously didn't find one at any point during the rest of the day as she didn't ever make a call. She claimed to have had no knowledge of having hit anyone, a story the jury didn't believe.

She did have a mobile phone on her, records indicated that she may have been using it at the time of the crash. If indeed it was proven that she was (I can't be arsed reading all the reports from the trial) then that in itself should have sent her to jail even if she did call for help and didn't flee the scene.

quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Even if the involved person doesn't have [a cellphone] I guarantee you 911 is flooded with calls whenever an accident happens.
In urban areas yes, but unpopulated areas, particularly where it is mountainous have very poor coverage at least in the UK. I'd be surprised if that were any different in the US.

Yes, but this was on a major interstate highway route. Even in Australia where there are extremely remote areas it's no trouble to get coverage from all three networks the whole way along a significant highway route. Getting coverage from just one network is enough even if it's not the one your provider uses, because dialling 112 for an emergency call on a mobile will route the call to all available towers, that's a standard number around the world regardless of what number you use for emergency calls from fixed lines.

I think this case had an appropriate outcome, prison is entirely appropriate for people who drive around with their brain in mobile phone land and then drive off after killing people (to escape an alcohol test?) without calling the ambulance and police services.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The longer one drives, the more years on the road, the greater the chance one will suffer a moment of inattentiveness or distraction. This moment has the potential to be dangerous, depending upon when it occurs. Careful drivers can crash too.

And also, the longer that even the perfect driver is on the road, the more likelihood that they will be involved in an incident not of their own making. It's simple statistics.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
and then drive off after killing people (to escape an alcohol test?) without calling the ambulance and police services.

Indeed, other witnesses said she was driving erratically when observed just after the incident, and the use of her mobile phone just after the crash may have been to her husband, possibly for advice on how to proceed having got herself in a sticky situation.

It does all sound like avoiding an alcohol test to me.

Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Question - might she have been looking for a carriageway emergency phone?
Well she obviously didn't find one at any point during the rest of the day as she didn't ever make a call. She claimed to have had no knowledge of having hit anyone, a story the jury didn't believe.
She did have a mobile phone on her, records indicated that she may have been using it at the time of the crash. If indeed it was proven that she was (I can't be arsed reading all the reports from the trial) then that in itself should have sent her to jail even if she did call for help and didn't flee the scene.

quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Even if the involved person doesn't have [a cellphone] I guarantee you 911 is flooded with calls whenever an accident happens.
In urban areas yes, but unpopulated areas, particularly where it is mountainous have very poor coverage at least in the UK. I'd be surprised if that were any different in the US.
Yes, but this was on a major interstate highway route. Even in Australia where there are extremely remote areas it's no trouble to get coverage from all three networks the whole way along a significant highway route. Getting coverage from just one network is enough even if it's not the one your provider uses, because dialling 112 for an emergency call on a mobile will route the call to all available towers, that's a standard number around the world regardless of what number you use for emergency calls from fixed lines.

I think this case had an appropriate outcome, prison is entirely appropriate for people who drive around with their brain in mobile phone land and then drive off after killing people (to escape an alcohol test?) without calling the ambulance and police services.

Like many of these cases the causes are complex and the evidence unclear.

As others have pointed out, the UK terminology for the crash site is a "motorway slip road." They have various names in the U.S., but I usually call them freeway entrance ramps.

The ramp was under construction and had a row of reflective signs and barricades directing traffic to the leftmost portion of the ramp (remember, we drive on the right side here).

The person killed was refueling their car using a can of gasoline (petrol) because it had run out. This was going on at night, and the car was partially obscured by the reflective signs.

The driver was convicted by a jury for leaving the scene of an accident. There is no evidence to suggest that she was intoxicated at the time of the crash. The facts appear to show that she was lost and trying to call someone in her family for directions.

She claims that she was unaware that she hit someone and thought she hit one of the barricades. I don't think there's any way to know for sure what she was thinking. With the lighting conditions and the reflective barricades even an alert driver would have trouble seeing a person in an unexpected location like that.

There were problems with the trial and it is possible that the conviction will be overturned on appeal.

I think it's a textbook example of a legal system that's out to punish someone -- anyone -- when someone has died. Whether the most proximate individual was really culpable for anything is beside the point, I guess.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The longer one drives, the more years on the road, the greater the chance one will suffer a moment of inattentiveness or distraction. This moment has the potential to be dangerous, depending upon when it occurs.

There's a very simple way of avoiding this: don't drive! That way, you won't be in charge of >1 ton of speeding metal when your moment of inattention occurs, so you won't be a danger to the rest of us. This is the point about strict liability on insurance: the moment of culpability isn't when you have that ill-fated moment of inattention, it's when you choose to put the rest of the vicinity at risk by getting in the car. At that point you should accept the responsibility for the consequences of your decision to go down the shops in what is potentially a big fast killing machine. You know you're fallible and you know that any instance of that fallibility can kill; that being the case, you may still be prepared to inflict that risk on everybody else for the sake of your own convenience but you should sure as heck 'fess up when it happens and make reparations to the injured parties.

quote:
To the second charge, I am not blaming engineers* for failure, rather I am praising them. They help save us from our own negligence. Properly designed roads with good drainage, clear sight lines, sufficient structural strength and maintenance help save lives. Well designed cars can give the driver an extra margin of safety.

*yes there have even failures of engineering, mechanical and civil, which have contributed to the potential for accidents. Often this is more to politics and budget than the engineers, though.

Google 'risk compensation'. We can't solve all traffic problems through engineering because people adjust their behaviour to the perceived level of risk. Witness the careful driving you see at junctions when traffic lights are temporarily out of action.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

[x posted]

quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:

The ramp was under construction and had a row of reflective signs and barricades directing traffic to the leftmost portion of the ramp (remember, we drive on the right side here).

The person killed was refueling their car using a can of gasoline (petrol) because it had run out. This was going on at night, and the car was partially obscured by the reflective signs.

The driver was convicted by a jury for leaving the scene of an accident. There is no evidence to suggest that she was intoxicated at the time of the crash. The facts appear to show that she was lost and trying to call someone in her family for directions.

She claims that she was unaware that she hit someone and thought she hit one of the barricades. I don't think there's any way to know for sure what she was thinking. With the lighting conditions and the reflective barricades even an alert driver would have trouble seeing a person in an unexpected location like that.

There were problems with the trial and it is possible that the conviction will be overturned on appeal.

I think it's a textbook example of a legal system that's out to punish someone -- anyone -- when someone has died. Whether the most proximate individual was really culpable for anything is beside the point, I guess.

1) If she'd lived locally rather than having a lifestyle that required driving long distances, this would never have happened in the first place. She chose to drive: she killed someone because she couldn't see where she was going.

2) As my driving instructor taught me, you should be able to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. Expect the unexpected! Filling your car with petrol on the road may be silly but it's not a capital offence. I find it extremely worrying if people expect to be able to drive into blind space and expect not to hit anything.

3) Do you usually play dodgems with your cars in the US? If you've just hit something with the amount of force necessary to kill someone, you really need to inspect the damage to your car, not just drive blithely on your way in what is probably not a roadworthy vehicle.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
If you're coming over the top of a steep hill at a speed too high to stop safely if the road conditions turn out to be less favourable then that's a fair case of not driving to the conditions. [/QB]

Under the speed limit in good weather in midsummer in France, not driving as if you are on black ice seems reasonable to me - the person who ran into the back of us was *at least* 10 seconds behind us. Have you tried driving on engine oil on a slope, and then braking?

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
There is a difference between making a mistake, which at some point is inevitable, and being negligent -which is not. The law, and society generally, seems to be losing this distinction.

The other thing that is weird about driving law, is it is coming to be framed almost entirely in terms of outcome not intention. Most crime requires the forming of a criminal intent - I am going to steal that money that I know doesn't belong to me, I am going to stab you with this knife - the crime alters a bit by consequence (gbh vs murder) but the intention must be there.

So driving whilst drunk has a clear criminal intent, causing death by dangerous driving doesn't. Something without clear intent is almost completely undeterrable, I other words you can't put people off something they are not trying to do.

If you (general "you") are driving in a manner which you KNOW is negligent and think you're special enough to get away with it, that's intent in my book if someone gets hurt or killed because of your irresponsibility there needs to be stiff penalties. It's been proven here. People have pretty much stated to news interviewers that they will not stop texting and driving, for example, and they'll just pay the fine if they get caught.

Even driving while exhausted and sleepy here can you get jailed if you kill someone.

Drink driving is the classic example - and I have no problem with that. However, if you are going to make it illegal not to have a gap of at least two seconds between you and the car in front - then it needs to be illegal and enforced all the time - not just if there happens to be a collision. There reason it isn't is because its next to impossible to do so and you'd probably need bumper mounted sensors for drivers to be able to do this reliably 100% of the time especially whilst changing speed.

You don't want drivers driving whilst tired - then you need a consistent definition - you can't just guess. I believe this is managed for long distance lorry drivers with log books or something similar.

If you don't do this, then the law becomes arbitrary almost a matter of chance.

You also need to work out what you consider a reasonable level of risk. We can totally reduce road deaths by ditching car, lorries coaches and similar vehicles. We are not going to just yet though, as the economic damage that would produce if you did that globally next month would probably kill more people via the complications of poverty.

Likewise, we could ban all distractions inside the car, no radio,no talking etc - but at what point does being bored shitless staring at tarmac introduce a risk of inattention ?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Dingy sailor,

I did not mean to imply the driver was not fully culpable in those moments of distraction. The driver is. I did not mean to imply one can design completely safe motorways or vehicles, one cannot.

I am a proponent of public transport. However the reality is not everyone can live close to where they find employment. Not every situation lends itself to public transport. As T2 mentions, currently there is no avoiding having motorists. I do not see this being a possibility for quite some time.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dingy sailor,

I did not mean to imply the driver was not fully culpable in those moments of distraction. The driver is. I did not mean to imply one can design completely safe motorways or vehicles, one cannot.

I am a proponent of public transport. However the reality is not everyone can live close to where they find employment. Not every situation lends itself to public transport. As T2 mentions, currently there is no avoiding having motorists. I do not see this being a possibility for quite some time.

Well no, we're not going to have a de-motorised society tomorrow. I don't particularly want one of those anyway: cars have plenty of good uses. However, when we get them ingrained in our culture to the extent that we have, we get the sort of special pleading that has littered this thread: that killing someone with a car is somehow less bad than killing someone any other way, because cars are some sort of automatic right rather than a choice.

I'm afraid I don't accept the "can't" though: there's no such thing as can't in this situation, everything has its price. So someone is living too far from their employment. Why is that? Are there any jobs nearer? In the grocer's shop? Maybe they don't want to take that job but that doesn't mean they can't. In that case, their car is allowing them to improve their lifestyle by driving to a better job. Bully for them - but they'd better take the consequences of their decision. If they kill someone, it wasn't because they had to drive, it was because they didn't want the shop job.

A pet theory of mine is that a lot of this is linked to both parents wanting fulfilled careers. If you have a bread-winner and a home-maker it should be relatively easy to live near the sole earner's workplace. If you two parents looking for jobs in their own specialties, long commutes become much more likely. Again, a lifestyle choice.

It's true that living today is becoming ever more geared around car use. That's a pact we've made with the devil - it's such a shame that so many of the people who get injured by drivers are those who don't drive themselves, so don't reap the benefits of that pact.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I will comment on one specific thing though - yep, insurers frequently have a blanket rule that if you run into the back of someone, it's your fault. Certainly that's the case here in Australia. It doesn't necessarily have any relationship to what a court case would say, though. Insurers are just saving time and effort by presuming.
I'm quite happy with insurers treating rear-end collisions as guilty until proven innocent. After all, the law makes it abundantly clear that not maintaining a safe stopping distance is the responsibility of the driver following, and it's an offence not to do so...

quote:
Australian Road Rules, p112:
126 A driver must drive a sufficient distance behind a vehicle travelling in front of the driver so the driver can, if necessary, stop safely to avoid a collision with the vehicle.
Offence provision.
In Think2's case, the collision (not accident) could have been prevented if all the drivers were driving at a speed appropriate to the conditions and keeping a safe stopping distance. If you're coming over the top of a steep hill at a speed too high to stop safely if the road conditions turn out to be less favourable then that's a fair case of not driving to the conditions.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm inclined to agree. There would be fairly few cases, I think, where it would be inappropriate to blame the rear driver.

I *can* think of a few cases, but they would be the exception not the norm.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

PS Sorry, not being clear again. Inclined to agree on the general point. Not necessarily on the particular circumstances of Think2's accident.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

But of course, Giant Cheeseburger, it's not an offence to breach the Aust Rules. They are a model, but have no statutory force (at least in NSW).

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
But of course, Giant Cheeseburger, it's not an offence to breach the Aust Rules. They are a model, but have no statutory force (at least in NSW).

Interesting that they're not explicitly applied by each jurisdiction, which is a fairly common model in our lovely federal legal landscape. It seems in this case we have to rely on each State/Territory to re-enact the entire thing. And of course they never do.

But, NSW does seem to have taken a fair stab at it with the Road Rules 2008. They've even left blank numbers to avoid getting out of alignment. Rule 126 is indeed rule 126.

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :

In my opinion, it's possible that she didn't know that she'd hit a person. It's a long time ago now, but a friend of mine was killed in similar circumstances. He was actually run over by at least 3 successive vehicles, none of which stopped. I'm assuming that at least some of these drivers didn't realise they'd hit a person - I can't believe you could get a run of so many people who would be willing to leave the scene of an accident.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Under the speed limit in good weather in midsummer in France, not driving as if you are on black ice seems reasonable to me

Regarding an earlier question, I have had to brake on various slippery surfaces a number of times before. Yet to come across black ice thanks to the climate I live in, but I have safely braked on oil running downhill from a crash (which was scary but handled okay thanks to good tyre condition and pumping the brake pedal) and a horrible clay/water sludge which was even worse because it got all clogged up between the tread blocks.

I have also managed to avoid sticky situations a number of times because I don't fly over crests at full speed like I'm starring in a Ken Block video. Hazards like crests or blind corners need to be treated with respect (i.e. lifting off and covering the brake pedal) since you never know if there is going to be a fallen branch or a koala on the road just over the crest.

Speed limits are an interesting issue, they can cause new safety issues along the way of helping solve others. In the Northern Territory of Australia, the speed on the main highways used to be unrestricted for cars. One of the hypotheses explaining the increase in fatalities on those roads after speed limits were introduced was that where the previous rules demanded drivers simply choose a speed they could maintain safely, now there are signs telling them they need to drive at 130 km/h which could well be unfamiliar territory for grey nomads making their first trip up north. Basically the concept of a speed limit is thought to make some people incapable of rubbing two brain cells together and working out what is a safe speed to choose for their abilities, their car, the road, the time of day, the visibility and the grip conditions.

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
But of course, Giant Cheeseburger, it's not an offence to breach the Aust Rules. They are a model, but have no statutory force (at least in NSW).

With the exception of a small number of items omitted, the Australian Road Rules have been adopted by NSW. I looked it up, and the item I quoted earlier has indeed been adopted without any alteration except to specify the applicable penalty level.

Whether the Australian Road Rules have authority of their own or only when enabled to do so by state legislation is a technicality, the point remains that the rule is exactly the same.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

What makes you think she was traveling at full speed over the blind summit? We were coming down a steep hill slowing for a roundabout. The brakes failed to work properly after the vehicle encountered engine oil on the road - next time they bought a car, they bought one with with anti-lock brakes.

This seems like one of the cases where you have to believe it was the drivers fault, because otherwise you might have to accept that sometimes bad things happen to good people and therefore potentially to you.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
There is a series of offences here, starting with causing death/injury by a negligent act, up to manslaughter. In recent years there have been a couple of charges of murder, where the prosecution case was that a car had been deliberately driven at the victim.

Ignoring those cases, the usual penalty on conviction is about 6 years gaol for causing death by dangerous driving - an offence which connotes much more than mere negligence. If there's more than 1 victim, the same penalty is applied to each offence. Unlike what appears to be the US practice of full accumulation, standard law here requires that there be partially concurrent sentences. The effect is to add a further year or so for each victim.

To me, this seems a reasonable attitude to adopt. We're not talking of a moment's inattention, but of such matters as driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or changing standard road tyres to those with less adhesion, or driving some distance at a speed well above the applicable limit. These are actions just as criminal as beating up a victim, if less so than using a knife or firearm. They warrant a substantial sentence

The things mentuoned in your last paragraph are indeed intentional. But then the offence should simply be - dangerous driving, carrying a six year tariff.

Instead of, fines and points for exactly the same behaviour until or unless someone gets killed.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

And what if someone gets injured? What should be the penalty for that? There are already sufficient offences for dangerous driving where there is neither injury or death.

The disadvantage of a fixed tariff is that it does not allow for the infinite number of variables. In a particularly bad case recently,where the driver had a record and showed no remorse, the sentence was 10 years. There have been cases with a much lower sentence. A judge has to find the sentence proper for the particular offence and explain why it is proper.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Like many of these cases the causes are complex and the evidence unclear.

As others have pointed out, the UK terminology for the crash site is a "motorway slip road." They have various names in the U.S., but I usually call them freeway entrance ramps.

The ramp was under construction and had a row of reflective signs and barricades directing traffic to the leftmost portion of the ramp (remember, we drive on the right side here).

The person killed was refueling their car using a can of gasoline (petrol) because it had run out. This was going on at night, and the car was partially obscured by the reflective signs.

The driver was convicted by a jury for leaving the scene of an accident.
{snip}
With the lighting conditions and the reflective barricades even an alert driver would have trouble seeing a person in an unexpected location like that.

This sounds like negligence on the part of the ramp engineers was a major factor. IME the most dangerous road conditions I encounter are on interstate on- and off-ramps under construction. The safety considerations that govern permanent structures seem to be ignored in temporary conditions.

Moo

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
This seems like one of the cases where you have to believe it was the drivers fault, because otherwise you might have to accept that sometimes bad things happen to good people and therefore potentially to you.

You hear a lot of people say that "there are good drivers and there are bad drivers". They're making the point that bad things happen to bad drivers, so as good drivers themselves, they will be fine because they don't do things like that. This is an illusion - there are drivers, all of whom are more or less often good and sometimes bad and stupid. As you say, 'good' drivers can have horrible crashes too.

The question is, if by virtue of choosing a car as your transport you are only ever an oil slick away from killing or maiming someone, why keep using your car as an everyday tool? This is why people need the good/bad drivers illusion.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And what if someone gets injured? What should be the penalty for that? There are already sufficient offences for dangerous driving where there is neither injury or death.

The disadvantage of a fixed tariff is that it does not allow for the infinite number of variables. In a particularly bad case recently,where the driver had a record and showed no remorse, the sentence was 10 years. There have been cases with a much lower sentence. A judge has to find the sentence proper for the particular offence and explain why it is proper.

My point is that the gravity of the offense is in the risk taken, not whether the driver got lucky or not. Not giving a toss could be considered an aggravating factor I suppose - but is it for other offences? Normally its a factor in parole hearings for early release rather than sentencing itself.

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

We have some long distances in Canada, for which people drive for many hours. It is quite typical to drive 4, 12 hour days for example. There are recommendations for taking breaks and ensuring you're not in danger of causing accident by fatigue. One must also be prepared for the road conditions and drive much less than the speed limit if road conditions so warrant. My point is that people are required to show judgement as well as obey specific laws.

I think the balance is at the level of finding fault under traffic laws and insurance adjudication, and criminalising and imprisoning only when the conduct is indeed criminal such as intoxication or doing something clearly distracting like using a telephone or computer.

Having had 4 close calls as a commuting cyclist this spring already over 2 months, one where I was in a pedestrian walk, walking my bicycle, where the car stopped for me was rear-ended by another, and if I had not anticipated it and jumped back, would have had the stopped car thrown into me 20 some feet forward, I can only hope that the penalty for the errant driver is severe. Another was a failure to yield to me at a stop, and I thumped the side of the car as I braked and turned to avoid it.

Thus: any time a driver endangers another's life, there should be definite and clear penalties, as well as restriction of driving. If there is any injury or loss of life, these are either potential assaults or manslaughter.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

The question is, if by virtue of choosing a car as your transport you are only ever an oil slick away from killing or maiming someone, why keep using your car as an everyday tool? This is why people need the good/bad drivers illusion.

I work as a healthcare professional and am required to have a car as our patch is half a county and we are required to home visit. What do you want me to do - some villages we cover only have a bus service once a day.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Dinghy Sailor,

I do not know your situation, your obligations, talents, where you live or how many light years it takes to get there. In my world, cannot definitely exists. Let us make a model village, with just the proper amount of farming, industry and local businesses to support its people. Say the number it can support is X. As soon as the population reaches X+1, someone has to look elsewhere to find work. This is a simple model, but the principle works when scaled and complications are added.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Yes, so they move. If they stay in the village and travel to work, that's a choice they make and they should own the consequences.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Sorry folks, if you kill someone you have to face the consequences. Maybe in your bit of the world losing your driving licence really does give you a choice between losing your job and emigrating. So tough. The other guy's dead. Be thankful you still have your freedom.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I don't think that's what they are talking about Ken. They are talking about the possibility of doing without car journeys in order to avoid danger, not the unfairness of losing licenses after you kill someone.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I am fairly exasperated here. I've had less communication failure in languages in which I am far less fluent.

ken, no matter the reason or necessity of driving, one is responsible for driving safely and must deal with the consequences of the failure to do so. Never indicated differently.

Dinghy Sailor,
I think you are grossly oversimplifying reality. However, I am losing interest in continuing the argument.

ETA: Thank you, mdijon, for correctly divining my intent. Both this time and with Spike. Though probably due more to your skill in divination than mine with communication.

[ 22. May 2012, 19:01: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think that's what they are talking about Ken. They are talking about the possibility of doing without car journeys in order to avoid danger, not the unfairness of losing licenses after you kill someone.

My point is that there's always* a choice whether or not to drive, so if someone gets killed by your car, you're responsible because you chose to get behind the wheel in the first place, notwithstanding the immediate circumstances of the fatal crash.

*I'd say "almost", except that lots of people would then apply this to themselves when it doesn't actually fit - they're just unwilling to pay the price of not driving. Ambulance drivers and firemen get a pass, not many more people do though.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

That's too black and white a view to allow any of us to live our lives.

Drinking hot drinks, using glassware and playing football are all hazardous activities, but one doesn't become culpable for any misadventures proceeding from them because of one's choice to indulge in them.

If I choose to have an oven in my home does that make me responsible for any accident involving the oven? If I choose to have a drink in a glass in a pub am I liable if the barman drops the glass and cuts himself? Or liable if a toddler in a cafe knocks my coffee over and scalds herself?

The law requires litigation to concern foreseeable consequences. Driving home with due care and attention doesn't make me legally liable for accidents, driving home drunk does.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The law requires litigation to concern foreseeable consequences. Driving home with due care and attention doesn't make me legally liable for accidents, driving home drunk does.

That depends where you live: in many European countries you're strictly liable for vulnerable road users such as cyclists.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

From Think:

My point is that the gravity of the offense is in the risk taken, not whether the driver got lucky or not. Not giving a toss could be considered an aggravating factor I suppose - but is it for other offences? Normally its a factor in parole hearings for early release rather than sentencing itself.

Most definitely not the law here. Remorse is an indicator that rehabilitation is likely and thus sentence is reduced.

As to Dinghy Sailor : An idyllic world. all these pretty little villages, with just the right number of people. It may work where you live, but most assuredly not here, in Canada or the USA for just a few examples.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

In our case that happens essentially at psrole, so typically I think you serve about half a prison sentence before being considered for parole, the parole board would look at remorse as a factor in whether to grant it. That said life and indeterminate sentences are a bit different and I am not sure how they work.

My main gripe here is consequentialist law. Driving drunk is a serious offense and rightly treated as such. It is a serious offense because of the risk of harm. We should not be giving offender A lighter sentence just because they were lucky enough not to hit someone - their criminal intent and disregard for others (which is what we want punish, deter and change) is exactly the same as offender B who drank the same amount, had the same intent, drove the same road and happened to hit someone. A is not better than B - but it therefore follows that B is not worse than A.

Bottom line is deliberate drink driving should carry a life driving ban and a prison sentence.

But someone is not more guilty the worse the consequence of the same actions.

Which gets us to if you - as a society - decide that travelling too close to the car in front (say less than two seconds) is a sufficiently large hazard to others that it should be treated as the equivalent of drink driving - then it should be monitored and enforced as such with a life ban and jail sentence. If you don't, then it is not right to then decide that driver A taking the same risk as drivers B through Z is all of sudden much more culpable if there is a collisionsame t

[ 22. May 2012, 22:49: Message edited by: Think² ]

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As to Dinghy Sailor : An idyllic world. all these pretty little villages, with just the right number of people. It may work where you live, but most assuredly not here, in Canada or the USA for just a few examples.

Even if I agreed with that, what have pretty little villages got to do with people who kill other people using cars?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Dinghy Sailor

Earlier posts of yours - such as that at 7.25 today - presume that there is no need to use cars and that it is all a matter of choice. For many, there is no choice.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

In the larger scheme of things, we need cars and will need them for some while, because we've built our society that way.

On an individual level, very few people actually need cars, but most people tell themselves they do because they aren't willing to pay the price of not owning one. So someone 'needs' a car because of their job, or because of where they live? They only took that job or moved to that house because they knew they could get there by car. Their need is their own creation.

The point is that as has been mentioned above, even a careful driver will crash eventually. If we genuinely all individually needed to drive all the time, that would make road deaths an inevitable, blame-free consequence of life. As it is, most people only drive due to their own life choices so any deaths are still their fault, for choosing to base their lives around a dangerous mode of transport.

As to the little villages stuff, it's rubbish. If you want to live car-free, a big high-density city is the place to be: lots of amenities close by, along with easy transport to other places.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
In our case that happens essentially at psrole, so typically I think you serve about half a prison sentence before being considered for parole, the parole board would look at remorse as a factor in whether to grant it. That said life and indeterminate sentences are a bit different and I am not sure how they work.

My main gripe here is consequentialist law. Driving drunk is a serious offense and rightly treated as such. It is a serious offense because of the risk of harm. We should not be giving offender A lighter sentence just because they were lucky enough not to hit someone - their criminal intent and disregard for others (which is what we want punish, deter and change) is exactly the same as offender B who drank the same amount, had the same intent, drove the same road and happened to hit someone. A is not better than B - but it therefore follows that B is not worse than A.

Bottom line is deliberate drink driving should carry a life driving ban and a prison sentence.

But someone is not more guilty the worse the consequence of the same actions.

Which gets us to if you - as a society - decide that travelling too close to the car in front (say less than two seconds) is a sufficiently large hazard to others that it should be treated as the equivalent of drink driving - then it should be monitored and enforced as such with a life ban and jail sentence. If you don't, then it is not right to then decide that driver A taking the same risk as drivers B through Z is all of sudden much more culpable if there is a collisionsame t

I understand what you are saying, but there are definitely other areas of law where outcomes are taken into account, not just intentions and conduct. I don't think driving is unique in this respect.

Sometimes outcomes are an element of the offence. Sometimes they are part of sentencing. This is, for example, why you have victim impact statements.

Where driving is probably a little different from some other areas is that so MANY people are driving badly in one way or another, that there aren't the resources to spot and chase all the ones who get away with it. Unless you have a battery of traffic police monitoring every road (or viewing the camera footage), the incidents that are going to get attention are the ones where something actually happens.

And I say this as someone who witnessed part of a quite extraordinary accident last night (which I may have to give a police statement about), and who almost caused a far more ordinary one this morning with my own sloppiness in an unfamiliar situation, the only consequence of which is a honked horn, my embarrassment and someone somewhere in this city who probably got to work in a bad mood about idiot drivers.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Yes. The outcome is important. If I hit someone with a cricket bat and leave a bruise, I can expect to be charged with nothing more than common assault. If I break the skin and the skull, and the person is left with permanent disabilities, I could expect a charge of at least malicious injury, which carries a much higher penalty. In each case, the overall aim of society is to stop people hitting each other with bats. Where the results are so different, then the offence is different also.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The law requires litigation to concern foreseeable consequences. Driving home with due care and attention doesn't make me legally liable for accidents, driving home drunk does.

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
That depends where you live: in many European countries you're strictly liable for vulnerable road users such as cyclists.

I think that strict liability means that the burden of proof is reversed, but not that there is no burden of proof. (i.e. the motorist has to prove that they were not at fault. If they can prove they weren't at fault, they aren't liable. If they can't prove they weren't at fault, then they are).

But that isn't quite the same as saying that the car driver becomes liable for all the consequences of their driving. (Although it is a step closer).

Tell me, as per my post above, do you apply the same degree of risk aversion to the rest of your life, including hot drinks for instance?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The law requires litigation to concern foreseeable consequences. Driving home with due care and attention doesn't make me legally liable for accidents, driving home drunk does.

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
That depends where you live: in many European countries you're strictly liable for vulnerable road users such as cyclists.
I think that strict liability means that the burden of proof is reversed, but not that there is no burden of proof. (i.e. the motorist has to prove that they were not at fault. If they can prove they weren't at fault, they aren't liable. If they can't prove they weren't at fault, then they are).

But that isn't quite the same as saying that the car driver becomes liable for all the consequences of their driving. (Although it is a step closer).

Tell me, as per my post above, do you apply the same degree of risk aversion to the rest of your life, including hot drinks for instance?

Strict liability means that the prosecution only has to prove that you did the act constituting the offence; it does not also have to prove intent. (Not quite 100% accurate, but close enough for the purposes of this thread.)

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

My recently acquired expert qualifications on strict liability (degree granted by the University of Googleton with subsequent masters course from College of Wikiville) lead me to think there are variations on the theme of strict liability.

For instance strict liability as applied to speeding does indeed mean that you only need prove the driver was over the limit - the mens rea (guilty mind) <see that, Latin in italics as well, I must know what I'm on about> isn't required.

On the other hand as applied to cycling in the Netherlands, for instance it might be that

quote:
Under this law, in crashes involving vulnerable road users, unless it can be clearly proven that the vulnerable road user was at fault, the more powerful road user is found liable by default.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I wouldn't assume that the cycling website is using strict liability in a technical sense that us lawyer types would recognise. Mind you, I also wouldn't assume that the concept of strict liability in continental European systems necessarily corresponds with the concept of strict liability in systems derived from the UK.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
even a careful driver will crash eventually. If we genuinely all individually needed to drive all the time, that would make road deaths an inevitable, blame-free consequence of life. As it is, most people only drive due to their own life choices so any deaths are still their fault, for choosing to base their lives around a dangerous mode of transport.

Even a careful jogger will eventually bump into someone else and knock them over, potentially cracking their head on the pavement and killing them. If we genuinely all individually needed to jog all the time, that would make jogging deaths an inevitable, blame-free consequence of life. As it is, most people only jog due to their own life choices so any deaths are still their fault, for choosing to base their lives around a dangerous mode of exercise.

Wouldn't you agree?

Posted by pjl (# 16929) on :

Good and interesting comments on this thread. As a fully qualified driving instructor I'd like to add this comment.

I had a small label on my dash like many other instructors which read....'What if'

Says it all really

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pjl:
Good and interesting comments on this thread. As a fully qualified driving instructor I'd like to add this comment.

I had a small label on my dash like many other instructors which read....'What if'

Says it all really

It does.

And I think with speed limits, in particular, people don't grasp that it's about leaving them some room for when 'what if' becomes 'it's happening now'.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Sometimes outcomes are an element of the offence. Sometimes they are part of sentencing. This is, for example, why you have victim impact statements.

Where driving is probably a little different from some other areas is that so MANY people are driving badly in one way or another, that there aren't the resources to spot and chase all the ones who get away with it. Unless you have a battery of traffic police monitoring every road (or viewing the camera footage), the incidents that are going to get attention are the ones where something actually happens.

And I say this as someone who witnessed part of a quite extraordinary accident last night (which I may have to give a police statement about), and who almost caused a far more ordinary one this morning with my own sloppiness in an unfamiliar situation, the only consequence of which is a honked horn, my embarrassment and someone somewhere in this city who probably got to work in a bad mood about idiot drivers.

IMHO it is precisely why we shouldn't have victim impact statements, it is not better and less blameworthy to murder a cantankerous old tramp who had no family than it is to murder a beloved wife and mother.

Re driving - no one intends todrive badly and crash (no one in the right mind anyway) so this isn't something you can deter - because no one is trying to do it. So sentencing as if it has that effect is poitless. An arbitrary legal enforcement is inherently unfair.

As a society we are curently choosing to accept the risk of the *average* drivers abilities subject to the current testing regime. They will not perform perfectly at all times it is not humanly possible to do so. So as a society we are choosing to accept the risk of the average driver with an average error rate. Now it can be an argued that even without egriegious fault (eg being drunk, modifying your car illegally), 99% of remaining collsions are due to driver error - but that does not mean the error isn't accidental nor that the driver is making errors more often than most drivers.

So what is an acceptable error margin for a licensed driver? What risk, as a society are we willing to accept ?

Here are some figures.

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
On an individual level, very few people actually need cars, but most people tell themselves they do because they aren't willing to pay the price of not owning one. So someone 'needs' a car because of their job, or because of where they live? They only took that job or moved to that house because they knew they could get there by car. Their need is their own creation.

I think you're oversimplifying things considerably. I live in a small town. I worked in the small town so I bought a house about a mile from my work because I could walk to work. My work moved it's office to next town 12 miles away. I work shift work. Some shifts finish at 3.30am. There is no public transport in small towns at 3.30am. Do I walk the 12 miles home? Do I cycle at stupid o'clock in the morning in the dark with all the kit I need to take to and from work? I can't move to next town because house prices in next town are about twice that in my town and I can't afford it. I can't sell my house in my town and rent in next town because there is a recession, houses don't sell and I'm almost probably in negative equity anyway. I therefore drive to and from work.

That's the reality of a huge number of people who genuinely need a car and taking the moral high ground is pointless and patronising.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

For a different take on speed - which I am not sure I agree with - see here.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
For a different take on speed - which I am not sure I agree with - see here.

The flaw is damn obvious. Well, at least to me. The logic is correct as far as it goes but it simply doesn't go far enough - drivers are indeed able to brake considerably before impact, but if they were going slower to begin with then they could brake a LOT more (the relationship isn't linear), to the point where some of the impacts would never even occur.

The other flaw is in thinking that over 900 pedestrians killed in a year is remotely close to acceptable, regardless of whether it's a low percentage that is killed.

And even a small further reduction in the percentage of deaths represents a significant number of lives saved. Rather strongly reminds me of some stuff on process design I learnt a while back. Apparently small improvement in process, multiplied by massive number of times that process is performed, equals huge improvement. And driving a car is a process performed millions and millions of times per day.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Indeed. The kinetic energy in a moving vehicle grows in ratio to the square of the speed. This means that a car travelling at 60 mph possesses four times the KE of one travelling at 30 mph, not double.

The two consquences of this are that (i) you have to get rid of far more energy via your brakes, thus increasing stopping distances hugely; and (ii) there is much more energy to be absorbed by the person you hit.

In terms of momentum, an impact at 40 mph is not 33% more violent than one at 30 mph but actually 77% more violent.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Indeed, but the analysis is a good example of how rhetoric is used to distort the actuality.

The writer is correct in stating that deaths wouldn't reduce by 50% - likewise the idea of ever error being avoidable is a rhetrical trope.

Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on :

In most parts of the U.S. it isn't really possible to follow a lifestyle that is fully engaged with society without a car.

I have kids. They go to school. They are involved in some extracurricular activities that take place before and after school. There is no busing for these activities, and our house (which is quite close to the school by local standards) is too far for them to walk, especially in inclement weather (we have snow on the ground for half the school year). So I drive my car.

Around 2% of the houses in the community are close enough to the school complex that kids can walk. The decisions on roads, schools, and other public services over the last 50 years weren't made with the possibility of carless families in mind.

The decisions to have cars were made at a social level, not an individual one. To pick unlucky individuals as scapegoats for a social decision would seem most unfair.

Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Like many of these cases the causes are complex and the evidence unclear.

As others have pointed out, the UK terminology for the crash site is a "motorway slip road." They have various names in the U.S., but I usually call them freeway entrance ramps.

The ramp was under construction and had a row of reflective signs and barricades directing traffic to the leftmost portion of the ramp (remember, we drive on the right side here).

The person killed was refueling their car using a can of gasoline (petrol) because it had run out. This was going on at night, and the car was partially obscured by the reflective signs.

The driver was convicted by a jury for leaving the scene of an accident.
{snip}
With the lighting conditions and the reflective barricades even an alert driver would have trouble seeing a person in an unexpected location like that.
This sounds like negligence on the part of the ramp engineers was a major factor. IME the most dangerous road conditions I encounter are on interstate on- and off-ramps under construction. The safety considerations that govern permanent structures seem to be ignored in temporary conditions.

Moo

With what I know of the case from the media reports, much of the blame, sadly, rests with the deceased. Much also rests with the driver of the car that ran out of gas (circumstances were such that the person refueling wasn't the driver when it ran out).

I have had breakdowns on the freeway. It is of vital importance to get the car as far away from the travel lanes as possible after a breakdown. If I repair or recover a car from the freeway I'm careful to stand out of the travel lanes and to watch the oncoming traffic flow for anyone that might hit me. At night I wear a reflective vest, or put out flares, or have a friend bring their car and park it so that they block traffic that might hit me.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
even a careful driver will crash eventually. If we genuinely all individually needed to drive all the time, that would make road deaths an inevitable, blame-free consequence of life. As it is, most people only drive due to their own life choices so any deaths are still their fault, for choosing to base their lives around a dangerous mode of transport.
Even a careful jogger will eventually bump into someone else and knock them over, potentially cracking their head on the pavement and killing them. If we genuinely all individually needed to jog all the time, that would make jogging deaths an inevitable, blame-free consequence of life. As it is, most people only jog due to their own life choices so any deaths are still their fault, for choosing to base their lives around a dangerous mode of exercise.

Wouldn't you agree?

When the country has 3,000 people a year killed by joggers, you will have a point.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

I would imagine we have that many killed by cigarettes and fast food.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
When the country has 3,000 people a year killed by joggers, you will have a point.

I'm not sure where the 3,000 a year comes from, but in the UK the number related to cars seems to be just over 1,000. 655 people died a year falling on stairs or steps.

You'd think we could do without steps as well wouldn't you? Why does anyone need more than one storey?

2,000 children attend A&E each year in the England following bath water scalds, and 400 are admitted as a result.

Could we really not make do with showers?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

We aren't discusing raw numbers, but whether those who 'crash their cars' should be prosecuted and jailed.

(If we are talking numbers then some 24,000 or killed or seriously injured on UK roads in 2010.)

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Its relevant in considering relative risk.

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

First, there is a vast difference between immediate and deferred consequences. Second, there is a difference between a specific and contributory cause of death.

Smoking and eating wrong foods may indeed contribute as one of a number of causes to death, with the consequences are deferred to sometimes many decades later. Crashes sometimes do not kill instantly but the delay is usually quite brief in comparison, and the the specific causation is clear.

I also disagree with a prior point about victim impact. The point of victim impact statements is to have those who have lost someone be able to have a voice. Generally, the impact of the victim statements is minimal or nil for actual sentencing which are governed by precedents.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Let's split the difference mdijon, the number of UK road deaths is now about 2,000. Road deaths dropped below 3,000 in 2007. The peak was actually in the mid 1960s at about 8,000 (ignoring WW2 with its blackouts), what's different now is that we've all been cowed indoors and off the streets because they're perceived as being too risky.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Let's split the difference mdijon, the number of UK road deaths is now about 2,000. Road deaths dropped below 3,000 in 2007. The peak was actually in the mid 1960s at about 8,000 (ignoring WW2 with its blackouts), what's different now is that we've all been cowed indoors and off the streets because they're perceived as being too risky.

Sorry, what the blazes are you talking about? That might be relevant to pedestrians, I fail to see how it's relevant to overall road deaths.

And nice of you to not give any credit to things like seatbelts, improved car design and maybe, just occasionally, a slight increase in people understanding the road safety messages and not driving like morons.

And I wrote that BEFORE seeing that The Guardian article cites those exact 3 things as causal, along with better roads.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Either way, my point was why we draw a line to be so risk averse regarding cars but not regarding hot baths or stairs.

(There's a joke about throwing out babies with the hot baths somewhere there).

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0