|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Prison for people who crash their cars
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rogue
Shipmate
# 2275
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
If everyone starts thinking outside the box does outside the box come back inside?
Posts: 2507 | From: Toton | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/votive.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 20. May 2012, 00:40: Message edited by: PaulBC ]
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
'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.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
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...
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Full Circle
Shipmate
# 15398
|
Posted
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]](wink.gif)
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
--------------------
Beware the monocausal fallacy (Anon)
Posts: 232 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
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.)
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
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 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?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
