Holding drivers responsible

"Dennis P. Harris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

if she had shot the victim with a firearm she would be going to prison for a loooong time. a car
is a lethal weapon, too, but somehow if you kill someone with it, it's not as bad as with a gun?
gimme a break.

Not necessarily. Intent is a big part of the issue, whether we are talking about firearms, autos or
bicycles. There are plenty of cases where a firearm was discharged accidentally and wounded or
killed someone, yet nobody went to jail.

-Buck

Cathy Kearns said:

When I was working as a bus driver, something like falling asleep at the wheel and running over
some one would pretty much mean you lose your job anyway, and no one else would hire you to
drive either with that on your record. So her driving career is over whether or not her license
is revoked.

I was wondering about this. I have a friend who drives a bus for a local school district. He says
that if he get ANY moving violation, he loses his job. School bus safety is taken VERY seriously.

larry
--
To reply by e-mail, be polite. Rudeness will get you nowhere.

A news story that might be relevant to this discussion is that of Congressman Bill Janklow. He blew
through a stop sign at 75 mph and plowed into a motorcyclist, killing him. Janklow has been charged
with second degree manslaughter.

cnn.comindex.htmlOpen ↗

RFM

(Hunrobe) said:

Taking the license of a bad driver does not stop them from driving. They just become bad
unlicensed drivers.

Unlicensed and uninsured.

Cut their goolies off, I say. At least then they won't breed :-/

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ New!
Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!

(Hunrobe) said:

Following that logic, walking down the street throwing hand grenades should be a noise ordinance
violation provided no one gets injured or killed.

LOL! I like that :-D

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ New!
Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!

(Hunrobe) said:

We punish the crime, not the result.

Which makes sense up to a point, the point being road traffic crashes are the leading source of
child fatality in the Western world, one of the biggest sources of death and debilitating injury at
any age. Careless driving is not a small thing, it is a serious social problem. So the punishments
for all (including non-injury negligence) should arguably be much stronger, as the current penalties
clearly are not deterrent.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ New!
Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!

Quoted message said:

Which makes sense up to a point, the point being road traffic crashes are the leading source of
child fatality in the Western world, one of the biggest sources of death and debilitating injury
at any age. Careless driving is not a small thing, it is a serious social problem. So the
punishments for all (including non-injury negligence) should arguably be much stronger, as the
current penalties clearly are not deterrent.

Non-injury negligence -- Hmmm

1. Failure to make complete stop at stop sign. Or even slow down.
2. Speeding (usually downhill).
3. Straying out of lane.
4. Not indicating turns.
5. Obstructing faster traffic.

Bicyclists - Naa.

I know how rightous I feel when riding my bike ( at that time I am a "better" person ) but I also
know that I am bound by the same rules as other vehicles on the road.

Howard

hnelson said:

Non-injury negligence -- Hmmm

Well, yes. Like blowing a stop sign. Cyclists too, although it's mostly our own necks we risk.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ New!
Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!

29 Aug 2003 23:52:22 GMT,

Quoted post said:

Too many seem to want the courts to somehow go beyond what the law allows and become
avenging angels.

I'd prefer the law and courts to reflect societies' intolerance of present state sanctioned
negligence causing death. Instead, society is manipulated to accept it.

The victim's story is ignored or quickly stifled by media (unless there's a known personality
involved) and then swallowed whole simply as the cost of doing business. That "business" reeks of
violent corruption.

Falling asleep at the wheel is as criminally negligent as passing out drunk. Both drivers were
impaired. But only one of 'em failed a test.

A smart lawyer working a sleep researcher as an expert witness could be able to swing a jury either
way. Commuters doze (watch 'em on train after work) because their harried lifestyle doesn't permit
them to get sufficient sleep. Do they know they're tired? Sure they do. Just ask.

Most of our soccer moms will complain about not getting enough sleep. We don't recognise the effects
of it. It's cumulative. Micro-sleeps are the body's way of dealing with sleep deprivation. It's more
common than accident reports indicate because the perp is usually wide awake from the adrenalin
spike by the time investigators show up.
--
zk

28 Aug 2003 11:19:34 -0700, <[email hidden]>,

(Rick Warner) said:

dropping the use of the term 'accident' when referring to collisions. The argument is that most are
not 'accidents' but are the result of poor choices by drivers of vehicles. Changing the terminology
will, IMHO, have little impact.

Not by itself, but it is part of the package. We vilified smoking so that it's no longer an
acceptable social activity. Public opinion of drunk driving has impacted the way we now regard that
behaviour. We've been sold all kinds of concepts more far-fetched than assuming collisions are
accidents when contributing causes can be cited and largely prevented by exercising better
judgement. By eliminating the ready excuse, 'accident', we already begin taking responsibility.

Quoted message said:

But holding the drivers to a higher standard of conduct, with more appropriate punishments for
improper use of deadly weapons could get the message across that driving is serious business and
needs to be undertaken with a set of standard precautions. Do not drive if you did not get
sufficient rest, do not take your attention away from the job to read the map, change the CD, dial
a phone call, etc.

Driving is boring business, that's partly why it's taken so lightly. Cars are designed to provide
distractions and creature-comforts for the driver because it is so boring. Cars become extension of
people's homes and we're generally more rude and careless at home than in public. Not to mention
home too is usually where we sleep.

Quoted message said:

If and only if there are penalties for these behaviors will the behavior of the masses start
to change.

It seems to me every time there is one of these incidents the community cry for stiffer penalties is
stifled and ignored when the next case goes to court. We're victims of car dependency.
--
zk

"Zoot Katz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

28 Aug 2003 11:19:34 -0700, <[email hidden]>,

(Rick Warner) said:

dropping the use of the term 'accident' when referring to collisions. The argument is that most
are not 'accidents' but are the result of poor choices by drivers of vehicles. Changing the
terminology will, IMHO, have little impact.

Not by itself, but it is part of the package. We vilified smoking so that it's no longer an
acceptable social activity. Public opinion of drunk driving has impacted the way we now regard
that behaviour. We've been sold all kinds of concepts more far-fetched than assuming collisions
are accidents when contributing causes can be cited and largely prevented by exercising better
judgement. By eliminating the ready excuse, 'accident', we already begin taking responsibility.

Quoted message said:

But holding the drivers to a higher standard of conduct, with more appropriate punishments for
improper use of deadly weapons could get the message across that driving is serious business and
needs to be undertaken with a set of standard precautions. Do not drive if you did not get
sufficient rest, do not take your attention away from the job to read the map, change the CD,
dial a phone call, etc.

Driving is boring business, that's partly why it's taken so lightly. Cars are designed to provide
distractions and creature-comforts for the driver because it is so boring. Cars become extension
of people's homes and we're generally more rude and careless at home than in public. Not to
mention home too is usually where we sleep.

Quoted message said:

If and only if there are penalties for these behaviors will the behavior of the masses start to
change.

It seems to me every time there is one of these incidents the community cry for stiffer penalties
is stifled and ignored when the next case goes to court. We're victims of car dependency.
--

I agree with much that you say.

Have you seen the Serta car commercial?

--
Robin Hubert <[email hidden]

(Hunrobe) said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Dennis P. Harris)

Quoted message said:

if she had shot the victim with a firearm she would be going to prison for a loooong time. a car
is a lethal weapon, too

----snip---

Bull. A firearm is *designed* to be a weapon. A car is *designed* to transport people and property
from point A to point B. Can a car be used as a weapon? Sure. So can a child's t-ball bat, a rolled
up newspaper, or a MTB. The difference is intent.

Quoted message said:

somehow if you kill someone with it, it's not as bad as with a
gun? gimme a break.

You think there's no moral difference and there should be no legal distinction made between someone
who intentionally and maliciously shoots and kills another person and a person that in a moment of
carelessness _UN_intentionally kills another? Give *me* a break.

The thing that's VERY easy to forget is that any of us could easily become guilty of killing a
cyclist or pedestrian as well.

Say you're driving down your favorite 45mph two lane road on the way to a group ride. You're a very
safe (and statistically extra-long) two seconds behind the delivery van ahead of you. You see a
flashy rider on a bike go by the other way and pivot your head to see if it might be Fabrizio. At
that very instant, the delivery van swerves to miss the cyclist who's riding 14mph four feet from
the edge of the road.

You turn your head back just 2.5 seconds later just in time to hear a heart-stopping crunch.

If that sounds unlikely, act this out sitting at your computer - a bike just went by - check it out,
and count "one one thousand, two one thousand...."

The "crime" I describe above isn't anything that ALL of use haven't committed. We've just been lucky
enough to not have the circumstances all fall into place to produce the awful results I described.

What should be punishment be in a case like this? The driver was negligent enough to kill a cyclist,
but not really doing anything unusual. Any time you look away from your direction of travel for
whatever reason, the same situation could apply - whether it's dialing a cellphone (DON'T get me
started!!!), tuning the radio, or digging a fry out of that McD's bag).

Just a thought...

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of the $695 ti frame

If only life were as simple as people want it to be. Yeah, drivers can be a real pain. But there are
lots of them and they are much bigger and much heavier than we are. Their visibility is limited.
They do not have the ability to stop on a dime. They are not required to have skills.

But then, I encounter lousy bikers all the time. As others have said, it's sheer luck that more
bicycle riders are not hit. Bikers will spread out across lanes on narrow mountain roads and refuse
to move. They drive on the wrong side of the road. They run red lights and stop signs much more
often than cars (here in Denver, that's remarkable in itself). They hide in blind spots, dive out
between cars and buildings, ride in the evening with dark clothes and no lights, play chicken with 2
tons of fast moving metal...

Why do bicycle riders ride along the no-shoulder main drag congested West Colfax Avenue here when
there is a lightly used parallel back road one block south? A mostly empty parallel road one block
more? Whose fault is it when these bikers get hit?

Like it or not, most bicycle riders are also drivers. Lots of bad drivers means lots of bad bikers.
Do you radically change when switching between car and bike? Emotionally, maybe. Your skills and
common sense? Not at all.

Think more bicycles would make things heaven? Ha! Go to any city where bikes outnumber cars and
watch the bicycle maniacs run amok!

Reality stinks. If you want heavy penalties for drivers, also add heavy penalties for errant
bicyclists.

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(Hunrobe) said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Dennis P. Harris)

Quoted message said:

if she had shot the victim with a firearm she would be going to prison for a loooong time. a car
is a lethal weapon, too

----snip---

Bull. A firearm is *designed* to be a weapon. A car is *designed* to

transport

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

people and property from point A to point B. Can a car be used as a

weapon?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sure. So can a child's t-ball bat, a rolled up newspaper, or a MTB. The difference is intent.

Quoted message said:

somehow if you kill someone with it, it's not as bad as with a
gun? gimme a break.

You think there's no moral difference and there should be no legal

distinction

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

made between someone who intentionally and maliciously shoots and kills

another

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

person and a person that in a moment of carelessness _UN_intentionally

kills

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

another? Give *me* a break.

The thing that's VERY easy to forget is that any of us could easily become guilty of killing a
cyclist or pedestrian as well.

Say you're driving down your favorite 45mph two lane road on the way to a group ride. You're a
very safe (and statistically extra-long) two seconds behind the delivery van ahead of you. You see
a flashy rider on a bike go by the other way and pivot your head to see if it might be Fabrizio.
At that very instant, the delivery van swerves to miss the cyclist who's riding 14mph four feet
from the edge of the road.

You turn your head back just 2.5 seconds later just in time to hear a heart-stopping crunch.

If that sounds unlikely, act this out sitting at your computer - a bike just went by - check it
out, and count "one one thousand, two one thousand...."

The "crime" I describe above isn't anything that ALL of use haven't committed. We've just been
lucky enough to not have the circumstances all fall into place to produce the awful results I
described.

What should be punishment be in a case like this? The driver was negligent enough to kill a
cyclist, but not really doing anything unusual. Any time you look away from your direction of
travel for whatever reason, the same situation could apply - whether it's dialing a cellphone
(DON'T get me started!!!), tuning the radio, or digging a fry out of that McD's bag).

Just a thought...

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of the $695 ti frame

Tue, 02 Sep 2003 02:58:14 GMT, <[email hidden]>, "John"

Quoted message said:

Reality stinks. If you want heavy penalties for drivers, also add heavy penalties for errant
bicyclists.

When a bicyclist's inattention costs another person their life. Yep, nail 'em up to the nearest
phone pole. Until that happens you sound like a toady making excuses for careless caged killers who
drive impaired knowing the worst that can happen is that their driving privileges may be temporarily
restricted.
--
zk

(Tom Keats) said:

In article said:

Mark, stop trying to inject commonsense into the discussion. Whenever anyone dies as a result of
a motor vehicle crash, no matter what the circumstances, someone *must* be prosecuted as a
murderer.

Someone who Kills someone else should be held to account, anyways, n'est pas? And cars are so good
at killing ppl, and cars are steered by the person behind the wheel.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

So, there's some folks who aren't murderers, but who have nevertheless killed people in their
desire & haste to get from A to B.What do we do with them? Let them kill some more people? Take
their DL's away, and raise their insurance premies? I dunno. I guess that's what I'm hearing from
you, too. Rob, I know you don't like people getting hurt or killed any more than I or anybody else
does. I just wish you wouldn't sound like you're defending the "accidental" killers.

I think we all agree there are cases where the drivers deserve everything they get and more... but
what about the example I brought up - the example that, except for the unusual circumstances
entirely beyond our control - we've all done at one time or another. We've just been lucky enough to
not have a bicycle in our path when we looked back/down/up/whatever.

I'm not making excuses for bad drivers, but simply pointing out that it is quite possible for a
"good driver" to accidentally hit a cyclist without doing anything really dumb.

Heck, I didn't even get mad at the guy who took me out - he DID do something fairly dumb (pulled
through stopped traffic and across a separate bike lane without checking for traffic in the bike
lane), but I defy any driver to claim they haven't done the same thing (with a bike lane or sidewalk
or bike lane) at some point. I know I have.

I don't really have a dog in this hunt (pun not intended, Bob...), but just wanted to inject some
thought fodder.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of the $695 ti frame

(Hunrobe) said:

Mark, stop trying to inject commonsense into the discussion.

LOL! Ain't that the truth.

As you know, I live in dear old Blighty. Here we have a road fatality rate of around 3,500 per year,
of which a couple of hundred are cyclists. If we took all the cyclists off the road, it would hardly
make a dent in the figures. I guess it's the same in the US.

Nobody wants to crash, but as has been said before apparently people don't not want it half enough,
if you see what I mean.

I really think it is time to start reminding drivers of the consequences of sloppy driving.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ New!
Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!

Tom Keats said:

Quoted message said:

someone *must* be prosecuted as a murderer.

Killers don't have to be murderers. All they need to do, is to

really does sound like you're being an apologist for traffical mayhem. I realize that you're a
good guy who doesn't wish ill

So, there's some folks who aren't murderers, but who have nevertheless killed people in their
desire & haste to get from A to B.What do we do with them? Let them kill some

any more than I or anybody else does. I just wish you wouldn't sound like you're defending the
"accidental" killers.

Tom, I think what he was saying is not that they shouldn't be prosecuted; not that they shouldn't be
punished; and not defending them in any way.

I think he was just saying that they should be prosecuted as something other than _murderers_.

The word "murderer" carries the connotation of 1st or 2nd degree murder (common US terms for planned
murder and unplanned but yet intentional murder).

It would seem to me that automotive drivers who, in an honest accident, have killed bicyclists,
should not lose their life, or too much of their freedom.

Many people's livelihood depends on them driving. To take that away from somebody is a very bad
thing that could have bad consequences for all of society. In some cases, it could have direct
consequences on uninvolved people -- for example, children of a parent whose license was revoked, or
who was put in prison for three years.

When an honest accident results in a cyclist's death, an appropriate punishment would punish and
deterr without ruining anybody else's life. To ruin another life doesn't accomplish anything.

When negligence results in a cyclist's death, that certainly requires more punishment...but if I
recall this thread properly (and I probably don't), then it wasn't a negligence issue.

Note that while I have mentioned death of a cyclist, the same applies to deaths of pedestrians,
Segwayists, and Volkswagon drivers.

Quoted message said:

cheers, & Riders on the Storm, Tom

--
Rick Onanian

Silly me. All drivers bad. All bikers good. Feel better? Have you been absolved of all
responsibility now?

You sound like one of the small group of arrogant self-righteous idiots who always blame others. I
made specific points, try addressing them if you feel they are incorrect.

"Zoot Katz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tue, 02 Sep 2003 02:58:14 GMT, <[email hidden]>, "John"

Quoted message said:

Reality stinks. If you want heavy penalties for drivers, also add heavy penalties for errant
bicyclists.

When a bicyclist's inattention costs another person their life. Yep, nail 'em up to the nearest
phone pole. Until that happens you sound like a toady making excuses for careless caged killers
who drive impaired knowing the worst that can happen is that their driving privileges may be
temporarily restricted.
--
zk

Tom Keats said:

Prosecuting ppl after the fact doesn't do [censored]-all.

That is the concept around which I based my previous message. If somebody is dead, you can't bring
that person back by destroying more lives. The only way that destroying an additional life helps is
in a situations where it can be a deterrant.

Quoted message said:

People don't have to get run over. Period.

No, but as long as people are driving, or are designing a computer program that does the driving, or
otherwise, there will be accidents.

We can only work to reduce them, but as humans, we will never eradicate them. We are not, and can
not be, perfect.

Quoted message said:

That is all. What's so unrealistic about ppl being able to get to the library without having to
deal w/ statistical probabilities of getting killed?

Why would you want to go the library, if not to study what kind of danger you were in on the
way there? 😉

Seriously, though, it is unrealistic, because we can only eliminate portions of the danger. No
matter how you get to the library, you will still have statistical probabilities of getting killed
-- slip on an orange peel, have a heart attack, get attacked by a rabid squirrel, whatever.

At least, having speeding automotive traffic, we get to hospital quickly. Of course, we usually are
going there because we were just in an speeding automotive accident.

Quoted message said:

Rob's a good guy. He's not a people-hating ogre. In fact,

People-hating ogres aren't that bad. Ever see Shrek?

Quoted message said:

I think quite the opposite is the case. But there seems to be a current, pervading attitude of
cars having more rights than humans, and that occasional, arbitrary human deaths are necessary so
that cars can more easily get around. And I've

No, occasional arbitrary human deaths are the way that humans live; cars and enhanced mobility are
just one of many causes that we choose to tolerate.

They are a gamble that a majority of society chooses for the good sustained payoff and relatively
rare loss.

Quoted message said:

<sincere, heartfelt, meek humbleness> ... please.

We can try, or at least, we can be nice to eachother and civil, as in this discussion.

Wait, no we can't! You are an evil, hate-mongering, pinko commie and should die. I am a fascist pig.
We are terrible!!!! <G>

Quoted message said:

cheers, Tom

--
Rick Onanian

Quoted message said:

Rob's a good guy. He's not a people-hating ogre. In fact, I think quite the opposite is the case.

BUT

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may
be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's
cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us
for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.
-- C. S. Lewis

Howard