Tony Raven wrote:
> [email protected] says...
>>Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>>>Tony Raven said the following on 26/11/2007 14:32:
>>>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2935510.ece
>>>>A good article which powerfully sets out the issue.
>>>Indeed.
>>>50+ people were killed by bombs in London a few years ago, and all
>>>hell let loose to try to stop it happening again. 150 cyclists are
>>>killed (and about 3400 other road users) every year, and it's
>>>virtually ignored by the law. Something's very wrong.
>>What would you suggest?
>>Make accidents illegal?
> No but make the consequences of a ksi accident a strong disincentive.
That's OK for situations where an accident results from specific
deliberate or reckless behaviour which causes out-of-the-ordinary
risk. In an ordinary, everyday situation where the driver has no
reason to imagine that the risk of a collision is any greater than
normal, it's hard to see what good that policy would do (other than
punishing people for something they didn't do deliberately, which I
don't expect is the central thrust of your suggestion).
> Most accidents are from taking a risk and not getting away with it or
> simply not thinking.
And the second of those is not as blameworthy in moral philosophy (or
in law) as the first. A conviction for DD requires demonstration of
intent or recklessness. Absent-mindedness or failure to notice
something unexpected and out of the ordinary is not necessarily either
of those things.
Think about the logical extension of the consequences of
"consequence-based justice" were it otherwise. If a misted-up full
pint of lager slipped through your sweaty fingers on a hot night in
the pub (it's certainly happened to me), should you be liable for
criminal damage to the glass - and the brand new carpet? And for the
injuries to the drunk who manages to trip near the spot and falls onto
a piece of your broken glass? If you are cutting up your chateaubriand
in your favourite restaurant and some greasy vegetable ends up in the
lap of the well-dressed diner on the next table, should he be able to
have you arrested for that damage to his clothing?
Of course not, you might say. But why not, if you are proposing to
make other sorts of inadvertent mistake (this side of overtly
dangerous behaviour) a crime punishable by a much harsher penalty than
one could reasonably expect for burglary or mugging at knifepoint??
> A sharp steel spike in the middle of the steering
> wheel to equalise the consequences between the vulnerable road user and
> the driver should do the trick ;-)
Yeah, right.
