Motorists who kill cyclists

"Scrumpy Joe" wrote in message
...
I was pondering this the other day:

Why do motorists who kill cyclists get off (for the most part) with a
non-custodial sentence, slapped wrist, driving ban (maybe) and a not so
hefty
fine when people who write computer viruses get two or more years in jail?
Bearing in mind that for the most part viruses only affect people who
stupidly open email attachments with executables and therefore are usually
too stupid to own a computer anyway.

Intention.

Motorists who kill other motorists also get away with non-custodial
sentences in the main.

Road accidents are just that - accidents.

If it can be shown that the accident was caused by intentionally poor
driving then the culprit usually gets banged up for a year or two.

Intentionally poor driving = speeding = on the phone = drunk = a load of
other reasons I suppose.

John

Scrumpy Joe wrote:
I was pondering this the other day:

Why do motorists who kill cyclists get off (for the most part) with a
non-custodial sentence, slapped wrist, driving ban (maybe) and a not
so hefty fine when people who write computer viruses get two or more
years in jail? Bearing in mind that for the most part viruses only
affect people who stupidly open email attachments with executables
and therefore are usually too stupid to own a computer anyway.

Because in the first case it is not done intentionally - carelessness, not
thinking yes, but deliberately no in most cases. In the latter its
deliberate. The law tends to punish according to the severity of the
action, not the severity of the consequences Otherwise the punishment for
doing something really bad behind the wheel but luckily getting away with it
would not be punished as heavily as a momentary lapse with because of bad
luck/timing had tragic consequences.
/philosophy


Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything."
Mark Twain

"Scrumpy Joe" wrote (snipped)

Why do motorists who kill cyclists get off (for the most part) with a
non-custodial sentence,

Because there is only one reason for writing a virus, and that is to cause
criminal damage.

Many road deaths are accidents, caused by a moment's inattention or perhaps
sheer bad luck.

So it's all in the intent.

Innit?

"Eatmorepies" wrote

Why do motorists who kill cyclists get off (for the most part) with a
non-custodial sentence, slapped wrist, driving ban (maybe) and a not so
hefty
fine

I'd like to see some proper stats on this. There is a common assumption that
this is the case, but no real evidence. A proper study comparing, say,
people who 'accidentally' kill using their cars and people who
'accidentally' kill after getting dragged into fights outside pubs would be
genuinely interesting.

"Scrumpy Joe" Replied

Intention.

Fair enough, but isn't the difference between murder and manslaughter also
intent? And it's not usual to get a slap on the wrist for manslaughter, is
it?

--
Rob

Please keep conversations in the newsgroup so that all may contribute and
benefit.

Eatmorepies wrote:
Intention.

For that we have the offences of manslaughter and criminal
negligence. We have special offences of "causing death by
dangerous driving" which do not require an intent to drive
dangerously and rightly so.

Road accidents are just that - accidents.

Some may be. It's far from universal.

"Bystander" wrote in message
.. .

"Scrumpy Joe" wrote (snipped)

Why do motorists who kill cyclists get off (for the most part) with a
non-custodial sentence,

Because there is only one reason for writing a virus, and that is to cause
criminal damage.

Many road deaths are accidents, caused by a moment's inattention or
perhaps
sheer bad luck.

So it's all in the intent.

Innit?

If are in a situation where a moments inattention can result in the death of
another person and you kill another person by your inattention then it is
hardly an unavoidable accident or act of G*d. This is recognised by the
charge of DWDCAA and CDBDD although the latter is very hard to prove. The
relevant laws should be overhauled to place more responsibility on drivers
and the possibility of heavy sentences where they have been criminally
negligent.

"Scrumpy Joe" wrote in message ...
I was pondering this the other day:

Why do motorists who kill cyclists get off (for the most part) with a
non-custodial sentence, slapped wrist, driving ban (maybe) and a not so hefty
fine when people who write computer viruses get two or more years in jail?
Bearing in mind that for the most part viruses only affect people who
stupidly open email attachments with executables and therefore are usually
too stupid to own a computer anyway.

Writing a virus is a melodious act with premeditation there is seldom mens rea
in running down a cyclist.

"Neil" wrote in message
...
"Bystander" wrote in message
.. .
.. The
relevant laws should be overhauled to place more responsibility on drivers
and the possibility of heavy sentences where they have been criminally
negligent.


All hinges on the understanding of "criminally negligent"

A moments inattention is unlikely ever to fall in that category.

pk

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 19:25:23 +0100, Scrumpy Joe wrote:

I was pondering this the other day:

Why do motorists who kill cyclists get off (for the most part) with a
non-custodial sentence, slapped wrist, driving ban (maybe) and a not so hefty
fine when people who write computer viruses get two or more years in jail?
Bearing in mind that for the most part viruses only affect people who
stupidly open email attachments with executables and therefore are usually
too stupid to own a computer anyway.

Generally, you get a more severe sentence if you do a little harm to a
lot of people rather than a lot of harm ot one person. It may be
morally wrong but that is how the courts see it.
--

Alasdair Baxter, Nottingham, UK.Tel +44 115 9705100; Fax +44 115 9423263

"It's not what you say that matters but how you say it.
It's not what you do that matters but how you do it"

Simon Brooke wrote:

Speaking as someone who has crashed five cars, one badly, road
accidents are rarely just that. My tally is

(i) Driving too fast for the conditions. Damage to two cars, no
injuries. (ii) Driving with a bald tyre (OK, it wasn't my car and I
didn't know the tyre was bald, but I hadn't checked) - car rolled
and written off, no injuries.
(iii) Losing grip on an unfamiliar road in snow at low speed. Minor
damage to two cars, no injuries.
(iv) Driving too fast having drunk alcohol. I was breathalised
and wasn't over the limit but I'm moderatly confident I would not
have hit that bend (which I knew) that fast when completely
sober. Car hit a tree and written off, no injuries.
(v) Driving too fast when too tired, in a car with 'interesting'
handling. Car rolled (repeatedly) and written off, I broke my
back.


I would hazard to suggest that your tally is not typical of most individuals
and I hope you have either stopped driving or reassessed your approach to
driving.

Accidents don't happen by themselves. I can think of one accident
which I know of which didn't have any immediate human cause - the
lower offside front wishbone of a friend's car snapped at speed due to
a manufacturing fault - but in my experience the overwhelming majority
of road accidents are due to carelessness and negligence.


The airline industry reckons something like 80% of accidents are due to
human error and only 20% system. Pilots (Egyptair excepted) generally do
not set out to crash their planes and have a high awareness of the
consequences of their actions yet they still have accidents they didn't
intend to have.

Driving should not be seen as a right, or something to be
undertaken casually.

Based on the list above I trust you have voluntarily given up your right.

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything."
Mark Twain