Bicyclist killed, trucker guilty

(Tom Keats)

wrote in part:

Here's how some Vancouver-based opinions are coloured. Read it,
and I think you'll understand Zoot's (and my) P'sOV:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/02/04...sentence030204

The article does clear up one issue. It states that the judge revoked the
pair's driver's licenses for five years. No court that I'm aware of here in the
US has the authority to revoke licenses. The most any judge can do is *request*
the issuing agency revoke a license or allow a convicted defendant to give up
their driving privileges as part of a plea agreement.
FWIW, my guess is that those two would likely have gone to prison here although
only for a short while, something on the order of three to five years.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Hunrobe wrote:

Frank Krygowski


wrote in part:


I'm sure Bob can come up with many more "good" examples. But my
impression is that Zoot is correct. I've heard of many more bad
examples than good ones.


I'm sure you've also heard many more examples of a pit bull mauling a child to
death or at least inflicting horrible injuries than you've heard of a pit
bull's bite requiring a few stitches. Does that mean that being bitten by a pit
bull is almost always fatal or nearly so? Or does it mean that when faced with
all too common occurrences the media reports those that are in some way
unusual?

You'd have a valid point if the stories I've heard were mostly posted
here, by outraged anti-motorists. But they weren't.

I'm talking about stories I've read in my local paper, or stories I've
heard on my local news. And there has been no outrage, real or
pretended. As an example, in the news report about the trucker who'd
killed the elderly couple and his six-month license suspension, the news
anchor's carefully trained demeanor was along the lines of "that was a
pretty serious penalty," not "boy, did _he_ get off lightly!"

Again, my impression is that this is normal. If you kill someone with a
vehicle, as long as you're sober and can come up with a plausible
excuse, the penalty will be light to nonexistent. And by "plausible
excuse," you can start with "Officer, honest, I didn't see him!"

But I may be wrong. Which is why I said I'd like to see a survey of
such penalties. If you've got a link to one, Bob, give it. It would
save lots of futile conjecture.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Hunrobe wrote:

Frank Krygowski


wrote in part:


I'm sure Bob can come up with many more "good" examples. But my
impression is that Zoot is correct. I've heard of many more bad
examples than good ones.


I'm sure you've also heard many more examples of a pit bull mauling a child to
death or at least inflicting horrible injuries than you've heard of a pit
bull's bite requiring a few stitches. Does that mean that being bitten by a pit
bull is almost always fatal or nearly so? Or does it mean that when faced with
all too common occurrences the media reports those that are in some way
unusual?

You'd have a valid point if the stories I've heard were mostly posted
here, by outraged anti-motorists. But they weren't.

I'm talking about stories I've read in my local paper, or stories I've
heard on my local news. And there has been no outrage, real or
pretended. As an example, in the news report about the trucker who'd
killed the elderly couple and his six-month license suspension, the news
anchor's carefully trained demeanor was along the lines of "that was a
pretty serious penalty," not "boy, did _he_ get off lightly!"

Again, my impression is that this is normal. If you kill someone with a
vehicle, as long as you're sober and can come up with a plausible
excuse, the penalty will be light to nonexistent. And by "plausible
excuse," you can start with "Officer, honest, I didn't see him!"

But I may be wrong. Which is why I said I'd like to see a survey of
such penalties. If you've got a link to one, Bob, give it. It would
save lots of futile conjecture.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Hunrobe wrote:

Frank Krygowski


wrote in part:


... the rule should be: you kill someone
for _any_ reason, you never drive again.


Okay. Change the laws to require that instead of demanding judges revoke
driving licenses by fiat.

Yep. That's pretty close to what I'd like to see - except I'd prefer to
go further, sort of in the direction of strict sentencing guidelines.

I'd reduce it to this:

Did the car you were driving cause someone to die? If so, you'll never
drive again.

In most cases, there would be no judge's decision necessary.


Incidentally, latest case in our city is pretty clear cut. Teenage kid
with a car full of buddies decided to speed wildly though the sharply
curving, tree-lined roads of our municipal park & nature preserve. He
wrapped the car around a stone bridge railing and killed a couple of his
friends.

It took them about a month to decide to prosecute for (IIRC) vehicular
manslaughter. Now, if convicted, will he do jail time? Maybe yes,
maybe no.

But in either case, will he be allowed to drive again? Certainly.

And that, IMHO, is a travesty. There's no doubt he was behind the
wheel, and made the mistake that killed his friends. Even if the other
survivors are incorrect about the speed (over 60 in a 25 zone) or other
details, I say he should use cabs, buses or bikes the rest of his days.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Hunrobe wrote:

Frank Krygowski


wrote in part:


... the rule should be: you kill someone
for _any_ reason, you never drive again.


Okay. Change the laws to require that instead of demanding judges revoke
driving licenses by fiat.

Yep. That's pretty close to what I'd like to see - except I'd prefer to
go further, sort of in the direction of strict sentencing guidelines.

I'd reduce it to this:

Did the car you were driving cause someone to die? If so, you'll never
drive again.

In most cases, there would be no judge's decision necessary.


Incidentally, latest case in our city is pretty clear cut. Teenage kid
with a car full of buddies decided to speed wildly though the sharply
curving, tree-lined roads of our municipal park & nature preserve. He
wrapped the car around a stone bridge railing and killed a couple of his
friends.

It took them about a month to decide to prosecute for (IIRC) vehicular
manslaughter. Now, if convicted, will he do jail time? Maybe yes,
maybe no.

But in either case, will he be allowed to drive again? Certainly.

And that, IMHO, is a travesty. There's no doubt he was behind the
wheel, and made the mistake that killed his friends. Even if the other
survivors are incorrect about the speed (over 60 in a 25 zone) or other
details, I say he should use cabs, buses or bikes the rest of his days.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski wrote in part:

Incidentally, latest case in our city is pretty clear cut. Teenage kid
with a car full of buddies decided to speed wildly though the sharply
curving, tree-lined roads of our municipal park & nature preserve. He
wrapped the car around a stone bridge railing and killed a couple of his
friends.

It took them about a month to decide to prosecute for (IIRC) vehicular
manslaughter. Now, if convicted, will he do jail time? Maybe yes,
maybe no.

But in either case, will he be allowed to drive again? Certainly.

And that, IMHO, is a travesty. There's no doubt he was behind the
wheel, and made the mistake that killed his friends. Even if the other
survivors are incorrect about the speed (over 60 in a 25 zone) or other
details, I say he should use cabs, buses or bikes the rest of his days.


That would probably be a pretty useless
penalty at this point, as the kid will
likely go on to be one of the safest
drivers on the road, because of his
experience. The worst danger is the
driver who has yet to experience a very
bloody wreck, and who is convinced they
possess exceptional driving skill that
will keep them out of trouble.

Robert

Frank Krygowski wrote in part:

Incidentally, latest case in our city is pretty clear cut. Teenage kid
with a car full of buddies decided to speed wildly though the sharply
curving, tree-lined roads of our municipal park & nature preserve. He
wrapped the car around a stone bridge railing and killed a couple of his
friends.

It took them about a month to decide to prosecute for (IIRC) vehicular
manslaughter. Now, if convicted, will he do jail time? Maybe yes,
maybe no.

But in either case, will he be allowed to drive again? Certainly.

And that, IMHO, is a travesty. There's no doubt he was behind the
wheel, and made the mistake that killed his friends. Even if the other
survivors are incorrect about the speed (over 60 in a 25 zone) or other
details, I say he should use cabs, buses or bikes the rest of his days.


That would probably be a pretty useless
penalty at this point, as the kid will
likely go on to be one of the safest
drivers on the road, because of his
experience. The worst danger is the
driver who has yet to experience a very
bloody wreck, and who is convinced they
possess exceptional driving skill that
will keep them out of trouble.

Robert

On 29 Aug 2004 23:27:00 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

No court that I'm aware of here in the
US has the authority to revoke licenses.

Alaskan courts certainly do, and they do it all the time.

On 29 Aug 2004 23:27:00 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

No court that I'm aware of here in the
US has the authority to revoke licenses.

Alaskan courts certainly do, and they do it all the time.

On 29 Aug 2004 23:12:33 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

No State that I'm aware of has
given responsibility for licensing drivers to their judiciary.

No, but most judges in state courts have the right to revoke or
suspend licenses. They certainly do in Alaska. The length of
time they can do so for various offenses is set by statute. IMHO
our Legislature should increase them greatly, but the "LawnOrder"
repugnicans are big to talk and too cheap to walk the walk. they
claim it would be too expensive, but those of us who want stiffer
sentences believe that it wouldn't be because there would be far
fewer 2nd and 3rd drunk driving offenses.