Bicyclist killed, trucker guilty

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.

(Dennis P. Harris)

wrote in part:

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.

What you are referring to is a *legislative* decision to make the suspension or
revocation of driving privileges upon conviction of certain offenses (namely
DUI and driving while suspended/revoked) automatic. That's the way it must be
done- legislatively. My disagreement is not with the suspensions and
revocations. It is with those that mistakenly think judges have the authority
to revoke driving privileges absent any statute that grants them that
authority. Instead of wasting breath condemning judges for not doing something
they have no power to do why not use that breath to lobby those that *do* have
the power to change the way things work, namely the legislators?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

(Dennis P. Harris)

wrote in part:

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.

What you are referring to is a *legislative* decision to make the suspension or
revocation of driving privileges upon conviction of certain offenses (namely
DUI and driving while suspended/revoked) automatic. That's the way it must be
done- legislatively. My disagreement is not with the suspensions and
revocations. It is with those that mistakenly think judges have the authority
to revoke driving privileges absent any statute that grants them that
authority. Instead of wasting breath condemning judges for not doing something
they have no power to do why not use that breath to lobby those that *do* have
the power to change the way things work, namely the legislators?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Frank Krygowski

wrote in part:

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.

A survey, no. But some valid extrapolations can be made from perusing the FBI
Uniform Crime Reports. IIRC you'll find those at www.fbi.gov/ucr. A google
search will return the exact url. While you are there, take a look at the
average penalties for other serious crimes like intentional murder and armed
robbery. Contrary to the popular belief held by the more liberal among us, the
US tends to be rather lenient when incarceration is involved.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Frank Krygowski

wrote in part:

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.

A survey, no. But some valid extrapolations can be made from perusing the FBI
Uniform Crime Reports. IIRC you'll find those at www.fbi.gov/ucr. A google
search will return the exact url. While you are there, take a look at the
average penalties for other serious crimes like intentional murder and armed
robbery. Contrary to the popular belief held by the more liberal among us, the
US tends to be rather lenient when incarceration is involved.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

R15757 wrote:

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.

...will he be allowed to drive again? Certainly.

And that, IMHO, is a travesty...

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.

Oh, I'm sure that the number of drivers who kill people in more than one
accident is very low. It's the square of a rather low probability,
since even extremely irresponsible drivers don't kill people frequently.

But my intent isn't to make sure _this_ irresponsible kid doesn't kill
again. My intent is to make sure _other_ irresponsible kids (and
adults) don't kill.

Driving is a priveledge which is held in high esteem. If people see
that the priveledge really can be totally removed, I think they'll drive
more responsibly.

And once again: if killing someone doesn't justify taking away a license
for life, then I imagine _nothing_ does. And if nothing justifies
taking away a license, then it's no longer a priveledge, is it?

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

R15757 wrote:

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.

...will he be allowed to drive again? Certainly.

And that, IMHO, is a travesty...

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.

Oh, I'm sure that the number of drivers who kill people in more than one
accident is very low. It's the square of a rather low probability,
since even extremely irresponsible drivers don't kill people frequently.

But my intent isn't to make sure _this_ irresponsible kid doesn't kill
again. My intent is to make sure _other_ irresponsible kids (and
adults) don't kill.

Driving is a priveledge which is held in high esteem. If people see
that the priveledge really can be totally removed, I think they'll drive
more responsibly.

And once again: if killing someone doesn't justify taking away a license
for life, then I imagine _nothing_ does. And if nothing justifies
taking away a license, then it's no longer a priveledge, is it?

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

On 30 Aug 2004 16:37:42 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

Instead of wasting breath condemning judges for not doing something
they have no power to do why not use that breath to lobby those that *do* have
the power to change the way things work, namely the legislators?

how do you know that judges where he lives haven't been granted
that power? just because they have it, not all judges use it.

On 30 Aug 2004 16:37:42 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

Instead of wasting breath condemning judges for not doing something
they have no power to do why not use that breath to lobby those that *do* have
the power to change the way things work, namely the legislators?

how do you know that judges where he lives haven't been granted
that power? just because they have it, not all judges use it.

(Dennis P. Harris)

wrote in part:

how do you know that judges where he lives haven't been granted
that power?

It really isn't all that difficult, Dennis. The post was about a fatality in
GA. The poster I was replying to is also in GA. Read the GA statutes. Simple,
huh? g

Regards,
Bob Hunt