|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Bob wrote:
Tom Keats wrote: In article , "Matt O'Toole" writes: But I'm not faced with the same dilemmas judges are. Would it really be better to put this kid in a jail for an extended time, and possibly make him a worse criminal than he already is? How does that help protect society? Yes our criminal justice system is broken, but judges have to work with what they have. That's pretty much why I left it at "Prohibition from driving for life, for a start." It's all too easy to play armchair judge. That said, I am in favour of sentences which reflect not only the severity but also the context of the crime, and which compel the convicts to really consider and confront their behaviours which put them at odds with society. In this particular instance, maybe a reasonable sentence would include community service of giving lectures at high schools, about the wrongness of road/street racing in particular and dangerous driving in general. As well as lifetime prohibition from driving, and whatever else a real, qualified judge might add. cheers, Tom I agree with you in principle but one thing that seems to escape many of those proposing more severe punishments is that this was a plea agreement. Prosecutors almost always prefer a conviction in hand than taking a case to trial, especially a jury trial. That preference is not unique to crimes involving motor vehicles or cyclists because, to borrow Mark Twain's phrase, there's just no predicting what twelve people of average ignorance will decide. Does anyone with even a passing knowledge of the undisputed facts in each case and an above room temperature IQ really believe O.J. Simpson and (just this week) Robert Blake were not guilty? Yet they are both free men right now not for any lack of evidence of guilt or any presence of evidence that they were NOT guilty but because juries set them free. There's a societal problem for sure but it isn't our so-called "car culture". It's that we live in a culture where exercising judgement is "being judgemental" and that is of course a bad thing. One result of that culture is that the legal phrase "reasonable doubt" has been twisted to become "beyond the shadow of any doubt no matter how unreasonable". Who is Robert Blake? -- Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia) |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Sherman wrote: Who is Robert Blake? Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia) I think he rode his bike in the Tour de France in 1970. He must have something to do with bicycles since we never go "off topic." All Good Things Maggie. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Sherman wrote: wrote: I think that no matter _what_ your excuse, if the car you are driving kills a pedestrian or cyclist, you should never again drive a car. Period. There will be a few situations where that might seem too harsh. No matter. Operating dangerous machinery in public is supposed to be a privilege, not a right. To do so, you should need a very good record. And you cannot define "having killed someone" as anything but a terrible record, no matter what your excuse. If a pedestrian climbs over the fence and darts into traffic on an urban controlled access highway, I would be at fault for hitting him? If a person on a bicycle runs a red light at 20-mph and I hit him, I am at fault? So if I am driving along and a person jumps off a tree branch overhanging the road onto the ground in front of me I am at fault for hitting him? If a drunken person wearing dark clothes is riding at night on a bike with no lights or reflectors suddenly swerves off the sidewalk into my path; I would be at fault for hitting him? If a pedestrian runs out from in front of a parked truck that is too tall to see over, and I am travelling at a reasonable speed for conditions, but still hit him, am I at fault. There are many accidents involving pedestrians, people on bicycles, and motor vehicles where the motor vehicle operator is not a fault. This is especially true when the pedestrians and people on bicycles are children, college undergraduates, or inebriated. What we're talking about here are "false positives." IOW, there's no such thing as a perfect test, whether you're discussing tests for cancer or tests for irresponsible driving. No matter what sophisticated test you use, some decent drivers will be labeled irresponsible. My proposed test - that you killed a non-motorist - will be imperfect, and will (rarely) cause a perfectly innocent motorist to become a full time cyclist, pedestrian or bus passenger. But I think we need to live with that reality. As it is, pedestrians and cyclists are given far too little deference. Example: My wife and I walked one block, then across the busy 5-lane last night, to go to a restaurant. It involved patience, skill in judging car speeds (from the 25 mph limit to the 45 mph self-important violators), timing and a bit of sprinting. Those 45 mph folks weren't the least concerned that we might do something that would inconvenience them into hitting their brakes. They should be concerned! In fact, the elderly couple that lives across the street from us SHOULD be able to walk to that restaurant. They should be secure in the knowledge that traffic would slow to a crawl to let them cross that street. Walking and cycling should be treated as the natural right that they are, and motoring should be treated as the obnoxious privilege that it is. IOW, we need to get away from the mentality that any car accident is just too bad, something to live with, no matter how distracted, impatient and reckless the motorist. If it takes a few false positives to make all motorists super careful around others, so be it. Sure, if you kill some suicidal drunk jumps off a bridge directly in front of your car, it's fine with me if your neighbors show lots of sympathy and continually offer you rides. But I want the penalty to stick. I want your neighbors to be afraid that another suicidal drunk may appear at any instant, and drive slow enough to give themselves a chance to avoid him. The pendulum is swung far too much in the direction of motorist privilege, and has been for at least 50 years. It needs to swing back the other way. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
wrote: As it is, pedestrians and cyclists are given far too little deference. Example: My wife and I walked one block, then across the busy 5-lane last night, to go to a restaurant. It involved patience, skill in judging car speeds (from the 25 mph limit to the 45 mph self-important violators), timing and a bit of sprinting. Those 45 mph folks weren't the least concerned that we might do something that would inconvenience them into hitting their brakes. You crossed a busy 5-lane highway???? Where the heck do you live?? Around here you would be road kill and no one would feel sorry for you. That's sad to say, but true. No one around here tries to cross the highways. Teenagers do it alot and they are usually killed. It's suicide. Maggie |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
S o r n i wrote: Or, here's a radical idea: investigate each incident objectively, and rule accordingly. Sure. That's the system we have now. And it works great - as long as you're always in a car, and nobody you care about tries to get anywhere outside of a car. It doesn't work so well if you're the family of the deceased. The title of the thread gives us one example of what the current system produces. Try this for an exercise: Try to find the average amount of license revocation time, and the average jail time, for killing a pedestrian or cyclist. I doubt you'll find national data - nobody cares enough to keep that data, AFAIK. But perhaps you can track down, say, a dozen incidents of pedestrian or cyclist deaths and tell us the typical consequences to the driver. My bet? The typical consequences are zero. Tom's right and Frank's wrong. If you like the status quo, that is! |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:56:01 GMT,
, "S o r n i" wrote: Or, here's a radical idea: investigate each incident objectively, and rule accordingly. That's not going to happen while the bias is inherently ingrained by our self-inflicted crippling _need_ for individual scuds. Every one along the line, from witnesses to investigators, to prosecutors, judges and juries would see themselves as potential "victims" if the punishments were made to fit the crime. They're satisfied with the status quo wherein dead pedestrians and cyclists are simply written off as the cost of doing business. Most people can figure their odds of shooting, stabbing or bludgeoning somebody to death are pretty slim yet know, through their own driving experience, that it would be all too easy to kill somebody with their car. They don't ever want to be called upon to pay the price. The auto makers, support industries and oil companies will fight tooth and nail resisting the notion that driving be taken seriously. -- zk |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
S o r n i wrote:
bbaka wrote: S o r n i wrote: Tom Sherman wrote: Maggie wrote: ... That was a cruel thing to say in a public forum. To suggest I have a criminal past. That is hurtful. I never knew until this moment, how Newsgroups can possibly hurt a person. This is what someone one rec.bicycles.tech had to say about me: ...You have demonstrated to me that you are a piece of **** at this point... Damn right, and choosing the way you did, you demonstrated what a scumbag you are... Let me tell you dirtbag... Ponder this, you ****head... You are a miserable creature. I was having a rough morning. Amazing display of literacy, eh? Umm, Bill? It was a JOKE. (Hint: I would never write something like that...unless /provoked/, of course! 8-) ) I kind of thought so, but I don't really spend all day following this group, because I, ummm, ride during the good days. Peace, Bill Baka |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Zoot Katz wrote:
Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:23:39 -0800, , bbaka wrote: Once a suspect is in custody, the investigation seems to stop, as has been proven lately by all the death row cases being dropped due to DNA evidence, meaning there are a lot of killers out there that got away with it. Especially when the weapon is a four door scud. It's downright disgusting that our society accepts "accident" as an excuse for these all too predictable fukups. This little **** has a record of being a ****. Flush it and be done. Don't waste money on "rehabilitation". Go for the "revenge" aspect and teach all these asswipe scud jockeys that driving isn't a joke. That won't happen because we're crippled by our dependence on cars. Scud makers buy the most advertising using fantasy to sell their crap so we'll never see responsible driving promoted as a worthwhile social value. Dangerous driving is promoted as entertainment. CARS SUCK! and so does car culture (sic) And anybody who can't see that is stupid! stupid! stupid! I actually have to agree that we need less cars and more bikes just for planetary survival. We were supposed to have learned a lesson in 1974 about consuming too much gas and paying the price so cars got smaller. Then some idiots started promoting SUVs and another idiot invades an oil producing nation, ****ing off all the others. I admit to having 3 cars, mostly gathering dust, but it is dangerous just to ride in the parking lot of a Wal-mart these days. Getting backed over by an SUV driving mom on the cell phone is just too possible these days. Bill Baka |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Maggie wrote:
wrote: As it is, pedestrians and cyclists are given far too little deference. Example: My wife and I walked one block, then across the busy 5-lane last night, to go to a restaurant. It involved patience, skill in judging car speeds (from the 25 mph limit to the 45 mph self-important violators), timing and a bit of sprinting. Those 45 mph folks weren't the least concerned that we might do something that would inconvenience them into hitting their brakes. You crossed a busy 5-lane highway???? Where the heck do you live?? Around here you would be road kill and no one would feel sorry for you. That's sad to say, but true. No one around here tries to cross the highways. Teenagers do it alot and they are usually killed. It's suicide. Maggie I have to do it with my bike on one road that is 4 lanes plus a turn lane, which I use as a mid-way sanctuary. There are no stop lights or pedestrian crosswalks for a 2 mile stretch so we are on our own when not in a car. This is my only path to the local Wal-mart/shopping center. It is a 35 MPH zone where drivers speed up to 50+. Bill Baka |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The number of years - too short? Sometimes! | Maggie | General | 2 | January 29th 05 11:37 PM |
New Years Day century | David Kerber | Rides | 6 | January 8th 05 12:35 PM |
Dmitri Neliubin killed on New Year's Day | Carl Sundquist | Racing | 7 | January 5th 05 05:24 PM |
New Year's Day 2005 Ride | Carol McLean | Unicycling | 13 | January 4th 05 03:21 AM |
"Actually you are the first person to bring up this issue" | James Annan | Techniques | 848 | April 6th 04 08:49 PM |