Killer gets off with 1-3 years

Zoot Katz wrote:
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.

Local case in point for my locale. We had a judge who would throw every
drunk driving case in jail for the maximum time. Almost every night he
got so drunk that the local police would escort him home rather than
arrest one of 'Their own'. He is finally off the bench, but this went on
for a good number of years, so tell me how our system isn't broken?

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.

"""BIG MONEY""", it rules. Just ask Bush.
Bill Baka

Maggie wrote:
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.

American actor who played a cop/investigator/private eye on Baretta.
About 1970s-80s television.
Bill Baka

"Maggie" wrote in message
oups.com...

Tom Sherman wrote:
Who is Robert Blake?

I asked my husband the same thing last night.

I think he rode his bike in the Tour de France in 1970.

Better than riding his unicycle in the Tour de France.

I believe Merckx won it in 1970, didn't he?


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

St. Claire Petersky wrote:

"Maggie" wrote in message
oups.com...

Tom Sherman wrote:

Who is Robert Blake?


I asked my husband the same thing last night.


I think he rode his bike in the Tour de France in 1970.


Better than riding his unicycle in the Tour de France.

I believe Merckx won it in 1970, didn't he?

I wasn't aware of Axel Merckx ever winning the TdF.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)

wrote:

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.

I am totally opposed to this on moral grounds. If we do not allow the
accused a chance to prove their innocence, it makes a mockery of the
"justice" system. The proposal that the motor vehicle operator is
automatically at fault is no better than assuming all male Arab Muslims
aged 20-35 are terrorists.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)

wrote:
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!

Frank, while I agree totally that the ruling in /this particular case/ was
unjust (way, WAY too lenient), I think your proposal that every single
driver who causes a death REGARDLESS OF FAULT be denied ever driving again
is even more wrong-minded. (Absolutes usually are.) Things like Tom listed
(separate post) could happen to any one of us, no matter how responsible or
cautious we might be.

Shutting up now, Bill

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:

...
Tom's right...

Notify the press! These are words I never expected to see from this source.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:57:24 GMT,
, "S o r n i"
concluded:

Things like Tom listed
(separate post) could happen to any one of us, no matter how responsible or
cautious we might be.

That's the risk you must be willing to take when deciding to get into
the car and start the engine.

You're gambling that everything is going to be alright despite
careening around at the edge of control in a 3000 lbs. missile with a
defective guidance system. If everything doesn't turn out to be okay
then you should lose. I'd say you should lose as much as the person
you killed or maimed.

Screw "fault". You took the chance knowing that over a quarter million
people world wide are killed by cars every year. Deciding to drive and
then porking it is hardly an accident. It's entirely predictable so I
see any driving infraction as being pre-meditated.

(except scud slaves generally don't want to think of the repercussions
their stupidly selfish actions might have)
--
zk

Bill Baka wrote:
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.

Just for the record, Bill Sornson was not the author of that quote.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:

wrote:

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!


Frank, while I agree totally that the ruling in /this particular case/ was
unjust (way, WAY too lenient), I think your proposal that every single
driver who causes a death REGARDLESS OF FAULT be denied ever driving again
is even more wrong-minded. (Absolutes usually are.) Things like Tom listed
(separate post) could happen to any one of us, no matter how responsible or
cautious we might be.

History has shown that all "zero-tolerance" policies are misguided,
because there invariably will be an exception to the rule.

If a person commits suicide by jumping in front of a motor vehicle at
the last second, can any reasonable system of morality find the driver
at fault?

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)