Tragedy

[brewsy]

Got this from the list.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20070709/NEWS01/707070391/

Really dont know what to say.
It was an accicdent.
Kid wasnt intoxicated or otherwise under the influence.
3 members of society who were using their free time to raise money for good causes died.
He gets off with points and a fine!

Surely although not intentional there is a charge for killing people in this country?
I dont want to sound like a vigilante but come on, 3 deaths and you get a $1000 fine??
What gives?

Marc

[MrDude_1]

Re: Tragedy

Got this from the list.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20070709/NEWS01/707070391/

Really dont know what to say.
It was an accicdent.
Kid wasnt intoxicated or otherwise under the influence.
3 members of society who were using their free time to raise money for good causes died.
He gets off with points and a fine!

Surely although not intentional there is a charge for killing people in this country?
I dont want to sound like a vigilante but come on, 3 deaths and you get a $1000 fine??
What gives?

Marc

there are two types of trials.. civil and criminal.

from the criminal perspective, he is not a murderer unless he shows intent or some cases of gross negligence. he showed neither of those.. he just didnt know how to drive very well. heh.

from the CIVIL perspective.. they can sue his ass off, and will probably win. there will be no jail time, but there will probably be a large monetary sum involved.

its a tragedy yes.. but i wouldnt pin the kid as a criminal. hes just the same dumb teenager we all once were, who made a very bad mistake.. he was looking at the pretty bikes go by, didnt see the car infront of him stopped, locked up the brakes and skidded.
hopefully his insurance is high enough to help the families. it wont bring back lost loved ones, but it does help so that they can work thru rough times. and i also hope the kid learned from this and doesnt just shrug it off.

[motorcycleman]

The laws in many of our states are very lax when it comes to injury or death caused by a motorist violating another motorist or other road users right of way. Unfortunately these seemingly lame verdicts or outcomes happen all the time. If the kid had had even a trace of alcohol in his system they probably would have thrown the book at him, even if all he did was knock down a couple or the bikes with no injury resulting. I have said this in other threads similar to this and I'll say it here: the American Motorcyclist Association has a campaign going on to increase the penalties for rights of way violations resulting in injury or death- it applies to all road users but is called "motorcyclists matter". They have succeeded in their efforts in a number of states but clearly there is more to be done. Join up- they will get a little more money for their lobbying activities on our behalf, you'll get a great magazine every month and you'll help add more clout to the organization. And don't forget to drop a note or two to your state and national politicians telling them to increase penalties for rights of way violations with injury or death resulting. It just isn't fair the way things stand in many states, and this is clearly an example of that.

https://home.ama-cycle.org/amajoin/07app/step1.asp?tmpnum=IJAP05

[robs321]

A few years ago a guy I know well was hit by a women who was 3 times over the drink/drive limit! she fell asleep at the wheel crossed the road and hit him head on. He lost a leg and his arm is next to useless and the docs want him to have it removed! He spent nearly 2 years in hospital, he now cant work(he was a tree sugeon) he had to sell his house to buy a bungalow, but fair play to the lad hes riding about on an adapted trike! what happened to the women you ask? she got a 3 year driving ban and a £300($600) fine! I think thats pretty lame for basically ruining a guys life?
sore point this for me at the moment as a friend of mine got killed last week by an old lady pulling out on him!!

cheers
Robs

[SkinnE]

I beleive the offence should be 'vehicular manslaughter' I'm pretty sure it's used in NY state, even when the offence wasn't intended.

I'm regularly amazed at how lightly perpetrators are penalised for maiming/dismembering/killing in this country. I'm all for minimising the march towards a society of litigation, but people have to be held accountable for their actions.

Harrumph.

[brewsy]

Sorry to hear that Rob.

All, I might be able to join the AMA but I'm not a citizen so cant actually vote on any of this..

As for the UK situation (expat Brit) that sounds just as shit.

I personally think that the biggest problem is the way society views cars/motor vehicles in general.
It basically boils down to the fact that if you are driving and crash, whether into another vehicle or a tree or a human, its an ACCIDENT.
Therefore unless you are impaired in judgment whether by drugs, alcohol or something else you aren't to blame.

I think that we need to try to change this opinion.
Motor vehicles ARE deadly.
A bloke wildly swinging a chain saw and going 'oops sorry' when he has hacked off somebody's arm would be a similar excuse as to when a fuckwit tunes in their radio glances back at the road just in time to see themselves slam into the vehicle in front!

We simply have too much of feeling of driving to be a 'right' rather than a privilege and people acting as such in their attitudes towards driving.

Personally I prefer the Scandinavian approach to driving licensing, which is damn hard!!!

Whether for cars or bikes you have a VERY hard theory test, which is of the nature of actual pictures/situations and multiple choice.
Not one of the answers given in each situation is wrong, its more of a case of which is most correct.

Then when you progress to the actual driving you have to start with a driving school for at least a certain amount of time.

The motorcycle test is even harder.

Anyway my point being is that they try to educate people on the art of driving rather than simply passing a test and also that driving IS a serious thing.

Marc

[MrDude_1]

i JUST did a reply on that aspect of it for a car website.... i'll copy and paste it here.

SomeotherGuy:
The biggest problem with this entire discussion is the whole concept of safety, risk, and danger. It's a very ambiguous concept, one where many people have a rather unfavorably scewed perception of. Just because you've done something for years without any problem does NOT mean it's a safe thing to do.

Let's get one thing straight right from the very start, driving any vehicle on our roads today IS a dangerous activity. That is a plain and simple fact, not my opinion. Just look at the stats of road related inuries and death per participant, and you're going to find a higher percentage than a very large number of other activities, including things like skydiving and many sports that nobody would argue are dangerous. (sorry, don't have any on hand, it's something I researched some 15 years ago in college, and I see no reason to believe things have changed. If anything, driving has gotten more dangerous over the years)

That being said, anything you do to your vehicle that impairs it's handling makes it a higher risk vehicle on the street. Just because there are vehicles on the street that are higher risk than yours doesn't mean your actions are "safe". Changing your driving style doesn't change how "safe" the car is. Improving your driving habits along with improving your vehicles handling is going to be less dangerous than improving your driving habits to compensate for degraded vehicle handling.

So, let's just toss out the word safe entirely, because driving isn't safe, and developing that mentality every time you sit in your car is the best thing you can do.

So, driving is dangerous. The only question is, how dangerous?
The better your vehicle handles, the less dangerous driving is going to be.
The better your own driving behaviors are, the less dangerous driving is going to be.
Driving with a front swaybar is less dangerous than driving without one.

and when i get out of here, im going to go do something even more unsafe. im going to ride my motorcycle home.

lol.

i got your point, i suppose the main argument i have is this....
the additional risk is still manageable in my opinion.

thats not debatable. thats my opinion.

then again.. i pay attention more then the average person. i take defensive driving seriously, and i plain outright know more about whats going on then the average person notices.. maybe thats why i can manage this risk, and the motorcycle for that matter... and others cannot.

then theres the responsibility aspect.
you pull out infront of me... its my fault.
you left turn infront of me. its my fault.
you rearend me. its my fault..

there is no "he didnt see me" there is no "i couldnt avoid him" there is no "not my fault."

my personal safety on the street is my responsibility.. if i slam my car into a telephone poll avoiding someone like said above.. then im a dumbass for approaching an intersection too fast. im a dumbass for swerving. in that matter and losing control of the vehicle. not the guys fault. not the swaybars fault. i exceeded the limitations of the environment, the car, or my abilities.

THATS my attitude.
that also highlights the lack of personal responsibility that is so prevalent on the road today.

its all a mental thing... 99% of unavoidable accidents could have been avoided. the remaining 1%... well... its still your own damn fault. lol.

[jaysun0ne]

in cali my brother was driving down a windy road with his friend in the car. he looses control of the car going around a turn a van comes around the turn in the opposite direction. my brothers car gets t-boned on the passenger side. his friend dies on impact. my brother has brused kidney and broken wrist.

the investigator said by brother was NOT speeding, under the influence his tires where fine and so on. basically the cop couldnt figure out why my brother lost control of his car.

some public lawyer files charges against him and the judge sent my brother to jail for 30days.

is that fair???
some times shit happens