Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, and sadly the most common "excuse" used and that apparently works as a "get out of jail/trouble" free card is "I didn't see them." That right there should be taken down by the police and the EMT/EMS personal on the scene as an admission of guilt that they were not concentrating on the task of driving.

Digital_Cowboy

Okay, but what happens in the case of a driver being under-insured?

Digital_Cowboy

Look at the case of Carlos Bertonatti. He had been stopped and ticketed numerous times for speeding, for running red lights/stop signs, driving on a suspended license, driving without insurance. Yet, time-and-time again he was "given a second chance." Eventually his reckless behavior caught up to him and he ended up killing an innocent cyclist on the Rickenbacher(sp) Causeway. Had he been imprisoned after either the first or second offense then his victim would more likely still be alive today.

In the case of Carlos I think that it would be appropriate that AFTER he serves his prison sentence that he be deported back to his home country and be barred from EVER returning the US.

rekmeyata

We keep going around and around, you can't put someone in jail for a car accident due to a momentary lack of judgement. Everyone has those moments driving, most of the time the possible accident is avoided by the other driver, or the lack of judgement is caught by the driver themselves and is corrected with no problem. And when one does occur that kill another you cannot throw that person in jail for even one day unless there was some sort of criminal behavior going on that led to the accident. Now if a lack of judgement makes a person pull a gun and kill another that is another story because that's behavior that could have been stopped, but all people suffer from momentary lack of judgement when driving and when that causes a fatality accident it cannot be punished by jail time.

wphamilton

Naw, I'm off the merry-go-round.

genec

Actually in some countries they DO put people in jail for "a momentary lack of judgement," and they do this to tell those people and others that such a "momentary lapse" is not an "accident." Right up front when they get licenses, drivers are told that they are responsible for not killing anyone... and they sign a statement acknowledging this responsibility (much as we do this for right up front to prevent the use of alcohol behind the wheel.)

The fact is "judgement" really isn't all that big of an factor when driving a car... the laws clearly spell out what you are supposed to do. The "momentary lack of judgement" tends to come from someone sidestepping the laws in some manner... trying to "get something" they don't really deserve... such as more speed, or a pass, or a turn; all that are improper. Thus few "accidents" are in fact really accidents, they are violations that result in collisions.

As such, a violation that leads to death IS grounds for jail time... Let the offender prove they didn't violate some law that caused the death. Of course we can't do that in America, as our justice system deems that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and in spite of the fact that someone has been killed, we bend over backwards to give the driver the benefit of the doubt. But that leads to police (and our justice system) just letting motorists off with "remorse." Not much of a penalty if you have just killed the head of a household, and now a family has no means of support (and can't even afford the civil case in our system).

Few collisions actually result in death, and far fewer motorists actually cause death... most drivers go an entire lifetime just fine without ever killing someone with their car... yet we let some 30,000 or so folks die each year for the convenience of others being able to drive a motor vehicle on our PUBLIC roads and suffer "a momentary lack of judgement."

I wonder if in the future we will be so lenient with robots driving our vehicles... will we let a google car continue to operate if it kills? Why would that be any more horrible than what we do now with motorists that have killed others?

HoustonB

It seems the car-apologists are out in force today.

Lets get something straight - there is nothing 'simple' or 'just' about accidents. The vast majority of collisions are the result of negligence, stupidity or depraved indifference. In the case of depraved indifference this can manifest itself both before and after a collision. For example, knowingly driving too fast for conditions, or performing maneuvers that push the envelope of a vehicle's capabilities, or performing maneuvers that knowingly adversely affect other vehicle operators - this is not a complete list.

Driving away after a collision and rationalizing it as a possible : animal, post, mail box, etc. is an example of post-collision depraved indifference in multiple ways. First, depraved indifference for the person or thing you hit. Second for the continued use of a vehicle that may be compromised - it should be the law (and it is common sense) to have to stop and check your vehicle after any collision. You do not need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce when something serious has happened.

The people that think only the involvement of "drugs, alcohol or deliberate" sets the threshold for illegal activity, are in extreme denial.

Poguemahone

Okay, let's look at Carlos. What exactly were the consequences of him driving again? Minimal if caught, and you can bet he knew that. But if he'd had a prison term staring him in the face if he drove again, he might never have driven again. In other words, there were no consequences for him getting behind the wheel again. Get pulled over with no lisence? Small fine.

However, I think Carlos is a sociopath (or psychopath) from what I've read. For folks like that, probably nothing short of jail works.

I think you're refering to Mos and myself. Neither of us are car apologists in the slightest. And I see none of them on this thread. What we've suggested is there needs to be a different template for many of these situations, which may be a good deal more effective than those procedures now and place. We've also suggested that warehousing massive numbers of people in prison serves little purpose (and not only for driving infractions). You don't have to agree with that, but your setting up a bunch of arguments no one has made is borderline ridiculous.

The problem boils down to this: a driving permit is easy to obtain and hard to lose. And even if you should lose it, the consequences for driving again, thus breaking the law, are far too small. In the cases you list above, a lifetime drivng ban makes perfect sense to me. With a suspended sentence that kicks in if you drive again. And property siezure. This will no doubt lead to some negative consequences (drivers fleeing the scene) but we already have those with drunken driving laws.

The second problem is this: warehousing inmates is expensive (by some estimates, more expensive than educating someone at a four year college), even in the craptacular system we now have. If there are alternative and cheaper methods that solve the problem-- in this case, getting the bad drivers gone from the roads-- they should at very least be investigated.

The main problem with my suggestion is that it will never be implemented, as it impinges upon driver's "rights". My suggestions are many things, but they're not apologies for cars-- or that matter, the idiots who drive them. They actually up punishment substantially-- and at less cost to society.

rekmeyata

Some countries will chop your girl friends head off for having sex before marrage, so we should be like other countries?


I can't debate how many accidents occur due to a simple accidents not related to speed, or illegal turn etc. I don't think those numbers exist. You can only go to jail for killing someone while driving a car in the USA if you were driving reckless or were unreasonable negligent in any way, like drunk driving, reckless driving, and speeding is only reckless if you exceed 20 over. Accidental deaths are only prosecuted when there is unreasonable negligence involved. Like if you were texting while driving that would be unreasonable negligence and you would be prosecuted if you killed somebody. If you hit and run after a fatality then you will go to jail due to the felony charge of hit and run...NOT for the fatality because the hit and run didn't cause the accident unless you were drunk then ran. And gross vehicular manslaughter is a felony vehicular manslaughter that not involve drunk diving or DUI, but does involve the exercise of gross negligence. An example would be an otherwise sober driver who engages in a street drag race, and kills someone in the course of the race.

And I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER consent to having a robot or a computer drive my car. Then imagine what this post would ask: "can a person go to jail for killing someone in a car accident if their computer that was driving the car malfunctioned?" And the replies would be, sure because the owner was responsible for the upkeep of the computer to make sure it was safe to use. OR, no, because the computer was totally on it's own and he owner had no way of knowing if the computer would fail. So we would still be going around and around over that!

genec

Well certainly I am not suggesting the adoption of Sharia Law; but we do have examples in this country of laws that assume guilt first which then must be proven otherwise as a defense. Driving while intoxicated is one example, committing certain robberies while using a firearm is another example.

As far as what data may exist for collisions, try using FARS data https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/QueryT...ectFields.aspx

And your declarative about "NEVER, NEVER, NEVER consent to having a robot or a computer drive my car... " is probably very close to what folks said when first confronting "the horseless carriage." "...I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER consent to riding in one of those things.... "

ItsJustMe

I'm very much looking forward to when self-driving cars become common. They already appear to be far safer than drivers that you'll encounter every 30 seconds on many roads, and they are not affected by being tired or drunk. I think it's going to be a vast improvement in road safety. I consider myself a good and safe driver but I'm not deluded enough to think that a machine can't be better than I am.

genec

And I wonder too if a self-driving car could ever have "a momentary lack of judgement."

dynodonn 

A new self driving car probably won't, but my worry is when these cars age over time, what safeguards will be in place, and what type of maintenance level/schedule will there be, something on the order of an aircraft standard?

genec

Hard to say... but I suspect that a power on self test that finds errors will render the system off line. Even cell phones do this... if your cell phone does not pass system tests when it turns on, it goes off line. This prevents a bad cell phone from holding a base station "hostage."

Of course what everyone reading this is thinking is what about a BSOD? No doubt there will be redundant systems in the self drive car, each cross checking each other.

wphamilton

I may be repeating myself on this subject, but I think there are two requisites for autodriven vehicles to become feasible and accepted. First, because of human nature and technical reasons, initially there will need to be travel lanes where only these cars are allowed. These have to work first where all traffic is predictable, which is impossible with human drivers mixed in. Imagine some driver playing games against the robot cars or driving erratically, and a robot's passenger is injured or killed; the question will always arise, could a human pilot have avoided it? So for it to gain traction, there must initially be exclusive throughways where safety, convenience and other benefits are demonstrated.

Secondly, for general use I think there will necessarily be fail-safe detection, decision algorithm and avoidance of unexpected objects. Such as bicycles, dogs, mattresses etc. That technology is not yet perfected, so I don't think this is happening any time soon. I too would love to see it though, because I'm already at the point where I'd trust a computer over human judgment.

genec

Are you aware that google has a self drive car... and that these are legal in Nevada? Right now the law dictates that such vehicles must have a driver behind the wheel and naps by the driver are not permitted. The computer must also be monitored by a second person. This is something of a beta test for these vehicles.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/25520...a_streets.html
https://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57...big-in-nevada/
https://mashable.com/2012/05/08/googl...a/?hpt=hp_bn16

wphamilton

Yep, I've been following that pretty avidly. It's a big jump from that to what we're talking about.

genec

I think they are right around the corner... the vehicle already does all the detection you are speaking of... but only real world testing will prove the effectiveness of the system.

I really think this is 5-10 years out before it is available to the consumer. A whole lot of development and testing can take place in that time. And the thing is the senors on these cars can look 360 degrees in wavelengths that humans cannot see... for instance detecting humans by body heat, and seeing through rain and fog... and of course the car would never stop calculating, it would never take it's sensors off the road... it would always be there. And it would never get drunk and hit someone, or get distracted because it was too busy, or fall asleep.... Of all the would-be drivers who came and went over the years, this thing, this machine, is the only one who will really measure up. In an insane world, it is the sanest choice.

--apologies to Sarah Conner.

Digital_Cowboy

So in your book a "momentary lapse" in judgement that results in death isn't a crime, so long as it's with a car, but one that causes a death or injury involving a gun is? If it is right to lock a person up for having a lapse in judgement while handling a gun then it is also right to lock a person up for having a lapse in judgement while driving. BOTH are instruments capable of of inflicting great bodily injury/death.

So why the double standard?

Digital_Cowboy

The real problem with Carlos is as you pointed out that because of his families/fathers money he knew that he could buy his way out of most any trouble that he found himself in. And given Carlos' long arrest record when do you think that jail time would have been called for? I mean he made it very clear that he didn't think that the laws of this country applied to him. So when should he have received jail time?

And you can't argue can you, that had he been jailed and/or deported that his victim would still be alive today. How about asking the family of the man that he killed if they think that he shouldn't have been put in jail sooner. You know the family that lost a husband and a father. When Carlos hit and killed Christophe and then fled the scene.

Given that people have already have had their licenses permanently revoked, and yet they continued to drive what makes you think that permanently suspending/revoking anyone's license is going to stop them from driving?

Just when do you think that jail time is warranted?

rekmeyata

There's a similarity between riding a horse and driving a car...and that is your in control; once a computer takes over your no longer in control. I like encountering traffic and watching out for the other driver, it keeps me on my toes. The same reason I like riding my bike in heavy traffic, including downtown Los Angeles and San Francisco just to name two. It's why I liked flying ultralights too and some other weird stuff I've done over the years. I like the feeling of being in control and being hyper alert, it keeps my senses sharp...having sharp senses has kept me alive in things I had to do. I know that doesn't make any sense (no pun intended) with some of you because I'm sure I sounded weird for just mentioning that.

If your computer on your desk at home, at work, on your phone, etc can have momentary lack of judgement, what do you think is going to happen in a car? Even if your able to resume command of your vehicle in that event, you would be lulled into a sense false security while you laugh and play video games or whatever with your passengers, or on the phone, and it would be too late to respond by the time you realize something is amiss. Then the problem of liability will come up, who pays the liability claim? The computer company? the software company? the car company? you for failing to maintain the system or failure to control the car? Lawsuits today are limited to some degree with whatever the max limits of liability you carry, do you think companies would want to open a Pandora's box to extremely expensive litigation and liability cost? I doubt it, it's going to some how fall back on us. So if I'm going to get into trouble for not being in control of my car after the computer failed, take the computer away and allow me to be in control all the time.

Personally as far as America being innocent until proven guilty is hogwash if your poor. Sure, you'll get a free lawyer appointed for you if you can't afford one...most of those free lawyers are forced into it taking a job for free they don't want, so you become a number and their unconcerned about you. Do you think for one moment if OJ Simpson had a court appointed attorney assigned to him that the result would have been the same? Try fighting a traffic ticket and see how nonprejudicial the judge is when you try to prove the cop made a mistake. So your right, there are a lot stuff you can be accused of here in America and your guilty until proven innocent...unless your rich and can afford an attorney.

The web site you gave came up as an incorrect string. Please try posting it again because I would like to read it. Thanks.

Poguemahone

I think you're having some reading comprehension issues. Go back and re-read what I have written.

Currently, if you drive on a suspended/revoked license, there are very minimal consequences, even if the suspension was a result of killing someone or drunken driving. I've suggested that the suspended license come with jail time, suspended unless caught driving again. Then it is off to jail. This is very different than our current system, where there is no real consequence to repeated bad driving. Clear enough?

Jailing folks right off is costly and there may be other ways to serve the end result we want-- getting bad drivers off the road. Most people would not drive if getting caught doing so meant a long time in jail. Not everyone, but most.

Some of you seem convinced I'd let every driver off scot free. You're mistaken; that's the current system.

genec

https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

You'll have to search around a bit... what I sent previously was the link to the sub site that allows you to sort by specific data.

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, right now the risk to driving without a license or on a suspended or revoked license is NOT enough of a deterrent to keep people from doing so. Which is why the punishment needs to be more severe. Also even though I do agree with you that jailing "everyone" for driving without a license or on a suspended or revoked license or for a first offense. In order to make people understand that driving without a license or on a suspended or revoked license is taken seriously is that some people do need to be jailed for first offenses. Otherwise just how are we going to send the message that ti is taken seriously?

See above. In order to send the message that it is taken seriously some people ARE going to have to face serious jail time.

I'm sorry, but that is how it seems. As I've said, in order to send the message that these things ARE taken seriously some will have to pay a steep price. Otherwise we end up where we are right now, i.e. drivers who are willing to take the risk of getting caught without a drivers license. Be it that they just didn't feel like getting one, or they've had it suspended and/or revoked. The ONLY way to send the message that it will not be tolerated is to send some to jail/prison to serve serious time.

Mos6502

Yes and you keep assuming that jailing people is the only way to make a point. It isn't, and so far as it is - it is a lousy deterrent.