Dchiefransom
10-11-06, 10:02 PM
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/11/BABADIGEST2.DTL
Advocacy & Safety - Driver Gets 90 Days in Cyclist's Death
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.mechBgon
10-11-06, 10:07 PM
:(
nm+
10-11-06, 11:25 PM
Don't think he'd get any more for killing a driver or ped.
Without full details, i can't say if he deserves more or less.
Without full details, i can't say if he deserves more or less.
UmneyDurak
10-12-06, 12:51 AM
I know I am going to get flamed for it, but I think old people should have yearly exam to prove they can still drive.
CommuterRun
10-12-06, 02:28 AM
I know I am going to get flamed for it, but I think old people should have yearly exam to prove they can still drive.
I think all drivers should have to undergo periodic retesting, both writtten and driving, but that may or may not have helped in this case.
I think all drivers should have to undergo periodic retesting, both writtten and driving, but that may or may not have helped in this case.
CB HI
10-12-06, 02:39 AM
+1 and +1
But if he did nothing wrong, how did he end up in the bike lane? I just do not understand, he was responsible for controlling the car, right?
But if he did nothing wrong, how did he end up in the bike lane? I just do not understand, he was responsible for controlling the car, right?
ctyler
10-12-06, 08:18 AM
+1 and +1
But if he did nothing wrong, how did he end up in the bike lane? I just do not understand, he was responsible for controlling the car, right?
That's a good question. He was driving, he killed someone. 90 days? Unbelievable. Until the laws in this country are changed, you can get away with murder by hitting someone with your car. "Gee, I drifted into the bike lane because I was looking for the on ramp to 280." What a lame excuse and a lame sentence.
There was a woman here in Wisconsin who killed a cyclist becaues she was driving and suffers from macular degeneration. I wrote my state reps and there was a bill before the assembly last year that would require all drivers 75 and older to get a free eye exam each year to renew their license. (Current law is license renewal every 6-8 years I believe.) The bill never made it to the floor for a vote due to the leadership of a particular party. Anyway, this woman was aquited in the case. Here's the new report from AP:
Associated Press
SHAWANO, Wis. - An 85-year-old woman has been acquitted in the death of
a bicyclist last summer.
A Shawano County jury deliberated for about half an hour Friday before
finding Sarah J. Ash not guilty of homicide by negligent use of a
vehicle.
She had been charged in connection with the death of 49-year-old Wayne
W. Smith. The Town of Wescott resident had been struck from behind while
he was bicycling on a road in the Town of Richmond last July.
Ash had faced up to 10 years in prison and $25,000 in fines if
convicted.
Ash, who has macular degeneration, said she never saw Smith on the road.
Defense attorney David Winter had no comment following the verdict. During the trial, which started Thursday, he said what happened was an
accident, not a crime, and his client was upset.
"Imagine the pain, the sleepless nights," he said.
He said prosecution did not introduce testimony or evidence showing it
was unsafe for Ash to be driving.
Smith's father-in-law, Eugene Lindauer, questioned the verdict, saying
had Ash been younger, the outcome may have been different.
"It was because she was old," he said. "If it were a young person, they
would have gone to jail."
But if he did nothing wrong, how did he end up in the bike lane? I just do not understand, he was responsible for controlling the car, right?
That's a good question. He was driving, he killed someone. 90 days? Unbelievable. Until the laws in this country are changed, you can get away with murder by hitting someone with your car. "Gee, I drifted into the bike lane because I was looking for the on ramp to 280." What a lame excuse and a lame sentence.
There was a woman here in Wisconsin who killed a cyclist becaues she was driving and suffers from macular degeneration. I wrote my state reps and there was a bill before the assembly last year that would require all drivers 75 and older to get a free eye exam each year to renew their license. (Current law is license renewal every 6-8 years I believe.) The bill never made it to the floor for a vote due to the leadership of a particular party. Anyway, this woman was aquited in the case. Here's the new report from AP:
Associated Press
SHAWANO, Wis. - An 85-year-old woman has been acquitted in the death of
a bicyclist last summer.
A Shawano County jury deliberated for about half an hour Friday before
finding Sarah J. Ash not guilty of homicide by negligent use of a
vehicle.
She had been charged in connection with the death of 49-year-old Wayne
W. Smith. The Town of Wescott resident had been struck from behind while
he was bicycling on a road in the Town of Richmond last July.
Ash had faced up to 10 years in prison and $25,000 in fines if
convicted.
Ash, who has macular degeneration, said she never saw Smith on the road.
Defense attorney David Winter had no comment following the verdict. During the trial, which started Thursday, he said what happened was an
accident, not a crime, and his client was upset.
"Imagine the pain, the sleepless nights," he said.
He said prosecution did not introduce testimony or evidence showing it
was unsafe for Ash to be driving.
Smith's father-in-law, Eugene Lindauer, questioned the verdict, saying
had Ash been younger, the outcome may have been different.
"It was because she was old," he said. "If it were a young person, they
would have gone to jail."
R-Wells
10-12-06, 08:45 AM
That's a good question. He was driving, he killed someone. 90 days? Unbelievable. Until the laws in this country are changed, you can get away with murder by hitting someone with your car. "Gee, I drifted into the bike lane because I was looking for the on ramp to 280." What a lame excuse and a lame sentence.
There was a woman here in Wisconsin who killed a cyclist becaues she was driving and suffers from macular degeneration. I wrote my state reps and there was a bill before the assembly last year that would require all drivers 75 and older to get a free eye exam each year to renew their license. (Current law is license renewal every 6-8 years I believe.) The bill never made it to the floor for a vote due to the leadership of a particular party. Anyway, this woman was aquited in the case. Here's the new report from AP:
Associated Press
SHAWANO, Wis. - An 85-year-old woman has been acquitted in the death of
a bicyclist last summer.
A Shawano County jury deliberated for about half an hour Friday before
finding Sarah J. Ash not guilty of homicide by negligent use of a
vehicle.
She had been charged in connection with the death of 49-year-old Wayne
W. Smith. The Town of Wescott resident had been struck from behind while
he was bicycling on a road in the Town of Richmond last July.
Ash had faced up to 10 years in prison and $25,000 in fines if
convicted.
Ash, who has macular degeneration, said she never saw Smith on the road.
Defense attorney David Winter had no comment following the verdict. During the trial, which started Thursday, he said what happened was an
accident, not a crime, and his client was upset.
"Imagine the pain, the sleepless nights," he said.
He said prosecution did not introduce testimony or evidence showing it
was unsafe for Ash to be driving.
Smith's father-in-law, Eugene Lindauer, questioned the verdict, saying
had Ash been younger, the outcome may have been different.
"It was because she was old," he said. "If it were a young person, they
would have gone to jail."
You honestly beleive he did this Intentionally?
There was a woman here in Wisconsin who killed a cyclist becaues she was driving and suffers from macular degeneration. I wrote my state reps and there was a bill before the assembly last year that would require all drivers 75 and older to get a free eye exam each year to renew their license. (Current law is license renewal every 6-8 years I believe.) The bill never made it to the floor for a vote due to the leadership of a particular party. Anyway, this woman was aquited in the case. Here's the new report from AP:
Associated Press
SHAWANO, Wis. - An 85-year-old woman has been acquitted in the death of
a bicyclist last summer.
A Shawano County jury deliberated for about half an hour Friday before
finding Sarah J. Ash not guilty of homicide by negligent use of a
vehicle.
She had been charged in connection with the death of 49-year-old Wayne
W. Smith. The Town of Wescott resident had been struck from behind while
he was bicycling on a road in the Town of Richmond last July.
Ash had faced up to 10 years in prison and $25,000 in fines if
convicted.
Ash, who has macular degeneration, said she never saw Smith on the road.
Defense attorney David Winter had no comment following the verdict. During the trial, which started Thursday, he said what happened was an
accident, not a crime, and his client was upset.
"Imagine the pain, the sleepless nights," he said.
He said prosecution did not introduce testimony or evidence showing it
was unsafe for Ash to be driving.
Smith's father-in-law, Eugene Lindauer, questioned the verdict, saying
had Ash been younger, the outcome may have been different.
"It was because she was old," he said. "If it were a young person, they
would have gone to jail."
You honestly beleive he did this Intentionally?
ctyler
10-12-06, 09:43 AM
You honestly beleive he did this Intentionally?
Of course not. But what difference does it make? He was driving and he killed someone. 90 days in jail is unbelievable.
Of course not. But what difference does it make? He was driving and he killed someone. 90 days in jail is unbelievable.
Helmet Head
10-12-06, 09:52 AM
He said prosecution did not introduce testimony or evidence showing it
was unsafe for Ash to be driving.
If that's true, then it's the prosecution that is to be blamed here.
Having said that, my dad developed macular degeneration about 10 years before he passed. At first he reduced his own driving. Later, he was given a special license that allowed him to drive only within a 5 mile radius of his house. At some point he decided for himself even that was unsafe, and stopped driving altogether. So it might not be easy to prove that driving with m.d. is inherently unsafe.
was unsafe for Ash to be driving.
If that's true, then it's the prosecution that is to be blamed here.
Having said that, my dad developed macular degeneration about 10 years before he passed. At first he reduced his own driving. Later, he was given a special license that allowed him to drive only within a 5 mile radius of his house. At some point he decided for himself even that was unsafe, and stopped driving altogether. So it might not be easy to prove that driving with m.d. is inherently unsafe.
rajman
10-12-06, 09:54 AM
I think the reason that penalties are so lenient is that death is an integral part of driving.
In 2003 42,643 people were killed in automobile crashes. I don't the the US public is prepared to ascribe criminal responsibility for the deaths that result from what seems to be an inevitable daily activity. The citizens of that country and many others have accepted for some reason that they do not drive by choice, that they are 'forced' to, and therefore all of the death (not to mention injuries) that result are in some way, unavoidable.
While training, engineering (of roads and vehicles), enforcement of traffic regulations, and punishment of the negligent driver can have a positive impact, death is an inevitable part of driving cars. I think most people understand this, refuse to understand that they have a choice, and accept that they or their loved ones may be killed violently at any time in a car crash.
It seems strange that people accept violent death at the wheel, but not other forms of violent death, but I guess people have made their choices...
I for one wish that more people would recognise the danger and find ways to reduce the risks, but I'm just one person (and yes, I do drive from time to time).
That's a good question. He was driving, he killed someone. 90 days? Unbelievable. Until the laws in this country are changed, you can get away with murder by hitting someone with your car. "Gee, I drifted into the bike lane because I was looking for the on ramp to 280." What a lame excuse and a lame sentence.
There was a woman here in Wisconsin who killed a cyclist becaues she was driving and suffers from macular degeneration. I wrote my state reps and there was a bill before the assembly last year that would require all drivers 75 and older to get a free eye exam each year to renew their license. (Current law is license renewal every 6-8 years I believe.) The bill never made it to the floor for a vote due to the leadership of a particular party. Anyway, this woman was aquited in the case. Here's the new report from AP:
Associated Press
SHAWANO, Wis. - An 85-year-old woman has been acquitted in the death of
a bicyclist last summer.
A Shawano County jury deliberated for about half an hour Friday before
finding Sarah J. Ash not guilty of homicide by negligent use of a
vehicle.
She had been charged in connection with the death of 49-year-old Wayne
W. Smith. The Town of Wescott resident had been struck from behind while
he was bicycling on a road in the Town of Richmond last July.
Ash had faced up to 10 years in prison and $25,000 in fines if
convicted.
Ash, who has macular degeneration, said she never saw Smith on the road.
Defense attorney David Winter had no comment following the verdict. During the trial, which started Thursday, he said what happened was an
accident, not a crime, and his client was upset.
"Imagine the pain, the sleepless nights," he said.
He said prosecution did not introduce testimony or evidence showing it
was unsafe for Ash to be driving.
Smith's father-in-law, Eugene Lindauer, questioned the verdict, saying
had Ash been younger, the outcome may have been different.
"It was because she was old," he said. "If it were a young person, they
would have gone to jail."
In 2003 42,643 people were killed in automobile crashes. I don't the the US public is prepared to ascribe criminal responsibility for the deaths that result from what seems to be an inevitable daily activity. The citizens of that country and many others have accepted for some reason that they do not drive by choice, that they are 'forced' to, and therefore all of the death (not to mention injuries) that result are in some way, unavoidable.
While training, engineering (of roads and vehicles), enforcement of traffic regulations, and punishment of the negligent driver can have a positive impact, death is an inevitable part of driving cars. I think most people understand this, refuse to understand that they have a choice, and accept that they or their loved ones may be killed violently at any time in a car crash.
It seems strange that people accept violent death at the wheel, but not other forms of violent death, but I guess people have made their choices...
I for one wish that more people would recognise the danger and find ways to reduce the risks, but I'm just one person (and yes, I do drive from time to time).
That's a good question. He was driving, he killed someone. 90 days? Unbelievable. Until the laws in this country are changed, you can get away with murder by hitting someone with your car. "Gee, I drifted into the bike lane because I was looking for the on ramp to 280." What a lame excuse and a lame sentence.
There was a woman here in Wisconsin who killed a cyclist becaues she was driving and suffers from macular degeneration. I wrote my state reps and there was a bill before the assembly last year that would require all drivers 75 and older to get a free eye exam each year to renew their license. (Current law is license renewal every 6-8 years I believe.) The bill never made it to the floor for a vote due to the leadership of a particular party. Anyway, this woman was aquited in the case. Here's the new report from AP:
Associated Press
SHAWANO, Wis. - An 85-year-old woman has been acquitted in the death of
a bicyclist last summer.
A Shawano County jury deliberated for about half an hour Friday before
finding Sarah J. Ash not guilty of homicide by negligent use of a
vehicle.
She had been charged in connection with the death of 49-year-old Wayne
W. Smith. The Town of Wescott resident had been struck from behind while
he was bicycling on a road in the Town of Richmond last July.
Ash had faced up to 10 years in prison and $25,000 in fines if
convicted.
Ash, who has macular degeneration, said she never saw Smith on the road.
Defense attorney David Winter had no comment following the verdict. During the trial, which started Thursday, he said what happened was an
accident, not a crime, and his client was upset.
"Imagine the pain, the sleepless nights," he said.
He said prosecution did not introduce testimony or evidence showing it
was unsafe for Ash to be driving.
Smith's father-in-law, Eugene Lindauer, questioned the verdict, saying
had Ash been younger, the outcome may have been different.
"It was because she was old," he said. "If it were a young person, they
would have gone to jail."
R-Wells
10-12-06, 10:07 AM
Of course not. But what difference does it make? He was driving and he killed someone. 90 days in jail is unbelievable.
You called it murder, you are speaking like you want punishment in accordance to murder.
Either is was murder or it was not.
Most likely we are talking about an accidental death.
It is very sad and was probably preventable.
Maybe the system is responsible as much as the driver?
Maybe the system needs to be held accountable?
You called it murder, you are speaking like you want punishment in accordance to murder.
Either is was murder or it was not.
Most likely we are talking about an accidental death.
It is very sad and was probably preventable.
Maybe the system is responsible as much as the driver?
Maybe the system needs to be held accountable?
N_C
10-12-06, 12:34 PM
In accordance with current Colorado Law does the punishment fit the crime? When you answer this do not answer based on your personal feelings or subjectivity, answer based on what the law says compared to the crime committed & the punishment issued. I sahDoes the state a 90 day jail sentance is allowed or does the law allow for a stiffer penalty?
TRaffic Jammer
10-12-06, 12:46 PM
You honestly beleive he did this Intentionally?
Then it's vehicular manslaughter and subject to jailtime....this is how crime and punishment work.
Pretty hard to prove murder in a vehicular case. I applaud this as maybe drivers might realize there are consequences when you fall asleep (figuratively and literally) while operating a ton+ machine on public roadways. Feel free to drift into a ditch or a tree on your private property.
Then it's vehicular manslaughter and subject to jailtime....this is how crime and punishment work.
Pretty hard to prove murder in a vehicular case. I applaud this as maybe drivers might realize there are consequences when you fall asleep (figuratively and literally) while operating a ton+ machine on public roadways. Feel free to drift into a ditch or a tree on your private property.
John E
10-12-06, 12:55 PM
That's a good question. He was driving, he killed someone. 90 days? Unbelievable. Until the laws in this country are changed, you can get away with murder by hitting someone with your car. "Gee, I drifted into the bike lane because I was looking for the on ramp to 280." What a lame excuse and a lame sentence. ...
What can I add? The message of this sentence is, "Life is cheap."
What can I add? The message of this sentence is, "Life is cheap."
Shiznaz
10-12-06, 01:13 PM
Hey, life is free. So is death.
genec
10-12-06, 01:18 PM
What can I add? The message of this sentence is, "Life is cheap."
Yup... carry a gun, go to jail; kill with a car... no big deal.
Yup... carry a gun, go to jail; kill with a car... no big deal.
Brian Ratliff
10-12-06, 01:32 PM
I will get myself flamed for this, but I think the sentence was far too harsh. Probation from driving for a few months, just to require the guy to take some time to get back his nerves and perhaps have his eyesight and reflexes tested, was all that was required.
People around these forums, and the drivers on the road, expect too much from the traffic system and the cars' safety systems. How can someone expect there NOT to be accidents when we have people manually controlling 4000 lb cars at 50 mph? How can you possibly make this situation more safe than it is now? We have airbags, precision steering and control of cars, antilock brakes, traction control, huge blinkers and lights for bikes, books and classes on VC riding to keep cyclists safe, helmets, and on and on and on...
Yet nothing here prevents the freak accident of someone making a mistake at the wrong time and another person being at the wrong place at the wrong time and on the recieving end of the mistake. Would we still be calling for his head if he drifted in the opposite direction and hit an oncoming car head on?
The road system, as it exists today, is fundamentally dangerous. We all accept the danger of miscalculation everytime we ride a bike or drive a car on the road. There is no way to render harmless every danger we face in life. The guy driving the car is almost 70 years old. Think of how many times he had to evade death in the daily course of life, much less in a war or two, to get to be that age. That's how far we've come in this society in eliminating dangers in our life. But the curve is asymtotic to zero, meaning we'll get closer and closer, but never eliminate the dangers of miscalculation and mistake.
How do we get closer to eliminating danger on the road? Do we hand the task of driving over to some computer who can calculate much faster than our own brain? Isn't this just to hand off the responsiblity of our actions to some other entity? Why do we fear this? It's because computers crash or make mistakes as well as us humans. They calculate faster, but suck at pattern recognition. The make decisions faster, but they can't understand the morality of missing the vulnerable kid on a bike in favor of risking the head on from on-coming traffic. And when they make a mistake, there is nobody to take responsibility. Put the road system into the hands of computers, and mistakes leading to accidents would truly be indiscriminate. At least now, we own our own mistakes in judgement. The survivors of an accident victim at least know that someone feels terrible about the mistake that lead to the death. And if that person doesn't take responsibility, we have a legal system we can sic on them and force them to feel bad about their mistake. Think of the paranoia that would be caused the first time a computer controlled car made a mistake and kills a person?
Or instead, do we just keep extending the extend of human senses? Collision avoidance alarms? Automatic road sign readers? Navigation systems which talk to us to keep us from being distracted by looking for street signs? All these help, but won't eliminate good, old fashion human error.
The point is that there are only so many things we can do to avoid danger. At some point we need to accept that there are dangers on the road, and quite trying to punish those who made one mistake that everyone makes, the only difference being that the mistake was made at the wrong time and someone besides themselves ended up paying the price. Ask yourselves this: how many times have you been driving in an unfamiliar place, concentrating on street signs, and find the path of your car wandering?
People around these forums, and the drivers on the road, expect too much from the traffic system and the cars' safety systems. How can someone expect there NOT to be accidents when we have people manually controlling 4000 lb cars at 50 mph? How can you possibly make this situation more safe than it is now? We have airbags, precision steering and control of cars, antilock brakes, traction control, huge blinkers and lights for bikes, books and classes on VC riding to keep cyclists safe, helmets, and on and on and on...
Yet nothing here prevents the freak accident of someone making a mistake at the wrong time and another person being at the wrong place at the wrong time and on the recieving end of the mistake. Would we still be calling for his head if he drifted in the opposite direction and hit an oncoming car head on?
The road system, as it exists today, is fundamentally dangerous. We all accept the danger of miscalculation everytime we ride a bike or drive a car on the road. There is no way to render harmless every danger we face in life. The guy driving the car is almost 70 years old. Think of how many times he had to evade death in the daily course of life, much less in a war or two, to get to be that age. That's how far we've come in this society in eliminating dangers in our life. But the curve is asymtotic to zero, meaning we'll get closer and closer, but never eliminate the dangers of miscalculation and mistake.
How do we get closer to eliminating danger on the road? Do we hand the task of driving over to some computer who can calculate much faster than our own brain? Isn't this just to hand off the responsiblity of our actions to some other entity? Why do we fear this? It's because computers crash or make mistakes as well as us humans. They calculate faster, but suck at pattern recognition. The make decisions faster, but they can't understand the morality of missing the vulnerable kid on a bike in favor of risking the head on from on-coming traffic. And when they make a mistake, there is nobody to take responsibility. Put the road system into the hands of computers, and mistakes leading to accidents would truly be indiscriminate. At least now, we own our own mistakes in judgement. The survivors of an accident victim at least know that someone feels terrible about the mistake that lead to the death. And if that person doesn't take responsibility, we have a legal system we can sic on them and force them to feel bad about their mistake. Think of the paranoia that would be caused the first time a computer controlled car made a mistake and kills a person?
Or instead, do we just keep extending the extend of human senses? Collision avoidance alarms? Automatic road sign readers? Navigation systems which talk to us to keep us from being distracted by looking for street signs? All these help, but won't eliminate good, old fashion human error.
The point is that there are only so many things we can do to avoid danger. At some point we need to accept that there are dangers on the road, and quite trying to punish those who made one mistake that everyone makes, the only difference being that the mistake was made at the wrong time and someone besides themselves ended up paying the price. Ask yourselves this: how many times have you been driving in an unfamiliar place, concentrating on street signs, and find the path of your car wandering?
TRaffic Jammer
10-12-06, 01:37 PM
He drifted....he killed.... inattention, bad driving, careless driving, not an accident. Big difference.
slagjumper
10-12-06, 01:37 PM
I am not sure that harsh sentences are the answer to safer driving. I am not an eye for an eye kind of person.
Here is a case where a cyclist, got off for killing a ped:
http://www.gtconnect.com/articles/2005/09/20/news/community/tueloc02.txt
Given how many people are killed in cars and by cars it is a wonder that they are not banned items.
How many people have gotten off because they failed to lock a gun and their kid blew him self or someone else away?
Here is a case where a cyclist, got off for killing a ped:
http://www.gtconnect.com/articles/2005/09/20/news/community/tueloc02.txt
Given how many people are killed in cars and by cars it is a wonder that they are not banned items.
How many people have gotten off because they failed to lock a gun and their kid blew him self or someone else away?
Brian Ratliff
10-12-06, 01:37 PM
One more thing: Does anyone thing that this guy will get to be a better driver after 3 months in jail and 3 years of probation?
TRaffic Jammer
10-12-06, 01:39 PM
I'll lay down even odds he'll be ALOT more careful. If not he's an idiot and shouldn't EVER be allowed to drive again.
who knows.... the act of killing someone may freak him right out from behind the wheel forever.
who knows.... the act of killing someone may freak him right out from behind the wheel forever.
Brian Ratliff
10-12-06, 01:44 PM
He drifted....he killed.... inattention, bad driving, careless driving, not an accident. Big difference.
I'm sure you drifted before (I know I have). Only you didn't kill. What's the difference? He certainly wasn't planning or intending to kill someone.
If you call all incidents of "inattention, bad driving, careless driving" to be not accidents, then there is no such thing as an accident (perhaps there is not, but this is besides the point). All accidents are avoidable, yet they still happen. Why this contradiction? Because hind sight is better than 20/20 - yet utterly useless to avoid the mistake as it happens. We see how they can be avoided only after they occur.
I'm sure you drifted before (I know I have). Only you didn't kill. What's the difference? He certainly wasn't planning or intending to kill someone.
If you call all incidents of "inattention, bad driving, careless driving" to be not accidents, then there is no such thing as an accident (perhaps there is not, but this is besides the point). All accidents are avoidable, yet they still happen. Why this contradiction? Because hind sight is better than 20/20 - yet utterly useless to avoid the mistake as it happens. We see how they can be avoided only after they occur.
Brian Ratliff
10-12-06, 01:45 PM
I'll lay down even odds he'll be ALOT more careful. If not he's an idiot and shouldn't EVER be allowed to drive again.
who knows.... the act of killing someone may freak him right out from behind the wheel forever.
Probably. But how is this helped by a 3 month jail sentence and a 3 year prohibition on driving?
who knows.... the act of killing someone may freak him right out from behind the wheel forever.
Probably. But how is this helped by a 3 month jail sentence and a 3 year prohibition on driving?
TRaffic Jammer
10-12-06, 01:47 PM
The sentence might/should give him pause. I would HOPE that 3 months of reflection will drive the point home he alone is responsible for the riders death.
This is how punishments work, but many people think punishments or accountability of one's actions is a bizarre concept.
So I can get away with anything if I say it was an accident? Where does one draw the line? Do I get to sue the solar system because the sun was in my eye's and I killed someone or should I have slowed down until I COULD see properly (not his excuse)?
This is how punishments work, but many people think punishments or accountability of one's actions is a bizarre concept.
So I can get away with anything if I say it was an accident? Where does one draw the line? Do I get to sue the solar system because the sun was in my eye's and I killed someone or should I have slowed down until I COULD see properly (not his excuse)?
genec
10-12-06, 01:50 PM
How can someone expect there NOT to be accidents when we have people manually controlling 4000 lb cars at 50 mph? How can you possibly make this situation more safe than it is now?
Not going to flame you... the answer is right there. Stop pushing cars performance and removing the "environment" from the motorist. Then reduce the speeds.
As long as vehicles are made soundproof, and isolate the driver with power steering and power brakes and push the performance curve so that a driver can mindlessly drive for hours at high speeds, then we have removed the motorist from the very environment we want them to be aware of.
There is no reason what so ever for city surface streets to be operated at speeds over 40MPH. If you need to go faster to "get across town," then use a limited access freeway, which are designed for high speeds.
Faster speeds mean motorists have to have faster reaction times... and the last time I checked, nobody was improving humans.
Not going to flame you... the answer is right there. Stop pushing cars performance and removing the "environment" from the motorist. Then reduce the speeds.
As long as vehicles are made soundproof, and isolate the driver with power steering and power brakes and push the performance curve so that a driver can mindlessly drive for hours at high speeds, then we have removed the motorist from the very environment we want them to be aware of.
There is no reason what so ever for city surface streets to be operated at speeds over 40MPH. If you need to go faster to "get across town," then use a limited access freeway, which are designed for high speeds.
Faster speeds mean motorists have to have faster reaction times... and the last time I checked, nobody was improving humans.
hockeyteeth
10-12-06, 02:01 PM
<legend>Originally Posted by <strong>slagjumper</strong></legend><table><tr><td>
Here is a case where a cyclist, got off for killing a ped:
</td></tr>
There are no details of the accident in that report. Maybe the woman walked out into a crosswalk when the cyclist was approaching. We all know how often pedestrians do that... The 69 year-old man in the original post admitted to not paying attention and failure to maintain a lane, which is worthy of a citation here in Florida.
Here is a case where a cyclist, got off for killing a ped:
</td></tr>
There are no details of the accident in that report. Maybe the woman walked out into a crosswalk when the cyclist was approaching. We all know how often pedestrians do that... The 69 year-old man in the original post admitted to not paying attention and failure to maintain a lane, which is worthy of a citation here in Florida.
Shiznaz
10-12-06, 02:01 PM
"He's crushed," Conroy said after the sentencing. "Obviously, the victim's family is more crushed." Conroy continued, "And the victim herself, you better believe she is the most crushed!"
Sorry I couldn't help myself.
Were I to kill someone while driving a car due to negligence I would for sure try to fight it, but in the end I would expect that I would feel that I killed someone because I didn't care to look out for them. I deserve to be put away. Unless more motorists get locked up nobody is going to change their driving. In the mean time we can just cram our prisons with drug addicts and petty criminals who didn't kill anybody. THEY are the real danger to society... right???
Sorry I couldn't help myself.
Were I to kill someone while driving a car due to negligence I would for sure try to fight it, but in the end I would expect that I would feel that I killed someone because I didn't care to look out for them. I deserve to be put away. Unless more motorists get locked up nobody is going to change their driving. In the mean time we can just cram our prisons with drug addicts and petty criminals who didn't kill anybody. THEY are the real danger to society... right???
Brian Ratliff
10-12-06, 02:11 PM
Not going to flame you... the answer is right there. Stop pushing cars performance and removing the "environment" from the motorist. Then reduce the speeds.
As long as vehicles are made soundproof, and isolate the driver with power steering and power brakes and push the performance curve so that a driver can mindlessly drive for hours at high speeds, then we have removed the motorist from the very environment we want them to be aware of.
There is no reason what so ever for city surface streets to be operated at speeds over 40MPH. If you need to go faster to "get across town," then use a limited access freeway, which are designed for high speeds.
Faster speeds mean motorists have to have faster reaction times... and the last time I checked, nobody was improving humans.
Fine, but probably irrelevent in this particular case, first off.
And second, where do you draw the line? Do you put speed governors on cars? Put out a lot of police to catch every speeder, or radar camaras? Take away power steering and power brakes and do away with traction control and antilock braking systems? How about the roof over head? Windows, so drivers will be aware of their environment? Just a couple weeks ago, the traction control in my car prevented me from going into a ditch while I was going around a corner, underestimating the traction I would have (it was raining ever so slightly).
As for performance oriented cars, even the most underpowered car is not immune from human error.
Where do you draw the line? In my neck of the woods, I have to drive 15 miles to get to the nearest limited access freeway. Do you suggest we paper the country side with limited access freeways? Do we force people to move close to their work? How about the family with two people who work in opposite directions across town? Or the guys who just got layed off from Intel in Hillsboro and now has a job at Xerox in Wilsonville, 20 miles away? Is a pink slip, in addition to the loss of wage, a sentence to move as well?
And how is giving 3 months of jail time to a 70 year old going to fix any of this? And how is giving 3 years probation going to make him a better driver?
As long as vehicles are made soundproof, and isolate the driver with power steering and power brakes and push the performance curve so that a driver can mindlessly drive for hours at high speeds, then we have removed the motorist from the very environment we want them to be aware of.
There is no reason what so ever for city surface streets to be operated at speeds over 40MPH. If you need to go faster to "get across town," then use a limited access freeway, which are designed for high speeds.
Faster speeds mean motorists have to have faster reaction times... and the last time I checked, nobody was improving humans.
Fine, but probably irrelevent in this particular case, first off.
And second, where do you draw the line? Do you put speed governors on cars? Put out a lot of police to catch every speeder, or radar camaras? Take away power steering and power brakes and do away with traction control and antilock braking systems? How about the roof over head? Windows, so drivers will be aware of their environment? Just a couple weeks ago, the traction control in my car prevented me from going into a ditch while I was going around a corner, underestimating the traction I would have (it was raining ever so slightly).
As for performance oriented cars, even the most underpowered car is not immune from human error.
Where do you draw the line? In my neck of the woods, I have to drive 15 miles to get to the nearest limited access freeway. Do you suggest we paper the country side with limited access freeways? Do we force people to move close to their work? How about the family with two people who work in opposite directions across town? Or the guys who just got layed off from Intel in Hillsboro and now has a job at Xerox in Wilsonville, 20 miles away? Is a pink slip, in addition to the loss of wage, a sentence to move as well?
And how is giving 3 months of jail time to a 70 year old going to fix any of this? And how is giving 3 years probation going to make him a better driver?
hockeyteeth
10-12-06, 02:15 PM
I don't see why people would be required to live closer to their workplace. The problem isn't as much the distance people drive, the problem is how preoccupied (read careless) many people are while driving.
Brian Ratliff
10-12-06, 02:20 PM
"He's crushed," Conroy said after the sentencing. "Obviously, the victim's family is more crushed." Conroy continued, "And the victim herself, you better believe she is the most crushed!"
Sorry I couldn't help myself.
Were I to kill someone while driving a car due to negligence I would for sure try to fight it, but in the end I would expect that I would feel that I killed someone because I didn't care to look out for them. I deserve to be put away. Unless more motorists get locked up nobody is going to change their driving. In the mean time we can just cram our prisons with drug addicts and petty criminals who didn't kill anybody. THEY are the real danger to society... right???
Yea, but this person was sorry, told the truth of what happened, and didn't put up a defense. He should expect he get locked up for his mistake, and he did. That doesn't mean we should oblige.
As to deterance, obviously you have to administer punishment on a case by case basis. Locking up the guy who intentionally swerved his trailer into a cyclist, causing her to fall and break her arm, is well warrented. But locking this guy up is just sad.
And if I met a guy on the street (on foot or on my bike), I'd rather meet a repentant, 70 year old retired person who accidentally killed someone, than meet a 30 year old meth addict or petty criminal who might, just might, not be in their right mind and might, just might, have a weapon.
Sorry I couldn't help myself.
Were I to kill someone while driving a car due to negligence I would for sure try to fight it, but in the end I would expect that I would feel that I killed someone because I didn't care to look out for them. I deserve to be put away. Unless more motorists get locked up nobody is going to change their driving. In the mean time we can just cram our prisons with drug addicts and petty criminals who didn't kill anybody. THEY are the real danger to society... right???
Yea, but this person was sorry, told the truth of what happened, and didn't put up a defense. He should expect he get locked up for his mistake, and he did. That doesn't mean we should oblige.
As to deterance, obviously you have to administer punishment on a case by case basis. Locking up the guy who intentionally swerved his trailer into a cyclist, causing her to fall and break her arm, is well warrented. But locking this guy up is just sad.
And if I met a guy on the street (on foot or on my bike), I'd rather meet a repentant, 70 year old retired person who accidentally killed someone, than meet a 30 year old meth addict or petty criminal who might, just might, not be in their right mind and might, just might, have a weapon.
Shiznaz
10-12-06, 02:22 PM
Fine, but probably irrelevent in this particular case, first off.
And second, where do you draw the line? Do you put speed governors on cars? Put out a lot of police to catch every speeder, or radar camaras? Take away power steering and power brakes and do away with traction control and antilock braking systems? How about the roof over head? Windows, so drivers will be aware of their environment? Just a couple weeks ago, the traction control in my car prevented me from going into a ditch while I was going around a corner, underestimating the traction I would have (it was raining ever so slightly).
I was discussing with a friend that I think cars would be safer if they were a cromoly frame with wheels, an egnine and 5 seats. Thats IT. People would drive less, drive slower, be more attentive. In reality people wouldn't want or buy it, and it wouldn't be possible in our luxury culture, but I think it would be safer. If your car didn't have traction control you probably would have been driving more slowly and not been in a situation to roll into the ditch.
As for performance oriented cars, even the most underpowered car is not immune from human error.
Where do you draw the line? In my neck of the woods, I have to drive 15 miles to get to the nearest limited access freeway. Do you suggest we paper the country side with limited access freeways? Do we force people to move close to their work? How about the family with two people who work in opposite directions across town? Or the guys who just got layed off from Intel in Hillsboro and now has a job at Xerox in Wilsonville, 20 miles away? Is a pink slip, in addition to the loss of wage, a sentence to move as well?
I think people should move when they get a job that is far away. Or they should get a job that allows them to take trains or something. We can't FORCE people to move closer to work, but everyone SHOULD live closer to work. The family with jobs across the city is being very inefficient. Just because alot of people are incredibly inefficient doesn't make it right. Other people always pay the additional cost of people commuting in cars. And its usually the most economically and socially fragile that pay for it.
And how is giving 3 months of jail time to a 70 year old going to fix any of this? And how is giving 3 years probation going to make him a better driver?
People will think "JEEZ! They put a 70 year old guy in prison for killing a lady with his car? I better be careful that it doesn't happen to me!"
Same idea as public executions.
And second, where do you draw the line? Do you put speed governors on cars? Put out a lot of police to catch every speeder, or radar camaras? Take away power steering and power brakes and do away with traction control and antilock braking systems? How about the roof over head? Windows, so drivers will be aware of their environment? Just a couple weeks ago, the traction control in my car prevented me from going into a ditch while I was going around a corner, underestimating the traction I would have (it was raining ever so slightly).
I was discussing with a friend that I think cars would be safer if they were a cromoly frame with wheels, an egnine and 5 seats. Thats IT. People would drive less, drive slower, be more attentive. In reality people wouldn't want or buy it, and it wouldn't be possible in our luxury culture, but I think it would be safer. If your car didn't have traction control you probably would have been driving more slowly and not been in a situation to roll into the ditch.
As for performance oriented cars, even the most underpowered car is not immune from human error.
Where do you draw the line? In my neck of the woods, I have to drive 15 miles to get to the nearest limited access freeway. Do you suggest we paper the country side with limited access freeways? Do we force people to move close to their work? How about the family with two people who work in opposite directions across town? Or the guys who just got layed off from Intel in Hillsboro and now has a job at Xerox in Wilsonville, 20 miles away? Is a pink slip, in addition to the loss of wage, a sentence to move as well?
I think people should move when they get a job that is far away. Or they should get a job that allows them to take trains or something. We can't FORCE people to move closer to work, but everyone SHOULD live closer to work. The family with jobs across the city is being very inefficient. Just because alot of people are incredibly inefficient doesn't make it right. Other people always pay the additional cost of people commuting in cars. And its usually the most economically and socially fragile that pay for it.
And how is giving 3 months of jail time to a 70 year old going to fix any of this? And how is giving 3 years probation going to make him a better driver?
People will think "JEEZ! They put a 70 year old guy in prison for killing a lady with his car? I better be careful that it doesn't happen to me!"
Same idea as public executions.
Shiznaz
10-12-06, 02:24 PM
And if I met a guy on the street (on foot or on my bike), I'd rather meet a repentant, 70 year old retired person who accidentally killed someone, than meet a 30 year old meth addict or petty criminal who might, just might, not be in their right mind and might, just might, have a weapon.
I'd be more scared that the 70 year old guy is behind the wheel again and could 'drift' again. Much more rational fear to have than what the media tells you about 'meth addicts' and the marginalized poor.
I'd be more scared that the 70 year old guy is behind the wheel again and could 'drift' again. Much more rational fear to have than what the media tells you about 'meth addicts' and the marginalized poor.
slagjumper
10-12-06, 02:26 PM
<legend>Originally Posted by <strong>slagjumper</strong></legend><table><tr><td>
Here is a case where a cyclist, got off for killing a ped:
There are no details of the accident in that report. Maybe the woman walked out into a crosswalk when the cyclist was approaching. We all know how often pedestrians do that... The 69 year-old man in the original post admitted to not paying attention and failure to maintain a lane, which is worthy of a citation here in Florida.
I took this to mean that the ped had right of way--
Calder reportedly had the right of way when she crossed Northwest Tyler Avenue at 27th Street, in front of the Chintimini Senior Center.
Perhaps the evidence did not support this, or it was not relevent. Anyway is it really a big surprise that a cyclist would get off in Corvallis?
I know that a NYC ped was killed by a cyclist this summer. I wonder what that person "got".
When I lived in Gainesville a lawyer got off for rear ending a cyclist on the Paines Prarie Road. His exuse was, "I was looking at my engine over temp light when I hit him". He got off. I thought that that was a bs story to put his actions in the best light.
Here is a case where a cyclist, got off for killing a ped:
There are no details of the accident in that report. Maybe the woman walked out into a crosswalk when the cyclist was approaching. We all know how often pedestrians do that... The 69 year-old man in the original post admitted to not paying attention and failure to maintain a lane, which is worthy of a citation here in Florida.
I took this to mean that the ped had right of way--
Calder reportedly had the right of way when she crossed Northwest Tyler Avenue at 27th Street, in front of the Chintimini Senior Center.
Perhaps the evidence did not support this, or it was not relevent. Anyway is it really a big surprise that a cyclist would get off in Corvallis?
I know that a NYC ped was killed by a cyclist this summer. I wonder what that person "got".
When I lived in Gainesville a lawyer got off for rear ending a cyclist on the Paines Prarie Road. His exuse was, "I was looking at my engine over temp light when I hit him". He got off. I thought that that was a bs story to put his actions in the best light.
R-Wells
10-12-06, 02:30 PM
Yup... carry a gun, go to jail; kill with a car... no big deal.
Who said "no big deal"
You really see this the same as intentionaly gunning down children in class rooms?
Should we make him watch as we kill his children?
Scoop out his eyeballs and make his grandchildren eat them?
Is there any punishment that is enough.
Do we want JUstice, or Vengance.
Who said "no big deal"
You really see this the same as intentionaly gunning down children in class rooms?
Should we make him watch as we kill his children?
Scoop out his eyeballs and make his grandchildren eat them?
Is there any punishment that is enough.
Do we want JUstice, or Vengance.
TRaffic Jammer
10-12-06, 02:31 PM
Yea, but this person was sorry, told the truth of what happened, and didn't put up a defense. He should expect he get locked up for his mistake, and he did. That doesn't mean we should oblige.\
It's called consistency and any parent will tell you it's the only way to administer punishment.
As to deterance, obviously you have to administer punishment on a case by case basis. Locking up the guy who intentionally swerved his trailer into a cyclist, causing her to fall and break her arm, is well warrented.
This called attempted murder based on the fact the perp is in a vehicle and a reasonable conclusion is death for the cyclist who is helpless at this point. I'm glad he's sorry, and I do feel for him.....I bet he's not half as sorry as the other guys' family though.
A few months in a country club min sec. facility isn't going to adversely affect him to the nth degree compared to what he has done. He's not gonna be chillin' in an 8x8
It's called consistency and any parent will tell you it's the only way to administer punishment.
As to deterance, obviously you have to administer punishment on a case by case basis. Locking up the guy who intentionally swerved his trailer into a cyclist, causing her to fall and break her arm, is well warrented.
This called attempted murder based on the fact the perp is in a vehicle and a reasonable conclusion is death for the cyclist who is helpless at this point. I'm glad he's sorry, and I do feel for him.....I bet he's not half as sorry as the other guys' family though.
A few months in a country club min sec. facility isn't going to adversely affect him to the nth degree compared to what he has done. He's not gonna be chillin' in an 8x8
R-Wells
10-12-06, 02:35 PM
He drifted....he killed.... inattention, bad driving, careless driving, not an accident. Big difference.
So it was intentional?
What is an acident?
What causes an acident to happen?
I would say that just about all acidents are caused by inattention and carelessnes.
So it was intentional?
What is an acident?
What causes an acident to happen?
I would say that just about all acidents are caused by inattention and carelessnes.
TRaffic Jammer
10-12-06, 02:37 PM
And due diligence can avoid 99% of them, as he was in control of the vehicle it's actually irrelevant as too why he drifted baring mech failure. Drifting is the act of not controlling the car and not be able to keep it your lane. If you can't do that........such is the responsibility of driving
I learned how to drive while racing with my Dad. I have driven well in excess of a hundred miles an hour. I have also stopped driving when tired, and have never had an accident in over twenty years of driving. I've had some close calls but my due diligence in being responsible behind the wheel has avoided unpleasant eventualities.
I learned how to drive while racing with my Dad. I have driven well in excess of a hundred miles an hour. I have also stopped driving when tired, and have never had an accident in over twenty years of driving. I've had some close calls but my due diligence in being responsible behind the wheel has avoided unpleasant eventualities.
genec
10-12-06, 02:43 PM
Where do you draw the line? In my neck of the woods, I have to drive 15 miles to get to the nearest limited access freeway. Do you suggest we paper the country side with limited access freeways? Do we force people to move close to their work? How about the family with two people who work in opposite directions across town? Or the guys who just got layed off from Intel in Hillsboro and now has a job at Xerox in Wilsonville, 20 miles away? Is a pink slip, in addition to the loss of wage, a sentence to move as well?
Everything you just mentioned, regarding distance, simply means more time... So the guy in Wilsonville can't take a freeway? He has to drive right through the city?
Too bad, plan for a longer commute.
Whether we limit roads to 40 or 50 or 70MPH, there is a limitation to speed based on the ability to handle the vehicle on that road... right now we set that limitation based on the 85% rule. Perhaps it is time to start thinking of the other users of the road... the peds, and cyclists and other mixed traffic, and forget the 85% rule, and downgrade the speeds within cities.
We do this now in residential areas without any problems... but then let "hiwayitis" get in the way for the rest of the roads.
I say enough is enough. Limit vehicle speeds to 40 MPH on city surface streets. Period.
A good example of this is what typically takes place out in western cities in AZ and along the CA coast. The speed limits on "the only road in the area" decreases as it hits town. It may be 50 or 60MPH outside of town, but through town, the speed is reduced to 35MPH or so. Sensible. And it makes sense... there are intersections, driveways and who knows what kind of city traffic that one must slow for.
But then we don't apply that same sensibility to big towns. For instance less than a 1/2 mile from my office is a 6 lane 50MPH road... with signs warning of approaching driveways (since it is impossible to drive 50MPH into the driveway or out of the driveway). Closer still is a 60MPH road, with a bike lane.
And how is giving 3 months of jail time to a 70 year old going to fix any of this? And how is giving 3 years probation going to make him a better driver?
It's not. But slowing down surface street traffic does allow for more reaction time and less severe accidents, and that is a solution we can live with.
Everything you just mentioned, regarding distance, simply means more time... So the guy in Wilsonville can't take a freeway? He has to drive right through the city?
Too bad, plan for a longer commute.
Whether we limit roads to 40 or 50 or 70MPH, there is a limitation to speed based on the ability to handle the vehicle on that road... right now we set that limitation based on the 85% rule. Perhaps it is time to start thinking of the other users of the road... the peds, and cyclists and other mixed traffic, and forget the 85% rule, and downgrade the speeds within cities.
We do this now in residential areas without any problems... but then let "hiwayitis" get in the way for the rest of the roads.
I say enough is enough. Limit vehicle speeds to 40 MPH on city surface streets. Period.
A good example of this is what typically takes place out in western cities in AZ and along the CA coast. The speed limits on "the only road in the area" decreases as it hits town. It may be 50 or 60MPH outside of town, but through town, the speed is reduced to 35MPH or so. Sensible. And it makes sense... there are intersections, driveways and who knows what kind of city traffic that one must slow for.
But then we don't apply that same sensibility to big towns. For instance less than a 1/2 mile from my office is a 6 lane 50MPH road... with signs warning of approaching driveways (since it is impossible to drive 50MPH into the driveway or out of the driveway). Closer still is a 60MPH road, with a bike lane.
And how is giving 3 months of jail time to a 70 year old going to fix any of this? And how is giving 3 years probation going to make him a better driver?
It's not. But slowing down surface street traffic does allow for more reaction time and less severe accidents, and that is a solution we can live with.
TRaffic Jammer
10-12-06, 02:45 PM
Here in the "city" of Toronto, unless other wise posted the general speed limit is 50kms.
genec
10-12-06, 02:49 PM
Who said "no big deal"
You really see this the same as intentionaly gunning down children in class rooms?
Should we make him watch as we kill his children?
Scoop out his eyeballs and make his grandchildren eat them?
Is there any punishment that is enough.
Do we want JUstice, or Vengance.
No, I do not see this the same as gunning down innocent children.
But I do see it as a legalized form of killing. I feel that motorists have gotten away with being irresponsible... and it is encouraged by everything from excessive speed, lax enforcement, and auto manufactures that try to include every option to distract a motorist short of built in sex machines.
The line has to be drawn somewhere and I am suggesting two things... (we have talked about this before) one is reducing city street speeds... the other is permanent loss of license for anyone that has killed a ped or cyclist while driving (provided the ped or cyclist did not intentionally put themselves in harms way.)
Surly we can see that the current course of action (I.E. none) is not helping.
You really see this the same as intentionaly gunning down children in class rooms?
Should we make him watch as we kill his children?
Scoop out his eyeballs and make his grandchildren eat them?
Is there any punishment that is enough.
Do we want JUstice, or Vengance.
No, I do not see this the same as gunning down innocent children.
But I do see it as a legalized form of killing. I feel that motorists have gotten away with being irresponsible... and it is encouraged by everything from excessive speed, lax enforcement, and auto manufactures that try to include every option to distract a motorist short of built in sex machines.
The line has to be drawn somewhere and I am suggesting two things... (we have talked about this before) one is reducing city street speeds... the other is permanent loss of license for anyone that has killed a ped or cyclist while driving (provided the ped or cyclist did not intentionally put themselves in harms way.)
Surly we can see that the current course of action (I.E. none) is not helping.
genec
10-12-06, 02:51 PM
Here in the "city" of Toronto, unless other wise posted the general speed limit is 50kms.
That works out to 111846.8 MPH... that might be bit fast. :D
Perhaps you mean 50kmh... which is about 31MPH... and very sensible.
Edit: here in San Diego speed can vary about every half mile... which in itself is rediculous... the same road can be 35MPH, climb to 45MPH and then fall back to 25MPH in the space of a mile and a half... no motorist is going to respond to that, and the signage to declare that is nothing more than road clutter and a distraction to the driver.
That works out to 111846.8 MPH... that might be bit fast. :D
Perhaps you mean 50kmh... which is about 31MPH... and very sensible.
Edit: here in San Diego speed can vary about every half mile... which in itself is rediculous... the same road can be 35MPH, climb to 45MPH and then fall back to 25MPH in the space of a mile and a half... no motorist is going to respond to that, and the signage to declare that is nothing more than road clutter and a distraction to the driver.
R-Wells
10-12-06, 03:01 PM
And due diligence can avoid 99% of them, as he was in control of the vehicle it's actually irrelevant as too why he drifted baring mech failure. Drifting is the act of not controlling the car and not be able to keep it your lane. If you can't do that........such is the responsibility of driving
I learned how to drive while racing with my Dad. I have driven well in excess of a hundred miles an hour. I have also stopped driving when tired, and have never had an accident in over twenty years of driving. I've had some close calls but my due diligence in being responsible behind the wheel has avoided unpleasant eventualities.
All acidents could have been avoided.
I would say that you have a ways to go before you can compare your 20 years of acident free driving,
to this persons previous 50 or 60 years of acident free driving.
I have done a substantial amount of racing myself, and I gotta say your lack wrecks while racing was an impressive feat.
I have never in my life even met a racer who had never wrecked.
I learned how to drive while racing with my Dad. I have driven well in excess of a hundred miles an hour. I have also stopped driving when tired, and have never had an accident in over twenty years of driving. I've had some close calls but my due diligence in being responsible behind the wheel has avoided unpleasant eventualities.
All acidents could have been avoided.
I would say that you have a ways to go before you can compare your 20 years of acident free driving,
to this persons previous 50 or 60 years of acident free driving.
I have done a substantial amount of racing myself, and I gotta say your lack wrecks while racing was an impressive feat.
I have never in my life even met a racer who had never wrecked.
Brian Ratliff
10-12-06, 03:02 PM
Gene. One question before I go. Why 40 mph? Slower speeds will be obviously better. If 40 mph is not arbitrary, then how do you make the tradeoff between the proverbial "people's lives" and convenience? Why have limited access freeways at all? These contribute far more to the death toll on the roads than they have the right to. Why have cars at all? How about, as some have suggested, though not here, we do away with cars and only have light rail, bikes, and foot? How far back do you wish to roll back the clock; and no matter how far you choose, how do you resolve the fact that you are still making a calculation balancing "people's lives" with convenience?
But these questions are merely retorical. My point is that you are not putting your foot down in any way at all. All you are doing is drawing a different line, still vulnerable to the same human follies and still subject to the proverbial "people's lives" vs. convenience calculation.
But these questions are merely retorical. My point is that you are not putting your foot down in any way at all. All you are doing is drawing a different line, still vulnerable to the same human follies and still subject to the proverbial "people's lives" vs. convenience calculation.
TRaffic Jammer
10-12-06, 03:07 PM
:lol: smartie pants to Genec.
Yes I wrecked in a 100mph sand drag when the front tyre evaporated after the track cleaner pulled up a rock. On the road...never, some close but I'm very careful about safe following distances vs speed etc.
So he was accident free right up until he killed someone, hell of a way to break a streak... I'm still winning then as I haven't killed anyone. Sorry for being facetious in this I'm stickin to my guns. He had an accident with horrific consequences, and thusly needs to be punished accordingly. He's not getting 25 years. Dude hasn't been driving since he was 9, unless it was tractors on the farm.
I must go but the bottom line is he is responsible as he was behind the wheel, and should be punished. Based on his age I'll venture a guess that he agrees he should and hasn't even tried to fight the judgement. He manned up and took it, and I respect that alot more than trying to weasel out of being punished at all. There is no compulsive argument as to why he shouldn't be. Because he's older....that's ageist and you'll have all the silver haired crowd calling their lawyers now. :lol: Fun discussion though, woulda been better with :beer:
Yes I wrecked in a 100mph sand drag when the front tyre evaporated after the track cleaner pulled up a rock. On the road...never, some close but I'm very careful about safe following distances vs speed etc.
So he was accident free right up until he killed someone, hell of a way to break a streak... I'm still winning then as I haven't killed anyone. Sorry for being facetious in this I'm stickin to my guns. He had an accident with horrific consequences, and thusly needs to be punished accordingly. He's not getting 25 years. Dude hasn't been driving since he was 9, unless it was tractors on the farm.
I must go but the bottom line is he is responsible as he was behind the wheel, and should be punished. Based on his age I'll venture a guess that he agrees he should and hasn't even tried to fight the judgement. He manned up and took it, and I respect that alot more than trying to weasel out of being punished at all. There is no compulsive argument as to why he shouldn't be. Because he's older....that's ageist and you'll have all the silver haired crowd calling their lawyers now. :lol: Fun discussion though, woulda been better with :beer:
Helmet Head
10-12-06, 03:15 PM
First, kudos to Brian Ratliff. I agree with every word he has written in this thread (no, Brian, don't even think about going back and editing those posts now that I've said this :) ).
People will think "JEEZ! They put a 70 year old guy in prison for killing a lady with his car? I better be careful that it doesn't happen to me!"
Same idea as public executions.
Remember that studies show that almost all drivers think they are much better than most other drivers. They don't think their driving is putting themselves or anyone else in danger, so they have no reason to be more careful than they already think they are being. So putting one of those other "bad" drivers in jail is probably not going to have much if any effect on anyone else.
People will think "JEEZ! They put a 70 year old guy in prison for killing a lady with his car? I better be careful that it doesn't happen to me!"
Same idea as public executions.
Remember that studies show that almost all drivers think they are much better than most other drivers. They don't think their driving is putting themselves or anyone else in danger, so they have no reason to be more careful than they already think they are being. So putting one of those other "bad" drivers in jail is probably not going to have much if any effect on anyone else.
TRaffic Jammer
10-12-06, 03:18 PM
I'll disagree for the block.
Helmet Head
10-12-06, 03:20 PM
the other is permanent loss of license for anyone that has killed a ped or cyclist while driving (provided the ped or cyclist did not intentionally put themselves in harms way.)
Great, so not only will the drunk drivers who hit people be motivated to run and not help, but sober drivers too. Good idea, not. :rolleyes:
Great, so not only will the drunk drivers who hit people be motivated to run and not help, but sober drivers too. Good idea, not. :rolleyes:
genec
10-12-06, 03:21 PM
Gene. One question before I go. Why 40 mph? Slower speeds will be obviously better. If 40 mph is not arbitrary, then how do you make the tradeoff between the proverbial "people's lives" and convenience? Why have limited access freeways at all? These contribute far more to the death toll on the roads than they have the right to. Why have cars at all? How about, as some have suggested, though not here, we do away with cars and only have light rail, bikes, and foot? How far back do you wish to roll back the clock; and no matter how far you choose, how do you resolve the fact that you are still making a calculation balancing "people's lives" with convenience?
But these questions are merely retorical. My point is that you are not putting your foot down in any way at all. All you are doing is drawing a different line, still vulnerable to the same human follies and still subject to the proverbial "people's lives" vs. convenience calculation.
Actually I am drawing a line. The 85% rule does not draw a line at all... it just keeps jacking up speed until drivers start flying off the road.
40MPH was pretty arbitrary... I had to start somewhere. I believe TJ mentions that Toronto uses about 31MPH. But there it is, they put their foot down... Locally an "island community" has decided that 25MPH is all they need.
And as long as we are making that choice between "people's lives" and convenience... perhaps it is time to swing the pendulum back the other way.
As to the rest of the rhetoric... yeah, why have cars at all. :D
But these questions are merely retorical. My point is that you are not putting your foot down in any way at all. All you are doing is drawing a different line, still vulnerable to the same human follies and still subject to the proverbial "people's lives" vs. convenience calculation.
Actually I am drawing a line. The 85% rule does not draw a line at all... it just keeps jacking up speed until drivers start flying off the road.
40MPH was pretty arbitrary... I had to start somewhere. I believe TJ mentions that Toronto uses about 31MPH. But there it is, they put their foot down... Locally an "island community" has decided that 25MPH is all they need.
And as long as we are making that choice between "people's lives" and convenience... perhaps it is time to swing the pendulum back the other way.
As to the rest of the rhetoric... yeah, why have cars at all. :D
genec
10-12-06, 03:22 PM
Great, so not only will the drunk driver who hit people be motivated to run and not help, but sober drivers too. Good idea, not. :rolleyes:
And what incentive do they have to stay now... as obviously that isn't working either.
And what incentive do they have to stay now... as obviously that isn't working either.