ChipSeal
11-18-07, 11:31 PM
Link to story:
http://www.deserttelevision.com/Global/story.asp?S=7336618
http://www.deserttelevision.com/Global/story.asp?S=7336618
View Full Version : Jury awards $ for cyclists death
OH306
11-19-07, 05:58 AM
No comment on the story, but I love your slogan.
maddyfish
11-19-07, 06:08 AM
How about some jail time too? If you kill a person through stupidity anywhere else but on the roads, you likely will serve some time.
Gromit
11-19-07, 06:52 AM
[QUOTE=maddyfish;5658555]If you kill a person through stupidity QUOTE]
This is far more than stupidity. She knew she had cataracts and could not see well. Yet, she acted with absolute gross indifference to the fact that she was a danger behind the wheel. Probably "needed" to get to bingo or church.
This is far more than stupidity. She knew she had cataracts and could not see well. Yet, she acted with absolute gross indifference to the fact that she was a danger behind the wheel. Probably "needed" to get to bingo or church.
Speedo
11-19-07, 07:04 AM
No comment on the story, but I love your slogan.
ChipSeal's Slogan: "Suppose for a moment that the Democrats really hated America; How would they act any different than they do now?"
Simple, they'd act like the the current Republican administration.
Speedo
ChipSeal's Slogan: "Suppose for a moment that the Democrats really hated America; How would they act any different than they do now?"
Simple, they'd act like the the current Republican administration.
Speedo
dobber
11-19-07, 08:56 AM
ChipSeal's Slogan: "Suppose for a moment that the Democrats really hated America; How would they act any different than they do now?"
Simple, they'd act like the the current Republican administration.
Speedo
For a fleeting moment I though I'd been misdirected to the Digg website.
You gotta admit, it is kinda funny. Neither party really gives a crap about the country, they just want to be the ones in charge.
Back on topic: This was a civil trial verdict, correct? I assume she's received some type to sentence or punishment for having already admitted responsibility.
How the hell does a geriatic cough up $12 mill? Sure it's a moral victory but it's kinda like the OJ thing.
Simple, they'd act like the the current Republican administration.
Speedo
For a fleeting moment I though I'd been misdirected to the Digg website.
You gotta admit, it is kinda funny. Neither party really gives a crap about the country, they just want to be the ones in charge.
Back on topic: This was a civil trial verdict, correct? I assume she's received some type to sentence or punishment for having already admitted responsibility.
How the hell does a geriatic cough up $12 mill? Sure it's a moral victory but it's kinda like the OJ thing.
Bruce_B
11-19-07, 09:06 AM
Yet, she acted with absolute gross indifference to the fact that she was a danger behind the wheel.
+1
+1
dr. nate
11-19-07, 09:33 AM
They probably didn't punish her as far as jail time or community service. America tends to go soft on the elderly of that age. There are lots of people who feel (I agree) that yearly driving tests should be required after a certain age. I once worked an accident involving a 96 year old male who drove into a store. Texas just passed a new law that is along those lines
-Nate
-Nate
Bruce_B
11-19-07, 09:38 AM
Hopefully they have at least taken away her driver's license permanently.
littlewaywelt
11-19-07, 09:48 AM
How the hell does a geriatic cough up $12 mill?
insurance. the gap between her coverage and the lawsuit will have to be covered by her.
She can be forced to sell assets, etc. Maybe she has the money, maybe she doesn't. In the end, she should be happy she is not in jail. I don't care if she ends up on the street and loses everything she worked for...she took someone else's life.
insurance. the gap between her coverage and the lawsuit will have to be covered by her.
She can be forced to sell assets, etc. Maybe she has the money, maybe she doesn't. In the end, she should be happy she is not in jail. I don't care if she ends up on the street and loses everything she worked for...she took someone else's life.
adgrant
11-19-07, 10:54 AM
insurance. the gap between her coverage and the lawsuit will have to be covered by her.
She can be forced to sell assets, etc. Maybe she has the money, maybe she doesn't. In the end, she should be happy she is not in jail. I don't care if she ends up on the street and loses everything she worked for...she took someone else's life.
Her insurance is probably only going to over the first $300,000 unless she has an umbrella policy. If she does, she will probably be covered for the first million or so.
I doubt the family will recover anything close to $12.5 million but it looks like the driver in question will be moving in with her kids (who now won't inherit anything).
She can be forced to sell assets, etc. Maybe she has the money, maybe she doesn't. In the end, she should be happy she is not in jail. I don't care if she ends up on the street and loses everything she worked for...she took someone else's life.
Her insurance is probably only going to over the first $300,000 unless she has an umbrella policy. If she does, she will probably be covered for the first million or so.
I doubt the family will recover anything close to $12.5 million but it looks like the driver in question will be moving in with her kids (who now won't inherit anything).
Mr. Underbridge
11-19-07, 11:30 AM
[QUOTE=maddyfish;5658555]If you kill a person through stupidity QUOTE]
This is far more than stupidity. She knew she had cataracts and could not see well. Yet, she acted with absolute gross indifference to the fact that she was a danger behind the wheel. Probably "needed" to get to bingo or church.
Maybe opthamalogists should be required to report these things to the DMV? Seems to me that an opthamalogist diagnosing someone with cataracts and sending them home is even worse than a bartender serving 'just one more beer.'
This is far more than stupidity. She knew she had cataracts and could not see well. Yet, she acted with absolute gross indifference to the fact that she was a danger behind the wheel. Probably "needed" to get to bingo or church.
Maybe opthamalogists should be required to report these things to the DMV? Seems to me that an opthamalogist diagnosing someone with cataracts and sending them home is even worse than a bartender serving 'just one more beer.'
littlewaywelt
11-19-07, 01:42 PM
Her insurance is probably only going to over the first $300,000 unless she has an umbrella policy. If she does, she will probably be covered for the first million or so.
I doubt the family will recover anything close to $12.5 million but it looks like the driver in question will be moving in with her kids (who now won't inherit anything).
Well aware of that and have no problem with it.
She's lucky she can move in with her kids. Someone else lost that ability.
I doubt the family will recover anything close to $12.5 million but it looks like the driver in question will be moving in with her kids (who now won't inherit anything).
Well aware of that and have no problem with it.
She's lucky she can move in with her kids. Someone else lost that ability.
littlewaywelt
11-19-07, 01:47 PM
Maybe opthamalogists should be required to report these things to the DMV? '
Very interesting idea, but requiring physicians to report their patients' private medical conditions or histories if they might interfere with driving or anything else for that matter is never going to happen. I'd hate to be in charge of drawing the line. Should cancer patients that sometimes get dizzy lose their licenses?
I'd be willing to guess that the number of accidents caused due to a medical condition are pretty low in number.
Very interesting idea, but requiring physicians to report their patients' private medical conditions or histories if they might interfere with driving or anything else for that matter is never going to happen. I'd hate to be in charge of drawing the line. Should cancer patients that sometimes get dizzy lose their licenses?
I'd be willing to guess that the number of accidents caused due to a medical condition are pretty low in number.
nekohime
11-19-07, 02:06 PM
[QUOTE=Gromit;5658673]
Maybe opthamalogists should be required to report these things to the DMV? Seems to me that an opthamalogist diagnosing someone with cataracts and sending them home is even worse than a bartender serving 'just one more beer.'
No, doctors shouldn't be required to report their patients' private medical histories. However, I agree with the poster above that said yearly tests should be required for people above a certain age. Actually, retesting everyone every other year or so when they renew their license isn't a bad idea either, but the car-driving masses would complain.
Maybe opthamalogists should be required to report these things to the DMV? Seems to me that an opthamalogist diagnosing someone with cataracts and sending them home is even worse than a bartender serving 'just one more beer.'
No, doctors shouldn't be required to report their patients' private medical histories. However, I agree with the poster above that said yearly tests should be required for people above a certain age. Actually, retesting everyone every other year or so when they renew their license isn't a bad idea either, but the car-driving masses would complain.
rschulze
11-19-07, 02:13 PM
How about some jail time too?
I'll save you the long story but the person who hit and obviously didn't kill me, spent time in jail. After five months they agreed to paying all my damages including; new clothes all the way down to my gloves, new bike the exact model I had (wasn't much at the time) and any deductibles I had for medical expenses. The guy had no car insurance and lived with his mom so this was right out of his pocket. I agreed and they let him out after six months of a two year sentence. He was a real pretty boy so I am hoping he was "popular".
I'll save you the long story but the person who hit and obviously didn't kill me, spent time in jail. After five months they agreed to paying all my damages including; new clothes all the way down to my gloves, new bike the exact model I had (wasn't much at the time) and any deductibles I had for medical expenses. The guy had no car insurance and lived with his mom so this was right out of his pocket. I agreed and they let him out after six months of a two year sentence. He was a real pretty boy so I am hoping he was "popular".
maddyfish
11-19-07, 02:17 PM
What is wrong with just testing every driver yearly,a hard aggressive test?
littlewaywelt
11-19-07, 02:23 PM
What is wrong with just testing every driver yearly,a hard aggressive test?
Several things:
First it's beyond incredibly cost prohibitive, testing, increased staffing...it's just not doable. There are million other ways you could spend that money to increase the numbers of lives saved.
Second, you're talking about a relatively small problem when you look at the numbers of seniors that kill ppl in their cars compared to the numbers of seniors out there.
third, if you reduce the ability of seniors to get around bc of driving fear/problems, you'll end up with a far worse net effect, non or improperly medicated people. Far more elderly would die than the numbers of ppl they kill when they shouldn't be driving.
It's a lose lose choice anyway you cut it, but letting them drive presents the smallest burden on society as a whole.
Several things:
First it's beyond incredibly cost prohibitive, testing, increased staffing...it's just not doable. There are million other ways you could spend that money to increase the numbers of lives saved.
Second, you're talking about a relatively small problem when you look at the numbers of seniors that kill ppl in their cars compared to the numbers of seniors out there.
third, if you reduce the ability of seniors to get around bc of driving fear/problems, you'll end up with a far worse net effect, non or improperly medicated people. Far more elderly would die than the numbers of ppl they kill when they shouldn't be driving.
It's a lose lose choice anyway you cut it, but letting them drive presents the smallest burden on society as a whole.
littlewaywelt
11-19-07, 02:24 PM
Wrong, it's happening right now and has been for quite a while.
"Most states have laws which require doctors to report to the health department any patient who suffers a condition involving possible lapses of consciousness. The health department then must report that person to the DMV. In California for example, Section 103900 of the Health and Safety code states: Every physician and surgeon shall report immediately to the local health officer in writing...every patient at least 14 years of age or older...having a disorder characterized by lapses of consciousness. The code then states: The health officer shall report in writing to the Department of Motor Vehicles...every person reported to it as a case of a disorder characterized by lapses of consciousness. The DMV then determines if the person is fit to drive. "Conditions characterized by lapses of consciousness," are defined by Title 17 section 2572 of the California Code of Regulations and include "uncontrolled diabetes mellitus."
The official DMV stance is that safety hearing officers handle each individual on a case-by-case basis. An episode of hypoglycemic unconsciousness will not automatically cause the loss of a person's driving privilege if the incident is isolated and the driver has a doctor's support. But if a person with diabetes lacks medical supervision or caused an accident, the DMV says it is likely that it will suspend that individual's license. Under this regulation, the DMV may consider a person guilty until proven innocent."
wasn't aware of that, but it's very unfortunate.
"Most states have laws which require doctors to report to the health department any patient who suffers a condition involving possible lapses of consciousness. The health department then must report that person to the DMV. In California for example, Section 103900 of the Health and Safety code states: Every physician and surgeon shall report immediately to the local health officer in writing...every patient at least 14 years of age or older...having a disorder characterized by lapses of consciousness. The code then states: The health officer shall report in writing to the Department of Motor Vehicles...every person reported to it as a case of a disorder characterized by lapses of consciousness. The DMV then determines if the person is fit to drive. "Conditions characterized by lapses of consciousness," are defined by Title 17 section 2572 of the California Code of Regulations and include "uncontrolled diabetes mellitus."
The official DMV stance is that safety hearing officers handle each individual on a case-by-case basis. An episode of hypoglycemic unconsciousness will not automatically cause the loss of a person's driving privilege if the incident is isolated and the driver has a doctor's support. But if a person with diabetes lacks medical supervision or caused an accident, the DMV says it is likely that it will suspend that individual's license. Under this regulation, the DMV may consider a person guilty until proven innocent."
wasn't aware of that, but it's very unfortunate.
Bruce_B
11-19-07, 02:44 PM
third, if you reduce the ability of seniors to get around bc of driving fear/problems, you'll end up with a far worse net effect, non or improperly medicated people. Far more elderly would die than the numbers of ppl they kill when they shouldn't be driving.
It's a lose lose choice anyway you cut it, but letting them drive presents the smallest burden on society as a whole.
So it's okay to sacrifice a few innocent bystanders so we don't have to inconvenience elderly people who are no longer able to drive safely?
It's a lose lose choice anyway you cut it, but letting them drive presents the smallest burden on society as a whole.
So it's okay to sacrifice a few innocent bystanders so we don't have to inconvenience elderly people who are no longer able to drive safely?
invisiblehand
11-19-07, 02:55 PM
I think it's a great thing.
+1
Despite my libertarian leanings, I don't think that criminal/tort law can motivate enough people to behave in a socially acceptable manner with respect to actions/behavior/choices that have catastrophic and external (to the individual) outcomes. Moreover, I believe that there is some evidence that people generally have a difficult time accepting limitations voluntarily such as due to age or physical/mental impairment. In other words, I'd rather people lose a few civil liberties and have a better mechanism for limiting irresponsible behavior.
+1
Despite my libertarian leanings, I don't think that criminal/tort law can motivate enough people to behave in a socially acceptable manner with respect to actions/behavior/choices that have catastrophic and external (to the individual) outcomes. Moreover, I believe that there is some evidence that people generally have a difficult time accepting limitations voluntarily such as due to age or physical/mental impairment. In other words, I'd rather people lose a few civil liberties and have a better mechanism for limiting irresponsible behavior.
invisiblehand
11-19-07, 03:19 PM
third, if you reduce the ability of seniors to get around bc of driving fear/problems, you'll end up with a far worse net effect, non or improperly medicated people. Far more elderly would die than the numbers of ppl they kill when they shouldn't be driving.
It's a lose lose choice anyway you cut it, but letting them drive presents the smallest burden on society as a whole.
I don't find this very convincing.
Most seniors have more recreational time such that re-testing at some interval is less of a burden. While the original suggestion was re-testing everyone, a simple alternative is to just re-test after a particular age.
My recollection is that most seniors cut back on the number of miles driven. Consequently, in a strict accounting sense, it is often less costly to simply take cabs than to continue to own a car. The loss of flexibility is probably what motivates many seniors to hold onto their licenses and cars. Of course, if you are just worried about medication, there is such a thing as a mail order pharmacy and FedEx.
I suspect that most people do worry about their impairments, its effect on their driving, and the consequences of an accident. The issue is whether they worry enough to make optimal decisions not only for themselves but for the people around them. Obviously, I believe that people on average make perfectly fine decisions for themselves but fail to take into account their effects on others. Personally, I rather not expose myself and the rest of society to the higher risk of impaired drivers to the point that trading a few civil liberties is acceptable.
It's a lose lose choice anyway you cut it, but letting them drive presents the smallest burden on society as a whole.
I don't find this very convincing.
Most seniors have more recreational time such that re-testing at some interval is less of a burden. While the original suggestion was re-testing everyone, a simple alternative is to just re-test after a particular age.
My recollection is that most seniors cut back on the number of miles driven. Consequently, in a strict accounting sense, it is often less costly to simply take cabs than to continue to own a car. The loss of flexibility is probably what motivates many seniors to hold onto their licenses and cars. Of course, if you are just worried about medication, there is such a thing as a mail order pharmacy and FedEx.
I suspect that most people do worry about their impairments, its effect on their driving, and the consequences of an accident. The issue is whether they worry enough to make optimal decisions not only for themselves but for the people around them. Obviously, I believe that people on average make perfectly fine decisions for themselves but fail to take into account their effects on others. Personally, I rather not expose myself and the rest of society to the higher risk of impaired drivers to the point that trading a few civil liberties is acceptable.
Da Tinker
11-19-07, 04:43 PM
Folks, I think many are missing a basic point:
Driving a car on public roads is a priviledge, not a right.
Sadly, most people & many judges seem to have forgotten this & so many will die. Never forget that, on average, 130 souls perish on the roads of the Home of the Free every day. Every single day. I guarantee you that if this happened with a single plane crash every day, something would happen, there would be hue & cry of a momentous size, and the crashes would be stopped. But since it happens in ones & twos, all over the country, we have become calloused to it all.
Anyone watch the news this morning? One of the headline stories was about a senior tour bus crashed, only the driver killed, few serious injuries among the passengers. But because it had the potential to kill many, it made national news. And yet the three high school students killed in a pickup that left the road & hit a tree did not even make the state news here.
Driving a car on public roads is a priviledge, not a right.
Sadly, most people & many judges seem to have forgotten this & so many will die. Never forget that, on average, 130 souls perish on the roads of the Home of the Free every day. Every single day. I guarantee you that if this happened with a single plane crash every day, something would happen, there would be hue & cry of a momentous size, and the crashes would be stopped. But since it happens in ones & twos, all over the country, we have become calloused to it all.
Anyone watch the news this morning? One of the headline stories was about a senior tour bus crashed, only the driver killed, few serious injuries among the passengers. But because it had the potential to kill many, it made national news. And yet the three high school students killed in a pickup that left the road & hit a tree did not even make the state news here.
dr. nate
11-19-07, 09:34 PM
I'd be willing to guess that the number of accidents caused due to a medical condition are pretty low in number.
Guess again, the problem is that many aren't reported as medical related. I have responded to several calls involving seizure patients, diabetics, those who suffer from panic attacks, strokes, and heart attacks. However, we generally don't punish people who suffer a medical incident and cause an accident (even those resulting int he loss of life) unless gross negligence can be proven.
This is where morals and ethics come into play. We are individuals are ethically and morally responsible for making sure that we are capable of getting behind the wheel. However, many people fail to see that their actions can have an impact on society far greater than they have considered (some just don't care). While ignorance is not an excuse for not being punished, we have many who serve on juries every day who feel that ignorance is bliss.
The events with this elderly driver are not isolated, it seems that we hear about some elderly person driving into something often. That is why I said that we should push legislatures to create laws requiring everyone over a certain age to take a yearly driving test, (in Texas you take a vision test when you renew your license), and written test. We finally got this in Texas; I figure other states will follow.
I personally think $12.5 million is steep. Then again, I have always said that I would find it hard to put a price on a human life. I do not feel that the impact of my loss on family or friends would be able to be compensated. For some reason society thinks that every time you get injured and it isn't your fault someone should pay up. Granted, this driver was clearly in the wrong and I agree they shouldn't walk clean. However; I don't feel that ones first reaction should be "how much money should I get." Often, I read more posts regarding the possible finical outcomes of accidents on here instead of posts regarding the riders health. Sometimes an honest accident happens, we have all had honest accidents that were just that....accidents. There is a difference between neglect (which I believe should be punished, and this driver neglected to recognize she shouldn't be driving) and a true accident (fix what is broken). I'm a firm believer of what goes around comes around. Lawsuits can reek havoc on one's life (usually both parties) and not that the accident or loss of life won't, but sometimes I think people lose focus on what has happened. Money isn't going to bring someone back, it isn't going to make you truly happy.
I know I'll get jumped on and have people disagree with me. You might as well save your arguments, you will not change my mind. I simply believe that there are to many people who are way to quick with punishing someone (be it financially or criminally) every time an accident or incident occurs.
It was an elderly woman who killed this person, and I bet if this woman still has her mind she has a great amount of guilt for what she did. Only someone who is cold blooded will feel no pain when they have taken a life unjustly. However, what do you do with an elderly woman? Putting her in jail isn't going to do anything except make her die quicker, is that what you want to accomplish? Taking everything from her and putting her on the street will accomplish what, making her homeless? What you do in a situation like this is you learn from the mistake we have made as a society by not implementing safeguards to prevent these kind of incidents from happening again.
Just remember, every time you remove a contributing member of society (yes, I know this woman wasn't paying income tax, has fixed property tax values, etc...) and place them in jail you have done three things. First, you have placed a burden on society by making us responsible for the care of this person. Second, you have usually destroyed any kind of productive life this person will ever have. Thus, we have three...you have greatly introduced them the chance to become broken down in jail. The last thing we need is someone thinking their life will never be the same, getting released in a few years, not being able to find a job, and resorting to a life of crime (or near crime) to get by. It happens more then you think, we really don't reform as many people as we would like to believe we do. Yes, I know that argument was a bit on the extreme side.
I'm not saying that this woman or anyone else should walk because they had an accident. I'm just saying that sometimes locking them up and tossing away the key is not the best punishment, and not ever punishment will work with every person. We should learn from this unfortunate incident, and make ways to prevent further deaths and/or property damage from occurring. After all, that is part of bicycle advocacy and safety.
-Nate
BTW, I do not plan to monitor this thread heavily as I have more important things to do then argue on a website. I have stated my thoughts, which are more or less my take on fact and opinion. If you wish to comment on what I've posted, please feel free to PM me so as that we do not clutter this thread up like others have been done with pointless arguments. I do not mind a good debate, but I do not like a debate in which neither side will ever consider anyone else's argument. So back onto topic...
Guess again, the problem is that many aren't reported as medical related. I have responded to several calls involving seizure patients, diabetics, those who suffer from panic attacks, strokes, and heart attacks. However, we generally don't punish people who suffer a medical incident and cause an accident (even those resulting int he loss of life) unless gross negligence can be proven.
This is where morals and ethics come into play. We are individuals are ethically and morally responsible for making sure that we are capable of getting behind the wheel. However, many people fail to see that their actions can have an impact on society far greater than they have considered (some just don't care). While ignorance is not an excuse for not being punished, we have many who serve on juries every day who feel that ignorance is bliss.
The events with this elderly driver are not isolated, it seems that we hear about some elderly person driving into something often. That is why I said that we should push legislatures to create laws requiring everyone over a certain age to take a yearly driving test, (in Texas you take a vision test when you renew your license), and written test. We finally got this in Texas; I figure other states will follow.
I personally think $12.5 million is steep. Then again, I have always said that I would find it hard to put a price on a human life. I do not feel that the impact of my loss on family or friends would be able to be compensated. For some reason society thinks that every time you get injured and it isn't your fault someone should pay up. Granted, this driver was clearly in the wrong and I agree they shouldn't walk clean. However; I don't feel that ones first reaction should be "how much money should I get." Often, I read more posts regarding the possible finical outcomes of accidents on here instead of posts regarding the riders health. Sometimes an honest accident happens, we have all had honest accidents that were just that....accidents. There is a difference between neglect (which I believe should be punished, and this driver neglected to recognize she shouldn't be driving) and a true accident (fix what is broken). I'm a firm believer of what goes around comes around. Lawsuits can reek havoc on one's life (usually both parties) and not that the accident or loss of life won't, but sometimes I think people lose focus on what has happened. Money isn't going to bring someone back, it isn't going to make you truly happy.
I know I'll get jumped on and have people disagree with me. You might as well save your arguments, you will not change my mind. I simply believe that there are to many people who are way to quick with punishing someone (be it financially or criminally) every time an accident or incident occurs.
It was an elderly woman who killed this person, and I bet if this woman still has her mind she has a great amount of guilt for what she did. Only someone who is cold blooded will feel no pain when they have taken a life unjustly. However, what do you do with an elderly woman? Putting her in jail isn't going to do anything except make her die quicker, is that what you want to accomplish? Taking everything from her and putting her on the street will accomplish what, making her homeless? What you do in a situation like this is you learn from the mistake we have made as a society by not implementing safeguards to prevent these kind of incidents from happening again.
Just remember, every time you remove a contributing member of society (yes, I know this woman wasn't paying income tax, has fixed property tax values, etc...) and place them in jail you have done three things. First, you have placed a burden on society by making us responsible for the care of this person. Second, you have usually destroyed any kind of productive life this person will ever have. Thus, we have three...you have greatly introduced them the chance to become broken down in jail. The last thing we need is someone thinking their life will never be the same, getting released in a few years, not being able to find a job, and resorting to a life of crime (or near crime) to get by. It happens more then you think, we really don't reform as many people as we would like to believe we do. Yes, I know that argument was a bit on the extreme side.
I'm not saying that this woman or anyone else should walk because they had an accident. I'm just saying that sometimes locking them up and tossing away the key is not the best punishment, and not ever punishment will work with every person. We should learn from this unfortunate incident, and make ways to prevent further deaths and/or property damage from occurring. After all, that is part of bicycle advocacy and safety.
-Nate
BTW, I do not plan to monitor this thread heavily as I have more important things to do then argue on a website. I have stated my thoughts, which are more or less my take on fact and opinion. If you wish to comment on what I've posted, please feel free to PM me so as that we do not clutter this thread up like others have been done with pointless arguments. I do not mind a good debate, but I do not like a debate in which neither side will ever consider anyone else's argument. So back onto topic...
John E
11-20-07, 07:33 AM
This story points up several issues:
1) Current mandatory insurance coverage levels are anachronistically low. Everyone who operates a motor vehicle has the moral obligation to carry at least $1M in liability insurance coverage, but very few of us adhere to this standard.
2) "Driving is [indeed] a privilege, not a right," as the first page of the California Vehicle Code Summary read 40 years ago when I was a new motorist.
3) The DMV needs to get stricter regarding lifelong testing of motorist fitness, including vision, hearing, reaction times, and mental focus.
4) Unless the perpetrator is drunk or stoned, it is difficult to secure any significant legal penalty against a motorist who causes an "accident."
5) City planning needs to accommodate neighborhood electric vehicles by providing inter-neighborhood connecting roads with 35mph, rather than 45 or 55mph, speed limits. Many folks who are physically no longer able to control 200 horsepower in 2 tons of steel safely at 55mph can still pilot a lightweight enclosed golf cart at 25mph.
1) Current mandatory insurance coverage levels are anachronistically low. Everyone who operates a motor vehicle has the moral obligation to carry at least $1M in liability insurance coverage, but very few of us adhere to this standard.
2) "Driving is [indeed] a privilege, not a right," as the first page of the California Vehicle Code Summary read 40 years ago when I was a new motorist.
3) The DMV needs to get stricter regarding lifelong testing of motorist fitness, including vision, hearing, reaction times, and mental focus.
4) Unless the perpetrator is drunk or stoned, it is difficult to secure any significant legal penalty against a motorist who causes an "accident."
5) City planning needs to accommodate neighborhood electric vehicles by providing inter-neighborhood connecting roads with 35mph, rather than 45 or 55mph, speed limits. Many folks who are physically no longer able to control 200 horsepower in 2 tons of steel safely at 55mph can still pilot a lightweight enclosed golf cart at 25mph.
littlewaywelt
11-20-07, 07:36 AM
part of the purpose of damages like this in a civil suit is punitive.
money doesn't bring someone back, but just like denying someone his liberty, putting him in a financially difficult place for the rest of his life can be a fitting punishment. I'm all for someone like this losing everything he/she has worked his life for. It's a small price to pay considering what they have done.
I've had a loved one die as a direct result of another's negligence. I'm telling you that civil punishment is fitting when the criminal system won't engage the offender.
money doesn't bring someone back, but just like denying someone his liberty, putting him in a financially difficult place for the rest of his life can be a fitting punishment. I'm all for someone like this losing everything he/she has worked his life for. It's a small price to pay considering what they have done.
I've had a loved one die as a direct result of another's negligence. I'm telling you that civil punishment is fitting when the criminal system won't engage the offender.
dr. nate
11-20-07, 10:20 AM
money doesn't bring someone back, but just like denying someone his liberty, putting him in a financially difficult place for the rest of his life can be a fitting punishment. I'm all for someone like this losing everything he/she has worked his life for. It's a small price to pay considering what they have done.
I've had a loved one die as a direct result of another's negligence. I'm telling you that civil punishment is fitting when the criminal system won't engage the offender.
First off, I'm sorry to hear of your loss at the hands of a driver's negligence. I am not saying that lawsuits are wrong all together, I'm just saying that asking for an excessive amount (greed) is. However; I don't know how one should value one's life and thus can't present an argument as to what is deemed excessive, and what is not.
Second, I think that simply taking away everything one has is not the solution. The last thing we need to do is push someone to become dependent upon the goverment for support should their life be ruined financially.
Third, I believe in a person with a truly just and moral character to have remorse for what they have done. Said person might benefit from a punishment in which the error of their ways can play a more direct role. Such as digging a grave by hand, thus seeing the impact of bad driving. I think that would have more of an impact on said person then stripping them of everything they might own. Do you believe the driver who kills on accident should have their children suffer a life of poverty if they are young?
I apologize for not being able to present a more complete argument, I am posting via my cell phone while waiting to catch my train. I will close with an agreement that some money is owed, however maybe a more fitting punishment could be dealt. A balance of one that involes money as well as other forms. Regardless, we must work towards making our roads safer, there are to many fools out there that can and will take a life one day.
-Nate
I've had a loved one die as a direct result of another's negligence. I'm telling you that civil punishment is fitting when the criminal system won't engage the offender.
First off, I'm sorry to hear of your loss at the hands of a driver's negligence. I am not saying that lawsuits are wrong all together, I'm just saying that asking for an excessive amount (greed) is. However; I don't know how one should value one's life and thus can't present an argument as to what is deemed excessive, and what is not.
Second, I think that simply taking away everything one has is not the solution. The last thing we need to do is push someone to become dependent upon the goverment for support should their life be ruined financially.
Third, I believe in a person with a truly just and moral character to have remorse for what they have done. Said person might benefit from a punishment in which the error of their ways can play a more direct role. Such as digging a grave by hand, thus seeing the impact of bad driving. I think that would have more of an impact on said person then stripping them of everything they might own. Do you believe the driver who kills on accident should have their children suffer a life of poverty if they are young?
I apologize for not being able to present a more complete argument, I am posting via my cell phone while waiting to catch my train. I will close with an agreement that some money is owed, however maybe a more fitting punishment could be dealt. A balance of one that involes money as well as other forms. Regardless, we must work towards making our roads safer, there are to many fools out there that can and will take a life one day.
-Nate
littlewaywelt
11-20-07, 10:58 AM
wasn't a driver, in my case...medical
It's not about greed always. Very often it's about punishment which can be proportional. If your mistake costs someone else his life, it's not unreasonable to take away yours in a manner of speaking. You've done permanent harm. The amount of money a person can produce in a lifetime that's taken away can be substantial. if you get killed, are 30yo and you make 150k. It's very easy to get into big numbers in lost income to the surviving family. That's not greed, it's a logical number based on lifespan and projected income. It's no different than rear ending a ferrari vs a honda. The former will likely exceed your insurance and it's going to cost you.
In this case, i have no problem seeing someone go on welfare or have to start over. Those numbers pail in comparison to what it would cost to engage her in the criminal justice system. She destroyed another family's life. I'd argue that losing everything financially is still hardly a fitting punishment. She gets to love her family, live her life and try to start over.
To answer your question, yes I do. Being young is irrelevant. A young person has plenty of time to rebuild a life and finances, and if it takes that person a lifetime to do it bc a jury decided a hefty fine was in order so be it. A person has to accept responsibility for what he's done.
It's not about greed always. Very often it's about punishment which can be proportional. If your mistake costs someone else his life, it's not unreasonable to take away yours in a manner of speaking. You've done permanent harm. The amount of money a person can produce in a lifetime that's taken away can be substantial. if you get killed, are 30yo and you make 150k. It's very easy to get into big numbers in lost income to the surviving family. That's not greed, it's a logical number based on lifespan and projected income. It's no different than rear ending a ferrari vs a honda. The former will likely exceed your insurance and it's going to cost you.
In this case, i have no problem seeing someone go on welfare or have to start over. Those numbers pail in comparison to what it would cost to engage her in the criminal justice system. She destroyed another family's life. I'd argue that losing everything financially is still hardly a fitting punishment. She gets to love her family, live her life and try to start over.
To answer your question, yes I do. Being young is irrelevant. A young person has plenty of time to rebuild a life and finances, and if it takes that person a lifetime to do it bc a jury decided a hefty fine was in order so be it. A person has to accept responsibility for what he's done.
dr. nate
11-20-07, 11:56 AM
Who pays for these people who go on government assitance? You and I do. Is it fair to use to deney other programs in our cash strapped budget so that we can pay for those who are on assitance because of the deep depression and inability to function in life due to the loss of everything? I do not want to see funding cut from education programs for public schools so that we can increase the amount of funding for assistance programs that these people would require. Granted we pay for criminals to seek government assistance daily as it is, lets not add more to an already strained network of programs.
Regarding the age thing, I was refering to the children (lets say 10 and 13 years old) of the driver that killed someone in an accident. Lets say that this driver happens to make six figures, his wife is a stay at home mother by choice, and their children enjoy the ability of having a private education. Would it be fair to say that these children should lose that education, and thus be forced to go to public schools in low performing districts (typical of areas of poverty)?
You may win a judgement against a driver, however, in most states you cannot take their home, retirement, or force them to sell their car. You can lay claim to their wages and any liquid assets they may have; but if your the average Joe there may not be anything to collect. I'm just a paramedic, if you sued me right now you wouldn't get anything because I have very little. So you might collect a court ordered amount of a few hundred dollars, that is it. Most of us don't have the ability to pay out several hundred thousand dollars, let alone any amount any higher.
I would like to point out one punishment in which a young man killed a woman while drinking in driving. After being released from prison, he was required to send the family a check for $1.00 every month as a reminder of what he did. The amount wasn't the punishment, it was the fact that he was reminded every single month of what he had done. It drove him nuts, he tried to send a year's worth of money at a time, but the courts rejected it. He paid, $1.00 every month by check.
You and I are responsible for our own well being, and that our family is taken care of in the event of death. This is why we have life insurance, I hate to say it; but we have this because crimes like this happen to people. The same applies to your car example. I drive a Chevy truck, it is worth under $25,000. My insurance policy reflects that, which if I hit someone that is driving a $70,000 car my policy will not pay off the total amount. Granted a smart owner of said expensive car would maintain full coverage so it would be. As a result, his insurance company would come after me. We would end up back in the position I stated above.
The only people who win in lawsuits 100% of the time are the lawyers. It does no good to have a huge judgement against someone if you cannot collect. Someone stated above that jail time was needed (post number two or three I believe). They are correct in a way, punishment outside of money is needed. For the woman in the story, she is elderly and probably doesn't have the $12.5 million to pay. So in a way, you can say she "got off" because the family will never collect. This is why I argue for more then just a punishment of the pocket book.
I agree 100% that one's lost wages, expenses, and future earnings should be compensated. I however do not know of a way to gain such compensation without impacting society as a whole, causing further damage to those other then the guilty party, and in a mannor that isn't going to take forever. Once again punishment is not objected too, proper punishment is what is being questioned.
After long consideration, I believe that aside from compensating the family for their losses in the form of money, I believe she should have been required to do some form of community service directly related to this accident. Maybe she could have been placed a desk and spent a few hours a day calling people just to inform them of what she has done, and that they should support bills that would require elderly drivers to take yearly tests.
I use to work for a department that had two teens spray paint the windows on our ambulance. They were fined, sentenced to a few weekends in kiddie jail, and required to spend so many community service hours washing the ambulances, but also on the ambulances so they can see how their actions impacted the community. So while that ambulance was in the shop, they rode out with us on a reserve more worn ambulance. They saw what it is that we do, and they saw just how important every part of that ambulance and the equpiment is. I think they learned more from seeing the effect of their actions then just having to pay out money or sit in jail.
-Nate
Regarding the age thing, I was refering to the children (lets say 10 and 13 years old) of the driver that killed someone in an accident. Lets say that this driver happens to make six figures, his wife is a stay at home mother by choice, and their children enjoy the ability of having a private education. Would it be fair to say that these children should lose that education, and thus be forced to go to public schools in low performing districts (typical of areas of poverty)?
You may win a judgement against a driver, however, in most states you cannot take their home, retirement, or force them to sell their car. You can lay claim to their wages and any liquid assets they may have; but if your the average Joe there may not be anything to collect. I'm just a paramedic, if you sued me right now you wouldn't get anything because I have very little. So you might collect a court ordered amount of a few hundred dollars, that is it. Most of us don't have the ability to pay out several hundred thousand dollars, let alone any amount any higher.
I would like to point out one punishment in which a young man killed a woman while drinking in driving. After being released from prison, he was required to send the family a check for $1.00 every month as a reminder of what he did. The amount wasn't the punishment, it was the fact that he was reminded every single month of what he had done. It drove him nuts, he tried to send a year's worth of money at a time, but the courts rejected it. He paid, $1.00 every month by check.
You and I are responsible for our own well being, and that our family is taken care of in the event of death. This is why we have life insurance, I hate to say it; but we have this because crimes like this happen to people. The same applies to your car example. I drive a Chevy truck, it is worth under $25,000. My insurance policy reflects that, which if I hit someone that is driving a $70,000 car my policy will not pay off the total amount. Granted a smart owner of said expensive car would maintain full coverage so it would be. As a result, his insurance company would come after me. We would end up back in the position I stated above.
The only people who win in lawsuits 100% of the time are the lawyers. It does no good to have a huge judgement against someone if you cannot collect. Someone stated above that jail time was needed (post number two or three I believe). They are correct in a way, punishment outside of money is needed. For the woman in the story, she is elderly and probably doesn't have the $12.5 million to pay. So in a way, you can say she "got off" because the family will never collect. This is why I argue for more then just a punishment of the pocket book.
I agree 100% that one's lost wages, expenses, and future earnings should be compensated. I however do not know of a way to gain such compensation without impacting society as a whole, causing further damage to those other then the guilty party, and in a mannor that isn't going to take forever. Once again punishment is not objected too, proper punishment is what is being questioned.
After long consideration, I believe that aside from compensating the family for their losses in the form of money, I believe she should have been required to do some form of community service directly related to this accident. Maybe she could have been placed a desk and spent a few hours a day calling people just to inform them of what she has done, and that they should support bills that would require elderly drivers to take yearly tests.
I use to work for a department that had two teens spray paint the windows on our ambulance. They were fined, sentenced to a few weekends in kiddie jail, and required to spend so many community service hours washing the ambulances, but also on the ambulances so they can see how their actions impacted the community. So while that ambulance was in the shop, they rode out with us on a reserve more worn ambulance. They saw what it is that we do, and they saw just how important every part of that ambulance and the equpiment is. I think they learned more from seeing the effect of their actions then just having to pay out money or sit in jail.
-Nate
littlewaywelt
11-20-07, 12:57 PM
Who pays for these people who go on government assitance? You and I do. Is it fair to use to deney other programs in our cash strapped budget so that we can pay for those who are on assitance because of the deep depression and inability to function in life due to the loss of everything? I do not want to see funding cut from education programs for public schools so that we can increase the amount of funding for assistance programs that these people would require. Granted we pay for criminals to seek government assistance daily as it is, lets not add more to an already strained network of programs.
This problem isn't big enough to create a burden on society. Sorry.
Regarding the age thing, I was refering to the children (lets say 10 and 13 years old) of the driver that killed someone in an accident. Lets say that this driver happens to make six figures, his wife is a stay at home mother by choice, and their children enjoy the ability of having a private education. Would it be fair to say that these children should lose that education, and thus be forced to go to public schools in low performing districts (typical of areas of poverty)?
Yes. It's fair and it's reality. And someone that's making six figures should be smart and educated enough to carry a policy big enough to prevent this type of rare disaster. It's a ridiculous argument. Those kids aren't entitled to having a successful father. If the father f's up and it affects the kids, that's the father's problem, and that's the nature of punishment. What if he committed a criminal offense and ended up in jail, lost his job. Same net effect. What if he just loses his job bc he makes a bad mistake at work?
So you're saying that hypothetically, a Dr's gross negligent mistake kills me, that the Dr kids have more right than my my kids do when he caused the problem to begin with? BS. ...and private school is not a right. Additionally, I don't know too many physicians that live in poverty sticken areas with low performing schools.
You may win a judgement against a driver, however, in most states you cannot take their home, retirement, or force them to sell their car. You can lay claim to their wages and any liquid assets they may have; but if your the average Joe there may not be anything to collect. I'm just a paramedic, if you sued me right now you wouldn't get anything because I have very little. So you might collect a court ordered amount of a few hundred dollars, that is it. Most of us don't have the ability to pay out several hundred thousand dollars, let alone any amount any higher.
That is not true. A court can force them to liquidate everything. It happens every day. You have protections on things like that via some good-samaritan laws/codes, but not for something like gross vehicular manslaughter.
I would like to point out one punishment in which a young man killed a woman while drinking in driving. After being released from prison, he was required to send the family a check for $1.00 every month as a reminder of what he did. The amount wasn't the punishment, it was the fact that he was reminded every single month of what he had done. It drove him nuts, he tried to send a year's worth of money at a time, but the courts rejected it. He paid, $1.00 every month by check.
That case happened what, 20 years ago? it's not reality and it would hardly be viewed as a comparable punishment.
You and I are responsible for our own well being, and that our family is taken care of in the event of death. This is why we have life insurance, I hate to say it; but we have this because crimes like this happen to people. The same applies to your car example. I drive a Chevy truck, it is worth under $25,000. My insurance policy reflects that, which if I hit someone that is driving a $70,000 car my policy will not pay off the total amount. Granted a smart owner of said expensive car would maintain full coverage so it would be. As a result, his insurance company would come after me. We would end up back in the position I stated above.
If you're not fully insured that's the gamble you take. Insurance is a gamble, just like not having it or not having enough of it. ...and in your example you bear the responsibility of making that up if his insurance company comes after you personally for the difference not made up by your coverage. Again, it's your gamble.
The only people who win in lawsuits 100% of the time are the lawyers. It does no good to have a huge judgement against someone if you cannot collect. Someone stated above that jail time was needed (post number two or three I believe). They are correct in a way, punishment outside of money is needed. For the woman in the story, she is elderly and probably doesn't have the $12.5 million to pay. So in a way, you can say she "got off" because the family will never collect. This is why I argue for more then just a punishment of the pocket book.
Sure it does. That lawsuit will be hanging over them forever. They'll never get a mortgage, be able to finance a car well. It's a real punishment.
I agree 100% that one's lost wages, expenses, and future earnings should be compensated. I however do not know of a way to gain such compensation without impacting society as a whole, causing further damage to those other then the guilty party, and in a mannor that isn't going to take forever. Once again punishment is not objected too, proper punishment is what is being questioned.
After long consideration, I believe that aside from compensating the family for their losses in the form of money, I believe she should have been required to do some form of community service directly related to this accident. Maybe she could have been placed a desk and spent a few hours a day calling people just to inform them of what she has done, and that they should support bills that would require elderly drivers to take yearly tests.
You talk about money and gvt spending...spending tax money on testing would so far eclipise what gets spent to house criminals in this arena or in supporting ppl that lose everything via a civil suit.
I use to work for a department that had two teens spray paint the windows on our ambulance. They were fined, sentenced to a few weekends in kiddie jail, and required to spend so many community service hours washing the ambulances, but also on the ambulances so they can see how their actions impacted the community. So while that ambulance was in the shop, they rode out with us on a reserve more worn ambulance. They saw what it is that we do, and they saw just how important every part of that ambulance and the equpiment is. I think they learned more from seeing the effect of their actions then just having to pay out money or sit in jail.
Sure...but those are kids and those types of experiences rarely work or make any difference.
This problem isn't big enough to create a burden on society. Sorry.
Regarding the age thing, I was refering to the children (lets say 10 and 13 years old) of the driver that killed someone in an accident. Lets say that this driver happens to make six figures, his wife is a stay at home mother by choice, and their children enjoy the ability of having a private education. Would it be fair to say that these children should lose that education, and thus be forced to go to public schools in low performing districts (typical of areas of poverty)?
Yes. It's fair and it's reality. And someone that's making six figures should be smart and educated enough to carry a policy big enough to prevent this type of rare disaster. It's a ridiculous argument. Those kids aren't entitled to having a successful father. If the father f's up and it affects the kids, that's the father's problem, and that's the nature of punishment. What if he committed a criminal offense and ended up in jail, lost his job. Same net effect. What if he just loses his job bc he makes a bad mistake at work?
So you're saying that hypothetically, a Dr's gross negligent mistake kills me, that the Dr kids have more right than my my kids do when he caused the problem to begin with? BS. ...and private school is not a right. Additionally, I don't know too many physicians that live in poverty sticken areas with low performing schools.
You may win a judgement against a driver, however, in most states you cannot take their home, retirement, or force them to sell their car. You can lay claim to their wages and any liquid assets they may have; but if your the average Joe there may not be anything to collect. I'm just a paramedic, if you sued me right now you wouldn't get anything because I have very little. So you might collect a court ordered amount of a few hundred dollars, that is it. Most of us don't have the ability to pay out several hundred thousand dollars, let alone any amount any higher.
That is not true. A court can force them to liquidate everything. It happens every day. You have protections on things like that via some good-samaritan laws/codes, but not for something like gross vehicular manslaughter.
I would like to point out one punishment in which a young man killed a woman while drinking in driving. After being released from prison, he was required to send the family a check for $1.00 every month as a reminder of what he did. The amount wasn't the punishment, it was the fact that he was reminded every single month of what he had done. It drove him nuts, he tried to send a year's worth of money at a time, but the courts rejected it. He paid, $1.00 every month by check.
That case happened what, 20 years ago? it's not reality and it would hardly be viewed as a comparable punishment.
You and I are responsible for our own well being, and that our family is taken care of in the event of death. This is why we have life insurance, I hate to say it; but we have this because crimes like this happen to people. The same applies to your car example. I drive a Chevy truck, it is worth under $25,000. My insurance policy reflects that, which if I hit someone that is driving a $70,000 car my policy will not pay off the total amount. Granted a smart owner of said expensive car would maintain full coverage so it would be. As a result, his insurance company would come after me. We would end up back in the position I stated above.
If you're not fully insured that's the gamble you take. Insurance is a gamble, just like not having it or not having enough of it. ...and in your example you bear the responsibility of making that up if his insurance company comes after you personally for the difference not made up by your coverage. Again, it's your gamble.
The only people who win in lawsuits 100% of the time are the lawyers. It does no good to have a huge judgement against someone if you cannot collect. Someone stated above that jail time was needed (post number two or three I believe). They are correct in a way, punishment outside of money is needed. For the woman in the story, she is elderly and probably doesn't have the $12.5 million to pay. So in a way, you can say she "got off" because the family will never collect. This is why I argue for more then just a punishment of the pocket book.
Sure it does. That lawsuit will be hanging over them forever. They'll never get a mortgage, be able to finance a car well. It's a real punishment.
I agree 100% that one's lost wages, expenses, and future earnings should be compensated. I however do not know of a way to gain such compensation without impacting society as a whole, causing further damage to those other then the guilty party, and in a mannor that isn't going to take forever. Once again punishment is not objected too, proper punishment is what is being questioned.
After long consideration, I believe that aside from compensating the family for their losses in the form of money, I believe she should have been required to do some form of community service directly related to this accident. Maybe she could have been placed a desk and spent a few hours a day calling people just to inform them of what she has done, and that they should support bills that would require elderly drivers to take yearly tests.
You talk about money and gvt spending...spending tax money on testing would so far eclipise what gets spent to house criminals in this arena or in supporting ppl that lose everything via a civil suit.
I use to work for a department that had two teens spray paint the windows on our ambulance. They were fined, sentenced to a few weekends in kiddie jail, and required to spend so many community service hours washing the ambulances, but also on the ambulances so they can see how their actions impacted the community. So while that ambulance was in the shop, they rode out with us on a reserve more worn ambulance. They saw what it is that we do, and they saw just how important every part of that ambulance and the equpiment is. I think they learned more from seeing the effect of their actions then just having to pay out money or sit in jail.
Sure...but those are kids and those types of experiences rarely work or make any difference.
dr. nate
11-20-07, 01:55 PM
I will have to wait until I am able to respond on a computer. My phone is not the proper device in which to respond to the response you present. I apologize for delaying the conversation.
-Nate
-Nate
littlewaywelt
11-20-07, 02:04 PM
I will have to wait until I am able to respond on a computer. My phone is not the proper device in which to respond to the response you present. I apologize for delaying the conversation.
-Nate
no worries. after this post I won't have time to look until next week.
have a nice thanksgiving.
-Nate
no worries. after this post I won't have time to look until next week.
have a nice thanksgiving.
Allister
11-20-07, 05:26 PM
Very interesting idea, but requiring physicians to report their patients' private medical conditions or histories if they might interfere with driving or anything else for that matter is never going to happen. I'd hate to be in charge of drawing the line.
I don't think we should be advocating breaching patient/doctor confidentiality. However, it is a requirement for people holding driver's licenses to disclose any conditions that may interfere with their driving. It's been a question on the application/renewal form here for as long as I've been driving. If this driver didn't declare her condition to the licensing body, and drove anyway, the negligence falls entirely on her.
Should cancer patients that sometimes get dizzy lose their licenses?
Oh lordy, yes! Any medical condition that could possibly inhibit control of a motor vehicle should be a reason to stop driving. A responsible person will chose not to drive all on their own if they are aware of such a condition. I know I would, if only out of a sense of self-preservation.
I don't think we should be advocating breaching patient/doctor confidentiality. However, it is a requirement for people holding driver's licenses to disclose any conditions that may interfere with their driving. It's been a question on the application/renewal form here for as long as I've been driving. If this driver didn't declare her condition to the licensing body, and drove anyway, the negligence falls entirely on her.
Should cancer patients that sometimes get dizzy lose their licenses?
Oh lordy, yes! Any medical condition that could possibly inhibit control of a motor vehicle should be a reason to stop driving. A responsible person will chose not to drive all on their own if they are aware of such a condition. I know I would, if only out of a sense of self-preservation.
Allister
11-20-07, 05:45 PM
I'd be willing to guess that the number of accidents caused due to a medical condition are pretty low in number.
Actually there's been some reports done here recently that indicate that driving under the influence of prescription medication is at least as prevalent as alcohol or illicit drugs, possibly moreso, and just as dangerous.
See here (http://www.aami.com.au/about_aami_insurance/aami_news_centre/pdf/press_releases/PresDrugsPR231106national.pdf).
Actually there's been some reports done here recently that indicate that driving under the influence of prescription medication is at least as prevalent as alcohol or illicit drugs, possibly moreso, and just as dangerous.
See here (http://www.aami.com.au/about_aami_insurance/aami_news_centre/pdf/press_releases/PresDrugsPR231106national.pdf).
dr. nate
11-20-07, 06:48 PM
Don't forget accidents caused by those who fall asleep at the wheel.
-Nate
-Nate
CommuterRun
11-21-07, 02:26 AM
Several things:
First it's beyond incredibly cost prohibitive, testing, increased staffing...
That's not a problem. Just pass the increased costs on to anybody that wants a license or renewal. I personally think that extensive retesting done every three years, both written and practical, across the board for everybody would be great.
First it's beyond incredibly cost prohibitive, testing, increased staffing...
That's not a problem. Just pass the increased costs on to anybody that wants a license or renewal. I personally think that extensive retesting done every three years, both written and practical, across the board for everybody would be great.
LittleBigMan
11-22-07, 09:08 AM
It's always tragic beyond words when someone is killed on the road.
But if the cyclist was homeless, the "accident" would have been swept under the rug.
But if the cyclist was homeless, the "accident" would have been swept under the rug.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.