gfrance
02-01-08, 12:08 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/7222690.stm
View Full Version : Text driver faces jail over death
mconlonx
02-01-08, 12:33 PM
Huh. "Died of head injuries" and yet not a single comment in the article about helmet use. Guess things get reported different over in the UK v. in the USA...
StrangeWill
02-01-08, 05:58 PM
Good riddance, may a just punishment be given. I'm tired of dumb people getting away with dumb **** because it's the norm.
unkchunk
02-01-08, 07:33 PM
Well, she's got a whole month now to think about how long she's going to have to think about it. Sometimes I wish they would release the transcript of the actual text message so we all could see what was so important that they had to kill someone to read it immediately. Glad to read "It's pretty routine nowadays at the scene of these serious or fatal accidents to seize drivers' mobile phones, and to have them analysed to see if the phone has had anything to do with the driving standards involved". I hope it's that way in the US too.
StrangeWill
02-01-08, 07:42 PM
Well, she's got a whole month now to think about how long she's going to have to think about it. Sometimes I wish they would release the transcript of the actual text message so we all could see what was so important that they had to kill someone to read it immediately. Glad to read "It's pretty routine nowadays at the scene of these serious or fatal accidents to seize drivers' mobile phones, and to have them analysed to see if the phone has had anything to do with the driving standards involved". I hope it's that way in the US too.
"im bout 2 hit a bike g2g"
"im bout 2 hit a bike g2g"
atbman
02-02-08, 02:56 AM
Unfortunately for the cycling community, he also bears/bore responsibility for the collision as he was RLJing at the time.
The judge, however told her that, had she not been texting, she would have seen him doing so. It is also possible (so I have read - not seen the trial transcript) that she was exceeding the speed limit.
Using a mobile phone while driving is probably as prevalent over here as it is in the US. We've banned handhelds but using handsfree ones is allowed, in spite of the overwhelming weight of evidence that they distract the driver just as much and impair driving capacity even more than DUI.
Even more bizarrely, when the govt brought in the legislation several years ago, they announced that there would be a 3-month period of grace, during which drivers could continue to use them, instead of cracking down hard from the start and thereby making a thorough public statement about the dangers drivers pose to other road users when phoning/textig/downloading ringtones, etc.
I see people using the damn things on every journey I make, whether by bike or car
The judge, however told her that, had she not been texting, she would have seen him doing so. It is also possible (so I have read - not seen the trial transcript) that she was exceeding the speed limit.
Using a mobile phone while driving is probably as prevalent over here as it is in the US. We've banned handhelds but using handsfree ones is allowed, in spite of the overwhelming weight of evidence that they distract the driver just as much and impair driving capacity even more than DUI.
Even more bizarrely, when the govt brought in the legislation several years ago, they announced that there would be a 3-month period of grace, during which drivers could continue to use them, instead of cracking down hard from the start and thereby making a thorough public statement about the dangers drivers pose to other road users when phoning/textig/downloading ringtones, etc.
I see people using the damn things on every journey I make, whether by bike or car
StrangeWill
02-02-08, 04:50 AM
Using a mobile phone while driving is probably as prevalent over here as it is in the US. We've banned handhelds but using handsfree ones is allowed, in spite of the overwhelming weight of evidence that they distract the driver just as much and impair driving capacity even more than DUI.
I haven't seen any reports, I remember they did under legal limit on Mythbusters, but as usual they copped out actually seeing what BAC level was an equivalent to driving with a cell phone.
I haven't seen any reports, I remember they did under legal limit on Mythbusters, but as usual they copped out actually seeing what BAC level was an equivalent to driving with a cell phone.
Carusoswi
02-03-08, 02:59 AM
in spite of the overwhelming weight of evidence that they distract the driver just as much and impair driving capacity even more than DUI.
I challenge you (or anyone) to present this overwhelming evidence. The comment is pure hyperbole, spun over and over again by the anti-cell phone crowd.
I agree that she should not have been texting - and the prevalence of cell phones, not just in cars, but everywhere, annoys me. But having the government tell me what to do in my personal life annoys me more.
. . . and I'm surprised how far down the thread I had to read before coming across a comment from someone who actually seems to have read and comprehended the information provided in the article:
I find perplexing comments such as:
Huh. "Died of head injuries" and yet not a single comment in the article about helmet use. Guess things get reported different over in the UK v. in the USA...
and . . .
Good riddance, may a just punishment be given. I'm tired of dumb people getting away with dumb **** because it's the norm.
To which dumb “people” do you refer, SW? The driver, the cyclist, or both?
The root cause of this accident was a cyclist who ran a red light. The driver didn’t stray off her path and strike him as he was waiting dutifully for the light to change in his favor.
The article clearly states that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet, also. It’s right there in black and white.
Based upon the information given in the article, I’m not so certain the driver deserves jail time. While we are free to speculate that she might have been able to avoid the accident had she not been texting, it’s also possible that the cyclist darted out so suddenly that no driver could have avoided striking him . . . it’s possible that no clear evidence exists to clear up that issue one way or the other.
One fact is abundantly clear . . . the cyclist ran the light.
Caruso
I challenge you (or anyone) to present this overwhelming evidence. The comment is pure hyperbole, spun over and over again by the anti-cell phone crowd.
I agree that she should not have been texting - and the prevalence of cell phones, not just in cars, but everywhere, annoys me. But having the government tell me what to do in my personal life annoys me more.
. . . and I'm surprised how far down the thread I had to read before coming across a comment from someone who actually seems to have read and comprehended the information provided in the article:
I find perplexing comments such as:
Huh. "Died of head injuries" and yet not a single comment in the article about helmet use. Guess things get reported different over in the UK v. in the USA...
and . . .
Good riddance, may a just punishment be given. I'm tired of dumb people getting away with dumb **** because it's the norm.
To which dumb “people” do you refer, SW? The driver, the cyclist, or both?
The root cause of this accident was a cyclist who ran a red light. The driver didn’t stray off her path and strike him as he was waiting dutifully for the light to change in his favor.
The article clearly states that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet, also. It’s right there in black and white.
Based upon the information given in the article, I’m not so certain the driver deserves jail time. While we are free to speculate that she might have been able to avoid the accident had she not been texting, it’s also possible that the cyclist darted out so suddenly that no driver could have avoided striking him . . . it’s possible that no clear evidence exists to clear up that issue one way or the other.
One fact is abundantly clear . . . the cyclist ran the light.
Caruso
JusticeZero
02-03-08, 03:40 AM
Get ready for the storm of people defending red light running...
They damn near got bicycles outlawed in Melbourne over a biker running a red light and killing people, but did that stop people from blowing through a red at full speed? Nope...
They damn near got bicycles outlawed in Melbourne over a biker running a red light and killing people, but did that stop people from blowing through a red at full speed? Nope...
atbman
02-03-08, 05:24 AM
I challenge you (or anyone) to present this overwhelming evidence. The comment is pure hyperbole, spun over and over again by the anti-cell phone crowd.
http://www.iihs.org/news/2005/iihs_news_071205.pdf
http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4101.pdf
http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr3203.pdf
As is the way of these things, I came across a site with a page full of studies, which I didn't include in Favourites and can't find. However, a quick search found the above.
I agree that she should not have been texting - and the prevalence of cell phones, not just in cars, but everywhere, annoys me. But having the government tell me what to do in my personal life annoys me more.
Agree with with your first sentence, but your right to do what you want in your personal life stops where my safety begins.
. . . and I'm surprised how far down the thread I had to read before coming across a comment from someone who actually seems to have read and comprehended the information provided in the article:
The root cause of this accident was a cyclist who ran a red light. The driver didn’t stray off her path and strike him as he was waiting dutifully for the light to change in his favor.
The article clearly states that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet, also. It’s right there in black and white.
Wholeheartedly agree on the cyclist. However, no matter how much one might detest RLJers (and I do, because they make life difficult for the law-abiding amongst us), as the judge said, had she not been texting (i.e. not looking where she was going) and not been doing 43mph in a 30mph zone, she might well have avoided him.
As far as helmet wearing is concerned, they're not designed for a 43mph side collision with a ton or more of steel glass rubber and plastic. Both of them bear responsibility, his being the primary one, but, had he been goin in the same direction and waiting to in the middle of the junction to turn right, would she have seen him? Arguably, not while texting.
Based upon the information given in the article, I’m not so certain the driver deserves jail time. While we are free to speculate that she might have been able to avoid the accident had she not been texting, it’s also possible that the cyclist darted out so suddenly that no driver could have avoided striking him . . . it’s possible that no clear evidence exists to clear up that issue one way or the other.
One fact is abundantly clear . . . the cyclist ran the light.
Caruso[/QUOTE]
Bottom line, both were breaking the law in a manner which could lead to a fatal collision and both deserve punishment -sadly the cyclist created his own. She, on the other hand, would, probably, have created another collision on another occasion, because anyone who believes that you can text/read, look for a tape/cd, shave, put on makeup, look at a map, etc., while driving is guilty, not only of a criminal offence, but of contempt for the rest of us.
http://www.iihs.org/news/2005/iihs_news_071205.pdf
http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4101.pdf
http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr3203.pdf
As is the way of these things, I came across a site with a page full of studies, which I didn't include in Favourites and can't find. However, a quick search found the above.
I agree that she should not have been texting - and the prevalence of cell phones, not just in cars, but everywhere, annoys me. But having the government tell me what to do in my personal life annoys me more.
Agree with with your first sentence, but your right to do what you want in your personal life stops where my safety begins.
. . . and I'm surprised how far down the thread I had to read before coming across a comment from someone who actually seems to have read and comprehended the information provided in the article:
The root cause of this accident was a cyclist who ran a red light. The driver didn’t stray off her path and strike him as he was waiting dutifully for the light to change in his favor.
The article clearly states that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet, also. It’s right there in black and white.
Wholeheartedly agree on the cyclist. However, no matter how much one might detest RLJers (and I do, because they make life difficult for the law-abiding amongst us), as the judge said, had she not been texting (i.e. not looking where she was going) and not been doing 43mph in a 30mph zone, she might well have avoided him.
As far as helmet wearing is concerned, they're not designed for a 43mph side collision with a ton or more of steel glass rubber and plastic. Both of them bear responsibility, his being the primary one, but, had he been goin in the same direction and waiting to in the middle of the junction to turn right, would she have seen him? Arguably, not while texting.
Based upon the information given in the article, I’m not so certain the driver deserves jail time. While we are free to speculate that she might have been able to avoid the accident had she not been texting, it’s also possible that the cyclist darted out so suddenly that no driver could have avoided striking him . . . it’s possible that no clear evidence exists to clear up that issue one way or the other.
One fact is abundantly clear . . . the cyclist ran the light.
Caruso[/QUOTE]
Bottom line, both were breaking the law in a manner which could lead to a fatal collision and both deserve punishment -sadly the cyclist created his own. She, on the other hand, would, probably, have created another collision on another occasion, because anyone who believes that you can text/read, look for a tape/cd, shave, put on makeup, look at a map, etc., while driving is guilty, not only of a criminal offence, but of contempt for the rest of us.
StrangeWill
02-03-08, 05:35 AM
To which dumb “people” do you refer, SW? The driver, the cyclist, or both?
The root cause of this accident was a cyclist who ran a red light. The driver didn’t stray off her path and strike him as he was waiting dutifully for the light to change in his favor.
The article clearly states that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet, also. It’s right there in black and white.
Based upon the information given in the article, I’m not so certain the driver deserves jail time. While we are free to speculate that she might have been able to avoid the accident had she not been texting, it’s also possible that the cyclist darted out so suddenly that no driver could have avoided striking him . . . it’s possible that no clear evidence exists to clear up that issue one way or the other.
One fact is abundantly clear . . . the cyclist ran the light.
Caruso
Sorry missed the red light running part, before hand I meant the texting driver. However you can accidentally run a read light, you don't accidentally text your friend while behind the wheel of a car.
The root cause of this accident was a cyclist who ran a red light. The driver didn’t stray off her path and strike him as he was waiting dutifully for the light to change in his favor.
The article clearly states that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet, also. It’s right there in black and white.
Based upon the information given in the article, I’m not so certain the driver deserves jail time. While we are free to speculate that she might have been able to avoid the accident had she not been texting, it’s also possible that the cyclist darted out so suddenly that no driver could have avoided striking him . . . it’s possible that no clear evidence exists to clear up that issue one way or the other.
One fact is abundantly clear . . . the cyclist ran the light.
Caruso
Sorry missed the red light running part, before hand I meant the texting driver. However you can accidentally run a read light, you don't accidentally text your friend while behind the wheel of a car.
Carusoswi
02-03-08, 06:32 PM
http://www.iihs.org/news/2005/iihs_news_071205.pdf
http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4101.pdf
http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr3203.pdf
As is the way of these things, I came across a site with a page full of studies, which I didn't include in Favourites and can't find. However, a quick search found the above.
Must have really been a quick search. If you take time to examine the articles, none could be characterized as overwhelming evidence (most are admittedly speculative), and none substantiate that cell phone use is worse than DUI.
Comparing cell phone records for use during a period prior to an accident against some arbitrarily defined period of a driver's accident free driving record is only associative and proves little, other than the fact that cell phone records indicate the phone was in use prior to the accident.
The non-accident period might represent times when the driver was not even in the car.
. . . and that was the strongest of your three citations. Hardly overwhelming, and certainly no valid amplification of a claim that cell phone use is more distracting than DUI.
[Agree with with your first sentence, but your right to do what you want in your personal life stops where my safety begins.
Actually, my right to do what I want in my personal life is protected by the law of the land in which I live. Your perception of my threat to your safety does not give you the right to infringe upon my rights. You and I do not disagree so much about safety – the lady should not have been texting – but, I use my phone as part of my business, drive some 65k miles per year, and the cell phone used during my drives is an integral tool for me. To have it outlawed on the weight of flimsy studies such as those you cited, or some unsubstantiated, over-hyped claim that cell phone use is worse than driving drunk is ridiculous, and I will advocate as I am able to insure that such intrusive measures are not enacted wherever I can. Helmets probably do reduce injury, perhaps can even save lives, but I don’t believe we need laws mandating their use while riding (especially where adults are concerned). Some folks would probably be wise not to use a cell phone (or tune their radio, or consult a map or GPS, straighten their hair, or have a conversation with their passenger) while driving. They ain’t me, and I don’t want your crusade to protect your perceived personal safety to become an invasion of my freedom.
As far as helmet wearing is concerned, they're not designed for a 43mph side collision with a ton or more of steel glass rubber and plastic
True, and I hope you realize that my mention of helmets in my previous post did not advocate for or against their use. I merely pointed out that someone expressed surprise that the issue wasn’t mentioned in the article when, in fact, it was.
because anyone who believes that you can text/read, look for a tape/cd, shave, put on makeup, look at a map, etc., while driving is guilty, not only of a criminal offence, but of contempt for the rest of us
Tough talk, but mostly empty hyperbole. None of the secondary activities you mention are criminal offences, sorry, and, in your sentence, you characterize as criminal not the act of committing those secondary activities, but the mere belief on ones part that one may engage in those activities while driving as a criminal and contemptuous act.
Tough language, but the criminal part just ain’t so, and the contemptuous part is your opinion (which you are free to hold and express).
Caruso
http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4101.pdf
http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr3203.pdf
As is the way of these things, I came across a site with a page full of studies, which I didn't include in Favourites and can't find. However, a quick search found the above.
Must have really been a quick search. If you take time to examine the articles, none could be characterized as overwhelming evidence (most are admittedly speculative), and none substantiate that cell phone use is worse than DUI.
Comparing cell phone records for use during a period prior to an accident against some arbitrarily defined period of a driver's accident free driving record is only associative and proves little, other than the fact that cell phone records indicate the phone was in use prior to the accident.
The non-accident period might represent times when the driver was not even in the car.
. . . and that was the strongest of your three citations. Hardly overwhelming, and certainly no valid amplification of a claim that cell phone use is more distracting than DUI.
[Agree with with your first sentence, but your right to do what you want in your personal life stops where my safety begins.
Actually, my right to do what I want in my personal life is protected by the law of the land in which I live. Your perception of my threat to your safety does not give you the right to infringe upon my rights. You and I do not disagree so much about safety – the lady should not have been texting – but, I use my phone as part of my business, drive some 65k miles per year, and the cell phone used during my drives is an integral tool for me. To have it outlawed on the weight of flimsy studies such as those you cited, or some unsubstantiated, over-hyped claim that cell phone use is worse than driving drunk is ridiculous, and I will advocate as I am able to insure that such intrusive measures are not enacted wherever I can. Helmets probably do reduce injury, perhaps can even save lives, but I don’t believe we need laws mandating their use while riding (especially where adults are concerned). Some folks would probably be wise not to use a cell phone (or tune their radio, or consult a map or GPS, straighten their hair, or have a conversation with their passenger) while driving. They ain’t me, and I don’t want your crusade to protect your perceived personal safety to become an invasion of my freedom.
As far as helmet wearing is concerned, they're not designed for a 43mph side collision with a ton or more of steel glass rubber and plastic
True, and I hope you realize that my mention of helmets in my previous post did not advocate for or against their use. I merely pointed out that someone expressed surprise that the issue wasn’t mentioned in the article when, in fact, it was.
because anyone who believes that you can text/read, look for a tape/cd, shave, put on makeup, look at a map, etc., while driving is guilty, not only of a criminal offence, but of contempt for the rest of us
Tough talk, but mostly empty hyperbole. None of the secondary activities you mention are criminal offences, sorry, and, in your sentence, you characterize as criminal not the act of committing those secondary activities, but the mere belief on ones part that one may engage in those activities while driving as a criminal and contemptuous act.
Tough language, but the criminal part just ain’t so, and the contemptuous part is your opinion (which you are free to hold and express).
Caruso
10 Wheels
02-03-08, 06:56 PM
Following the crash Mr Wickington, of Netley, Hampshire, who had not been wearing a helmet, was taken to Southampton General Hospital where he later died.
Wordbiker
02-03-08, 07:24 PM
I find it impossible to comment on the cell usage > DUI issue as the data just isn't in yet.
Every report I've read is based on officer observation, witness statement or driver admission of cell usage while driving. While there's plenty of interesting topical anecdotes, actual usage statistics weren't determined, only the presence of a phone.
A simple solution would be to require persons involved in an accident to submit their usage statistics from their provider to be compared with the time of collision, a "sobriety test" of sorts. At least then we'd have some real data.
Every report I've read is based on officer observation, witness statement or driver admission of cell usage while driving. While there's plenty of interesting topical anecdotes, actual usage statistics weren't determined, only the presence of a phone.
A simple solution would be to require persons involved in an accident to submit their usage statistics from their provider to be compared with the time of collision, a "sobriety test" of sorts. At least then we'd have some real data.
StrangeWill
02-04-08, 01:17 AM
Yeah the only time I've seen an actual study done it was below DUI levels on Mythbusters, because apparently you're not allowed to be drunk in a car on private property... (though I'm pretty sure you can be...)
atbman
02-04-08, 04:34 AM
[QUOTE]Must have really been a quick search.
It was - unfortunately I can't retrace the steps I took to find the other site which had a large number of case studies, some of whch were, I agree, speculative, but others tested people's tendency to concentrate more on the phone call than on their driving environment. And having seen drivers wandering in and sometimes across lanes, being oblivious to the lights changing, and, in one case, a mother dialling while driving onto a roundabout, and also going out of and then back into her lane, I think it's reasonable to assume that there are many who cannot, as you appear to be able to, drive safely and phone at the same time.
Actually, my right to do what I want in my personal life is protected by the law of the land in which I live. Your perception of my threat to your safety does not give you the right to infringe upon my rights.
I've no wish to infringe on anyone's rights - I do, after all, protest strongly when my right to cycle safely is put at risk. My perception of hazards to my wellbeing is pretty robust. I don't find that drivers pose very much danger to me at all, since I ride intelligently and assertively. The result is that, in the last 25 years of my daily cycle commuting life, I could count on one had the times when I was put at hazard, so I guesstimate that the percentage of drivers who are considerate, or at least safe, to be in the high 90s.
You and I do not disagree so much about safety – the lady should not have been texting – but, I use my phone as part of my business, drive some 65k miles per year, and the cell phone used during my drives is an integral tool for me. To have it outlawed on the weight of flimsy studies such as those you cited, or some unsubstantiated, over-hyped claim that cell phone use is worse than driving drunk is ridiculous, and I will advocate as I am able to insure that such intrusive measures are not enacted wherever I can. Helmets probably do reduce injury, perhaps can even save lives, but I don’t believe we need laws mandating their use while riding (especially where adults are concerned). Some folks would probably be wise not to use a cell phone (or tune their radio, or consult a map or GPS, straighten their hair, or have a conversation with their passenger) while driving. They ain’t me, and I don’t want your crusade to protect your perceived personal safety to become an invasion of my freedom.
I'm sure that some people do manage to drive and use a phone safely. Unfortunately, I'll bet that all of those who get involved in a collision feel that they're amongst those fortunate few. The difficulty for the rest of us is that we don't know who the safe ones are - the problem involved in a good many laws and I don't have any solution to how to solve such problems while maintaining the rights of all indviduals.
True, and I hope you realize that my mention of helmets in my previous post did not advocate for or against their use. I merely pointed out that someone expressed surprise that the issue wasn’t mentioned in the article when, in fact, it was.
Re-read your post and apologies for not doing so more carefully the first time
Tough talk, but mostly empty hyperbole. None of the secondary activities you mention are criminal offences, sorry, and, in your sentence, you characterize as criminal not the act of committing those secondary activities, but the mere belief on ones part that one may engage in those activities while driving as a criminal and contemptuous act.
Tough language, but the criminal part just ain’t so, and the contemptuous part is your opinion (which you are free to hold and express).
I'll amplify my original statement. I was not suggesting that the secondary activities were crimes in themselves, but, when undertaken while driving, constitute a presumption that they are driving without taking proper care. Which is an offence, at least in UK law. My use of "contemptuous" referred to an attitude that says that I can, knowingly, break the law, because I can do such things and drive perfectly safely. Individuals may be able to do so, but experience of the numbers who can't has led to legislation designed (imperfectly) to protect us from them
On the fundamentals of the orignal case, we do seem to be in agreement. They were both foolish, both broke the law and both should pay whatever penalty the legal system deems appropriate. Or, sadly, in his case should have paid.
It was - unfortunately I can't retrace the steps I took to find the other site which had a large number of case studies, some of whch were, I agree, speculative, but others tested people's tendency to concentrate more on the phone call than on their driving environment. And having seen drivers wandering in and sometimes across lanes, being oblivious to the lights changing, and, in one case, a mother dialling while driving onto a roundabout, and also going out of and then back into her lane, I think it's reasonable to assume that there are many who cannot, as you appear to be able to, drive safely and phone at the same time.
Actually, my right to do what I want in my personal life is protected by the law of the land in which I live. Your perception of my threat to your safety does not give you the right to infringe upon my rights.
I've no wish to infringe on anyone's rights - I do, after all, protest strongly when my right to cycle safely is put at risk. My perception of hazards to my wellbeing is pretty robust. I don't find that drivers pose very much danger to me at all, since I ride intelligently and assertively. The result is that, in the last 25 years of my daily cycle commuting life, I could count on one had the times when I was put at hazard, so I guesstimate that the percentage of drivers who are considerate, or at least safe, to be in the high 90s.
You and I do not disagree so much about safety – the lady should not have been texting – but, I use my phone as part of my business, drive some 65k miles per year, and the cell phone used during my drives is an integral tool for me. To have it outlawed on the weight of flimsy studies such as those you cited, or some unsubstantiated, over-hyped claim that cell phone use is worse than driving drunk is ridiculous, and I will advocate as I am able to insure that such intrusive measures are not enacted wherever I can. Helmets probably do reduce injury, perhaps can even save lives, but I don’t believe we need laws mandating their use while riding (especially where adults are concerned). Some folks would probably be wise not to use a cell phone (or tune their radio, or consult a map or GPS, straighten their hair, or have a conversation with their passenger) while driving. They ain’t me, and I don’t want your crusade to protect your perceived personal safety to become an invasion of my freedom.
I'm sure that some people do manage to drive and use a phone safely. Unfortunately, I'll bet that all of those who get involved in a collision feel that they're amongst those fortunate few. The difficulty for the rest of us is that we don't know who the safe ones are - the problem involved in a good many laws and I don't have any solution to how to solve such problems while maintaining the rights of all indviduals.
True, and I hope you realize that my mention of helmets in my previous post did not advocate for or against their use. I merely pointed out that someone expressed surprise that the issue wasn’t mentioned in the article when, in fact, it was.
Re-read your post and apologies for not doing so more carefully the first time
Tough talk, but mostly empty hyperbole. None of the secondary activities you mention are criminal offences, sorry, and, in your sentence, you characterize as criminal not the act of committing those secondary activities, but the mere belief on ones part that one may engage in those activities while driving as a criminal and contemptuous act.
Tough language, but the criminal part just ain’t so, and the contemptuous part is your opinion (which you are free to hold and express).
I'll amplify my original statement. I was not suggesting that the secondary activities were crimes in themselves, but, when undertaken while driving, constitute a presumption that they are driving without taking proper care. Which is an offence, at least in UK law. My use of "contemptuous" referred to an attitude that says that I can, knowingly, break the law, because I can do such things and drive perfectly safely. Individuals may be able to do so, but experience of the numbers who can't has led to legislation designed (imperfectly) to protect us from them
On the fundamentals of the orignal case, we do seem to be in agreement. They were both foolish, both broke the law and both should pay whatever penalty the legal system deems appropriate. Or, sadly, in his case should have paid.
ajay677
02-04-08, 09:06 AM
Actually, my right to do what I want in my personal life is protected by the law of the land in which I live. Your perception of my threat to your safety does not give you the right to infringe upon my rights.Caruso
Your "right" to do what you want is not absolute. For example, you do not have the "right" to drive your motor vehicle at whatever speed you deem appropriate. Your speed of operation is restricted by law. Your freedom to engage in behaviour that may endanger the safety of others is, in fact, limited by law.
Tough talk, but mostly empty hyperbole. None of the secondary activities you mention are criminal offences, sorry, and, in your sentence, you characterize as criminal not the act of committing those secondary activities, but the mere belief on ones part that one may engage in those activities while driving as a criminal and contemptuous act.Caruso
No, brushing your teeth or texting or talking on a cell phone are not criminal offences. Doing these same things while operating a motor vehicle and causing the death of, or injures to another person is a different story entirely.
"Criminal Negligence
Reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
From Canada's Criminal Code, ¶219:
"Every one is criminally negligent who in doing anything, or in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons."
The Canadian Judicial Council's standard set of jury instructions includes this extract on topic:
"The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the acused's conduct showed a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person in the circumstances; and that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have foreseen that this conduct posed a risk of bodily harm."
From a civil perspective, these sorts of acts, causing injury or death may be considered gross negligence.
Your "right" to do what you want is not absolute. For example, you do not have the "right" to drive your motor vehicle at whatever speed you deem appropriate. Your speed of operation is restricted by law. Your freedom to engage in behaviour that may endanger the safety of others is, in fact, limited by law.
Tough talk, but mostly empty hyperbole. None of the secondary activities you mention are criminal offences, sorry, and, in your sentence, you characterize as criminal not the act of committing those secondary activities, but the mere belief on ones part that one may engage in those activities while driving as a criminal and contemptuous act.Caruso
No, brushing your teeth or texting or talking on a cell phone are not criminal offences. Doing these same things while operating a motor vehicle and causing the death of, or injures to another person is a different story entirely.
"Criminal Negligence
Reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
From Canada's Criminal Code, ¶219:
"Every one is criminally negligent who in doing anything, or in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons."
The Canadian Judicial Council's standard set of jury instructions includes this extract on topic:
"The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the acused's conduct showed a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person in the circumstances; and that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have foreseen that this conduct posed a risk of bodily harm."
From a civil perspective, these sorts of acts, causing injury or death may be considered gross negligence.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.