Advocacy & Safety - Counseling for Drivers who have hit and Killed?

Every other week in the news it seems I hear about a driver who has hit and killed a child(either a child on a bike or a child pedestrian). Do most of these drivers get counseling? Do most drivers see themselves as the victims??? In the second article the driver says he wished it had never happened to him. I wonder if he still drives.

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2010/november/168180/No-charges-for-man-who-ran-over-child-at-New-Smyrna-Beach

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-no-charges-traffic-death-20101101,0,440324.story

I'm surprised he got off. I have a negative opinion of and have had bad experiences on the road with guys who drive trucks like that and 'gun it'.

It seems absurd that they even allow people to drive on the beach. I don't think I've ever been to a beach that allowed that stupidity, thank goodness. Why must Americans take their huge cars EVERYWHERE? Can't there be some boundaries beyond which we don't have to worry about getting run over?

Anyway, beyond just the absurdity of his truck being there at all, it would seem very predictable that little children, animals, sunbathers, etc, might get in the way with little warning on a beach. So it would seem pretty reckless to be driving over say, 5 mph or so there. And a bunch of comments on the article are defending the driver and saying that "parents should take responsibility" for their children? WTF? It's a beach! Y'know, where children like to run around and play? It's not like they were letting him play in the freeway. I can grant that maybe it was hard for the driver to see the kid, but that's why you don't drive quickly on the beach.

I've heard from a few people that they believe living with the guilt of killing or seriously injuring a cyclist is worse than what the cyclist has to go through.

I don't doubt the guilt is powerful, but I'd still rather deal with that, than deal with a serious injury, or expiring prematurely.

Dr Ulock prefers to counsel by way of the kneecaps.

How about if they are counseled to never drive again.

Seems to me that someone directly involved in a death in an automobile collision should be not allowed to drive again.

I was passed by an 8 ton truck on Monday. I saw the green light ahead turn to orange. The truck did not slow down. Moments later the light turned red and the truck was still about 20 yards from the intersection. The truck did not slow down. I would not like to have been a cyclist crossing that intersection!

I've heard from a few people that they believe living with the guilt of killing or seriously injuring a cyclist is worse than what the cyclist has to go through.

I don't doubt the guilt is powerful, but I'd still rather deal with that, than deal with a serious injury, or expiring prematurely.To people that make such claims, I call BS unless the killer gave up driving for life.

I vacationed with relatives at Daytona Beach fifteen years ago. I was shocked that they allowed motor vehicles on the beach; it just disgusted me. I wanted to walk to the hardware store and buy a shovel to build a large, moated sand castle across their path. For some reason my wife objected; she insists on keeping me out of jail.

To people that make such claims, I call BS unless the killer gave up driving for life.

+1.
I remember seeing something about a teenager who killed someone when texting while driving. He also claimed it had a big impact on him. He not only kept driving, he admits that he still texts while driving. B.S. indeed.

some are prone to guilt but I'm sure just as many if not more are remorseless

Interesting. I'm reading Darin Strauss's book "Half a Life" right now. He hit and killed a 16 year old cyclist when he was just 18 himself. I'm only 60 pages in, but it seems to be written with compassion and honesty.

To people that make such claims, I call BS unless the killer gave up driving for life.
That makes no sense. Just because a car was the "weapon" doesn't necessarily mean that the person should give up driving for the rest of their life. I do believe that many penalties for killing or maiming a cyclist are unjust and unfair, but a self induced driving prohibition? - I have a difficult time seeing the logic that you're using here.

That makes no sense. Just because a car was the "weapon" doesn't necessarily mean that the person should give up driving for the rest of their life. I do believe that many penalties for killing or maiming a cyclist are unjust and unfair, but a self induced driving prohibition? - I have a difficult time seeing the logic that you're using here.Bet you would understand the logic giving up guns for life, if someone inadvertently shoot and killed another human being.

a fellow grad back in the seventies who had a great potential to become a doctor, had his entire life suddenly change one weekend when making a left turn after waiting for the light to change to get a clear path - had a pedestrian dart across to beat the red. his car hit and killed the pedestrian.

fast forward 30+ years since then we hear of him once in a while, and as brilliant and intelligent as he was, he started to waft through his life after the incident - never to have able to come to grips with his action. i bump into him on occasion and the difference between talking with at the time an arrogant and eloquent genius, now is a babbling, insecure bum but 'genius none-the-less'...

hard to say if any counseling would have helped or if his life could have turned out different otherwise, but he is one f****d up guy now.

and no - he never drives anymore.

Bet you would understand the logic giving up guns for life, if someone inadvertently shoot and killed another human being.
Apples and oranges. A gun is intended to do harm, while a car can as well, it's not it's intended or sole purpose.

Apples and oranges. A gun is intended to do harm, while a car can as well, it's not it's intended or sole purpose.Typical anti-gun foolishness. I have fired a gun many times without ever harming anyone. You are more likely to be killed by a motorist than a gun owner.

So if you are willing to take the gun away from a killer who used a gun, you should be willing to take the car away from a killer who used a car.

So by your logic, if someone kills someone by hitting them over the head with a chair, they shouldn't be allowed to ever use a chair again?

If you can't open your mind enough to see that a gun is a lot different than a car, and that a gun has no place in this discussion, there's really no point in discussing this further with you. However, if you're able and willing to accept that other opinions matter equally as much as your own and may possibly have merit, and if you can refrain from referring to others in a discussion as "foolish" I'd be willing to further the discussion because I really am curious to learn exactly why you think a lifetime driving ban would be an appropriate punishment.

Apples and oranges. A gun is intended to do harm, while a car can as well, it's not it's intended or sole purpose.
You make closed minded statements and then tell me to open my mind (strawman).

Unintentionally killing someone with a gun is no different than unintentionally killing someone with a car. They both occur because someone improperly used a tool.

And it is not punishment by taking away the tools that were improperly used, it is protecting the rest of society. A CBS or NBC news magazine a long time ago ran a story about deadly drivers. They asked one older woman if she would finally give up her drivers license after she had killed her THIRD pedestrian. Her answer was 'Oh no, I would just die if I could not drive anymore'.

Spend some more time reading about these deadly drivers that have killed cyclist. Almost all of them claim remorse in front of the judge but show little outside the courtroom. One women joined in on joking about her killing a cyclist being a public service. The thread currently running on the 20 year old that killed a homeless cyclist shows no remorse to a news crew as she drives away. And on and on with these types of people.

At least people that do unintentionally kill someone with a gun feel remorse and willingly give up their guns. Killer motorist should learn that lesson.

Just as I suspected. No point.

Way to prove you are the one with the closed mind.
Seems you are better suited for posting in P&R.

How about if they are counseled to never drive again.

Seems to me that someone directly involved in a death in an automobile collision should be not allowed to drive again.

I second that.. Take their keys away forever. That is if some how they find a way to stay out of the joint..
And, oh yes.. Require them to learn how to ride a bike. that or else stay home.

Just in case anyone missed the video in the other thread. At the end she claims her driving record is fine.
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/man-riding-bike-in-sterling-heights-killed-in-accident-20101201-wpms

To people that make such claims, I call BS unless the killer gave up driving for life.

I agree. It's a self serving statement meant to show a sense of false contrition. Their life goes on and they never give the "accident" another thought. My guess it that it's a phrase written by a lawyer for a court case.

How about if they are counseled to never drive again.

Seems to me that someone directly involved in a death in an automobile collision should be not allowed to drive again.

What if the accident wasn't their fault? I'm sure we've all read the threads in here about drunk/drugged drivers who ploughed into someone and killed them but what about the so-called ninja cyclists who ride black bikes after dark wearing dark clothing without lights and go through red lights? Someone who hit such a cyclist would have to live with it for the rest of their lives even if there was nothing they could do - to take away their driving license for life as well would seem like adding insult to injury.

...but what about the so-called ninja cyclists who ride black bikes after dark wearing dark clothing without lights and go through red lights?

There's a bike commuter that I see on my way home on a semi-regular basis who fits that description almost to the letter (and it is dark when I head home). No lights, no reflectives other than the bike's reflectors, don't think he wears a helmet, I haven't seen him blow through a red yet, but what he does do seems somewhat dangerous -- rather than stopping and staying on the bike path at the intersection, he rides around in circles in the right turn lane which has a GREEN ARROW.

I've seen people in my home town ride bikes that don't even have reflectors. I've seen people cycling on forest roads at twilight wearing camouflaged clothes (and no lights, of course). Honestly, the way some of these people ride their bikes I'm amazed there aren't far more fatalities on the road.

One time in town (this is in the UK so we drive/ride on the left) I saw a cyclist ride through a red light and ignore the No Right Turn sign. He turned right against the oncoming traffic which was proceeding through their green light and practically cycled straight under the wheels of an oncoming car. For good measure he then acted like the car driver was the one out of line.

It is a tragedy when any road user is hit and injured but it's hard to have a lot of sympathy for people injured as a result of their own boneheadedness.

Way to prove you are the one with the closed mind.
Seems you are better suited for posting in P&R.
Nice. So instead of answering any of my questions you instead make a personal attack against me and have the nerve to say I'm narrow minded.

Like I said, there's no point in discussing this issue with you. I know that you'll have an insatiable need to continue this folly (knock yourself out) but I'm done trying to be reasonable with someone who obviously isn't.

For the rest of you who think that a self-imposed driving ban is appropriate or needed, perhaps you can enlighten me as to how exactly this action "proves" that a person is remorseful?

For the rest of you who think that a self-imposed driving ban is appropriate or needed, perhaps you can enlighten me as to how exactly this action "proves" that a person is remorseful?

It has nothing to do with remorse in my book.

Very few motorists hit and kill other people. The ones that hit and kill other people apparently do not have the same minimal skills as those that manage to avoid killing others, therefore they should not drive.

It is that simple.

You may swim with others until you show that you cannot play by the same rules; at that time, you are no longer allowed in the pool.

It has nothing to do with remorse in my book.

Very few motorists hit and kill other people. The ones that hit and kill other people apparently do not have the same minimal skills as those that manage to avoid killing others, therefore they should not drive.

It is that simple.

You may swim with others until you show that you cannot play by the same rules; at that time, you are no longer allowed in the pool.
While I understand your point of view, I disagree to a large extent (meaning that I believe in certain instances that a life-long driving ban would be entirely appropriate).

What I have a problem with is your assumption that people who hit cyclists with their cars "apparently do not have the same minimal skills as those that manage to avoid killing others". Is there a case study where you found this information? I think it's unfair to categorize everyone who hits a cyclist in this manner. What about the instances where the cyclist was at fault (it does happen)? What about the instance where someone who normally is very attentive and has a good driving record just happens to screw up for an instant?

We must be very careful in how we implement punishment so that it is not unjust in any case. Calling for blanket laws such as have been indicated in this discussion creates an environment rife for injustice.

Well, this one (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1206/breaking4.html) will need whole lotta counseling after killing seven cyclists in one swoop....

It has nothing to do with remorse in my book.

Very few motorists hit and kill other people. The ones that hit and kill other people apparently do not have the same minimal skills as those that manage to avoid killing others, therefore they should not drive.

It is that simple.

You may swim with others until you show that you cannot play by the same rules; at that time, you are no longer allowed in the pool.

So what about the idiot cyclist I mentioned in post #26 who went through a red light and turned right despite the No Right Turn sign, practically going under the wheels of an oncoming car? Had he actually gone under its wheels would the driver get labelled as "lacking minimal skills" for the fact someone else ran into him while ignoring multiple road signs?

Let's not assume that just because a car is involved the driver is automatically at fault. If we start down that line where does it stop? Does someone jumping off a bridge into oncoming traffic immediately cause someone who hits them to be labelled as lacking skills and therefore not fit to drive?

While I understand your point of view, I disagree to a large extent (meaning that I believe in certain instances that a life-long driving ban would be entirely appropriate).

What I have a problem with is your assumption that people who hit cyclists with their cars "apparently do not have the same minimal skills as those that manage to avoid killing others". Is there a case study where you found this information? I think it's unfair to categorize everyone who hits a cyclist in this manner. What about the instances where the cyclist was at fault (it does happen)? What about the instance where someone who normally is very attentive and has a good driving record just happens to screw up for an instant?

We must be very careful in how we implement punishment so that it is not unjust in any case. Calling for blanket laws such as have been indicated in this discussion creates an environment rife for injustice.

Well lets just take a quick look at some data... since only about 700 cyclists a year die, we are only talking about taking 700 drivers out of the driving pool... hardly a drop in the bucket. Now bear in mind that that is 700 drivers out of how many? According to a quick Google search, in 2003 there were 196165667 licensed drivers in the US... that means that 196,164,967 have managed not to hit and kill a cyclist (in 2003). If you add pedestrians to that, I believe we are talking somewhere around 2000 peds deaths in the US (very round number). So in all we are talking taking nearly 3000 drivers out of the driving pool of about 196,000,000. (very rounded). We are talking about .0015% of the driving population here... I would venture a guess that these .0015% of motorists that manage to kill are an anomaly when compared to the rest of the driving pool... and thus should be removed from that pool. The rest of the driving public manages to avoid hitting and killing just fine.

Now in regard to the instances where a cyclist or ped may be at fault... very hard to prove otherwise in this country, as there are so many drivers, that a true "fair trial" is nearly impossible and cyclists and peds are ruled nearly "at fault" for just being on the road, much less actually involved in a collision.

Now indeed for someone that has hit and kills a vulnerable road user all this perhaps seems like a bit of excess, but again consider how rarely this happens to all the other drivers... thus that driver that kills IS an anomaly.

So what about the idiot cyclist I mentioned in post #26 who went through a red light and turned right despite the No Right Turn sign, practically going under the wheels of an oncoming car? Had he actually gone under its wheels would the driver get labelled as "lacking minimal skills" for the fact someone else ran into him while ignoring multiple road signs?

Let's not assume that just because a car is involved the driver is automatically at fault. If we start down that line where does it stop? Does someone jumping off a bridge into oncoming traffic immediately cause someone who hits them to be labeled as lacking skills and therefore not fit to drive?

Starting down that slipperly slope puts more onus on motorists to watch out for even idiot cyclists...

Instead we have decided that the slipperly slope we chose to go down is one in which these idiot signs are required.

http://www.recyclereminders.com/img/lg/X/Turning-Traffic-Pedestrian-Sign-X-R10-15.gif

So which slippery slope do you prefer... the one in which we have to remind motorists of laws and situations that they should be aware of, or the one in which we punish about 3000 motorists a year by telling them they can no longer drive, as they have done the rare thing of killing another human.

Wow. I don't think you got the point of my post at all. One person unfairly punished in our society is unacceptable.

Your reasoning, quite frankly is unreasonable.

Wow. I don't think you got the point of my post at all. One person unfairly punished in our society is unacceptable.

Your reasoning, quite frankly is unreasonable.

Tell that to the dead.

Yes my reasoning is unreasonable... death is unforgiving. This only happens to about .0015% of the driving population. How unreasonable is that?

Imagine if that mandatory sentence (no more driving) was held over drivers... do you think that perhaps as a deterrent, it might mean something?

Look at it another way... how many of those motorists DO continue to drive? How many go on to kill again?

Bear in mind that you did say "I believe in certain instances that a life-long driving ban would be entirely appropriate." OK where do you draw the line?

Wow.

Wow.

Try to keep in mind that driving is a privilege, not a right. Punishment would involve jail time and or fines. This is merely the loss of a privilege. 99.9985% of the driving population manage to never kill a cyclist or ped.

Frankly I am quite willing to extend the "loss of driving privilege" to any driver involved in any collision in which a death occurs. That would mean about another 35,000 drivers annually are taken off the road. That is still only about .017% of all drivers.

Try to keep in mind that 99.99% of all drivers do manage to avoid situations in which someone dies.

Thankfully, there's a reason that you're not one of those who makes laws in our society.

Wow.

Thankfully, there's a reason that you're not one of those who makes laws in our society.

Ever been hit by a car?

Whether or not I've been hit by a car is irrelevant.

Whether or not I've been hit by a car is irrelevant.

Not really... you start to see things from the victim's side of things, rather than from the privileged side of things.

BTW you never did answer the question of "where do you draw the line?" No doubt it would be at "convicted drivers..." but take a look at the history in this country of convicting drivers... it doesn't happen unless substance abuse or a clear abuse of the driving privilege is shown. There is a strong mentality in this country that driving is a right, and from police to DA to judge, all too often they simply turn away and say "well the driver is suffering from remorse..." I frankly find that unreasonable.

Even in the case of substance abuse... far too many drivers have been given 2nd, 3rd and 4th chances... Where do you draw the line?

I'm not going to answer any of your questions because you've shown that you don't really care to discuss opinions that differ from your own.

My opinion is that your logic is seriously flawed, and getting back to the topic of discussion, I think YOU should get some counseling.

I'm not going to answer any of your questions because you've shown that you don't really care to discuss opinions that differ from your own.

My opinion is that your logic is seriously flawed, and getting back to the topic of discussion, I think YOU should get some counseling.

And yet I am the one that is asking for your opinion... while you have shut me down. Go figure.

BTW I have been hit by motorists... 3 times, and each time it was their fault, and yet I had to fight to get compensation... that is my motivation for my reasoning. You have provided none (at least in the responses you have given to me).

Wow.

Wow.

22 posts here on BF and two of them have been "wow."

Time to grow up.

22 posts here on BF and two of them have been "wow."
I said "wow" because I'm flabbergasted at some of your statements and I just didn't know what else to say.

Is there a rule against posting one word replies?

I said "wow" because I'm flabbergasted at some of your statements and I just didn't know what else to say.

Is there a rule against posting one word replies?

No, but one could argue that it shows the depth of your thinking...

Again I have to wonder... where would you draw the line?

Forget it. As with CB HI, it's not worth the effort to get into a discussion with you as it will inevitably turn into an argument or a circle jerk - neither of which I wish to participate. If some time in the future, you can wrap your head around the concept that your answer to a problem may not be the best or the only one, I'll reconsider having a discussion with you. Beyond that, it's a waste of my time.

Wow.

Forget it. As with CB HI, it's not worth the effort to get into a discussion with you as it will inevitably turn into an argument or a circle jerk - neither of which I wish to participate. If some time in the future, you can wrap your head around the concept that your answer to a problem may not be the best or the only one, I'll reconsider having a discussion with you. Beyond that, it's a waste of my time.

Wow.

You have come to that "lofty conclusion" after a mere 24 posts... and failed to present one argument on your behalf. (except "wow") Talk about waste of time. Grow up.