Clarks

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.

https://www.cfnews13.com/article/news...w-Smyrna-Beach

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...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'.

mnemia

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.

closetbiker

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.

KD5NRH

Dr Ulock prefers to counsel by way of the kneecaps.

genec

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.

009jim

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!

CB HI

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

B. Carfree

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.

B. Carfree

+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.

randya

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

alicestrong

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.

Forknroad

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.

CB HI

Bet you would understand the logic giving up guns for life, if someone inadvertently shoot and killed another human being.

badrad

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.

Forknroad

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.

CB HI

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.

Forknroad

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.

CB HI

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.

Forknroad

Just as I suspected. No point.

CB HI

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

cyclezealot

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.

CB HI

Just in case anyone missed the video in the other thread. At the end she claims her driving record is fine.
https://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news...-20101201-wpms

ctyler

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.

contango 

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.

RandomExeter

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.