Originally Posted by
atbman
I'm afraid that, reckless tho' drunk driving is, I suspect that it would be very difficult to prove intent to kill. I should imagine that virtually everyone who drinks and drives believes that they are perfectly capable of doing so safely, even in the face of repeated evidence to the contrary. How would you show that they knew that they would have a collision with another road user?
While lacking intent, the same principle response should be applied to motorists that kill cyclists, just as is applied to someone using a gun. Knowing what could potentially happen by driving/handling a gun. That may lower the bar on the burden of proof, but it equalizes the level of responsibility expected by doing either one of those things.
Originally Posted by
atbman
What is needed is the application of a suitably severe punishment for any DUI, since whether or not they kill someone under the SOCAL approach is a matter of pot luck. I find it strange that someone who is on the edge of the "3 strikes and out" system goes back to prison for life, even in the case of the first person so punished under that rule who only stole a sandwich, but people who are done under more than 1 DUI prosecution don't.
I have always found that strange, myself.
Originally Posted by
atbman
I suspect that the existing laws are probably sufficient, but the courts (or juries) are unwilling to treat such cases with appropriate severity, on the grounds that, "there but for the grace of god go I"
Basically, They make excuses. Anything to marginalize the severity of a cyclist getting killed.