Harsh or what?

[pErvinalia]

MM will never agree to that last bit, Samsa. This will be funny to watch him squirm out of it.

[Mr.Samsa]

MM will never agree to that last bit, Samsa. This will be funny to watch him squirm out of it.

I honestly don't understand where the disagreement is coming from. He seems to admit that legally she was supposed to stop and she didn't, and that action killed someone.

Yet somehow it's the victim's fault? The only explanation I can see would be a misunderstanding of moral blame and a kind of causal blame. If I decide to shoot arrows at a crowd of people and hit someone, then I'm morally blameworthy. But sure you could say the victim was causally responsible for choosing to go to that place, at that time, and if they had done anything at all differently then they wouldn't have been hit by an arrow.

But obviously it would be ridiculous to say that they are at fault for getting hit by an arrow.

[mistermack]

If people insisted on their right of way, and ignored any hazard, there would be tens of thousands of deaths every day. If I'm on my bike, and a fucking great lorry is blocking my right of way, I don't plough on regardless.

Sure but that's ridiculous, who the hell would say or do that?

That's exactly what this guy did. There's a bloody great lump of iron rolling down the road at about 40 mph, and he stepped right in front of it.

If you can't see that, then I suggest you stay away from roads.

[mistermack]

I honestly don't understand where the disagreement is coming from. He seems to admit that legally she was supposed to stop and she didn't, and that action killed someone.

Then your comprehension is extremely poor. I didn't say, admit, or seem to admit that.

The accident was a combination of his careless jogging, and her careless driving. ( depending on what ACTUALLY happened ).

If I get hit by a car, while crossing a road, I can assure you that I will ALWAYS blame myself, for not looking. Unless the car swerves straight at me.
That doesn't mean that I would absolve a driver, if they did jump a light. But I would still say that I could, and should, have looked.
My opinion is driver 10% and jogger 90% to blame, and that still stands.

Fuck, what if the jogger was driving your bus like that? You'd sing a different tune then.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, because he would be in charge of a moving lump of metal. Like she was.

[Forty Two]

Wasn't this a jury trial? They saw the evidence, I would assume.

I think jailing people for "accidents" is stupid, though. In this day and age, we should reserve imprisonment for those that are intentionally dangerous to others. Drunks, druggies, and those guilty of negligence should not be imprisoned. It does nothing to rehabilitate them, has every chance of actually turning them into a criminal, and is mainly a source of retribution.

I think with today's technology, a system of monitoring and house arrest should be possible.

For this lady, I'd take her driving privileges away for a while, and require her to go through a lot of training to get it back. Counseling sessions. House arrest requiring her to sit at home and only go to and from employment or the food store -- that's good enough. Who is helped by this?

[JimC]

Mr Samsa wrote:

Yet somehow it's the victim's fault? The only explanation I can see would be a misunderstanding of moral blame and a kind of causal blame. If I decide to shoot arrows at a crowd of people and hit someone, then I'm morally blameworthy. But sure you could say the victim was causally responsible for choosing to go to that place, at that time, and if they had done anything at all differently then they wouldn't have been hit by an arrow.

But obviously it would be ridiculous to say that they are at fault for getting hit by an arrow.

That's pushing the analogy too far. I agree that the woman is legally at fault, but the pedestrian's actions were careless and unwise, without being legally negligent. Very different with someone just "being there" when hit by a careless arrow.

Wasn't this a jury trial? They saw the evidence, I would assume.

I think jailing people for "accidents" is stupid, though. In this day and age, we should reserve imprisonment for those that are intentionally dangerous to others. Drunks, druggies, and those guilty of negligence should not be imprisoned. It does nothing to rehabilitate them, has every chance of actually turning them into a criminal, and is mainly a source of retribution.

I think with today's technology, a system of monitoring and house arrest should be possible.

For this lady, I'd take her driving privileges away for a while, and require her to go through a lot of training to get it back. Counseling sessions. House arrest requiring her to sit at home and only go to and from employment or the food store -- that's good enough. Who is helped by this?

People who drink and drive, and kill someone in the process are not just making some minor driving error which turns out tragically, they have decided to drink and drive, and their actions are criminally negligent. They need legal retribution if only as a deterrence to others.

In the woman's case, she has infringed the road laws, and a consequence of that was the death of another person (whose unwise actions are not legally relevant). If she had skidded on a patch of oil (while not driving above the speed limit etc.) then it truly would have been accidental, and no penalty should apply.

[Brian Peacock]

Not so long ago I was subjected to a number of foul oaths from a cyclist who ran into the back of me - on the pavement. No harm was done and I didn't even have time to reply in kind before they sped on muttering.

[JimC]

Not so long ago I was subjected to a number of foul oaths from a cyclist who ran into the back of me - on the pavement. No harm was done and I didn't even have time to reply in kind before they sped on muttering.

You were on foot, one supposes. You should have struck the miscreant with a straight left jab!

[Brian Peacock]

What, and risk dropping my chips?

[pErvinalia]

Here's the solution. This just happened in Straya:

An Adelaide woman who struck a schoolboy when she ran through a red light while under the influence of drugs has been acquitted of dangerous driving, after two expert witnesses suggested methylamphetamine can have a positive effect on driver ability.

[JimC]

That is seriously fucked up...

[Hermit]

Here's the solution. This just happened in Straya:

An Adelaide woman who struck a schoolboy when she ran through a red light while under the influence of drugs has been acquitted of dangerous driving, after two expert witnesses suggested methylamphetamine can have a positive effect on driver ability.

Actually, she was convicted of driving without due care and will be sentenced next month.

[mistermack]

People who drink and drive, and kill someone in the process are not just making some minor driving error which turns out tragically, they have decided to drink and drive, and their actions are criminally negligent. They need legal retribution if only as a deterrence to others.

In the woman's case, she has infringed the road laws, and a consequence of that was the death of another person (whose unwise actions are not legally relevant). If she had skidded on a patch of oil (while not driving above the speed limit etc.) then it truly would have been accidental, and no penalty should apply.

If you drink and drive, and then someone steps in front of your car without looking, it's not the same, as drinking and driving badly and causing an accident. But the law says it is.
In that case, as in this one, the blame would be on the person who walked out without looking, as far as I'm concerned.

Here's the solution. This just happened in Straya:

An Adelaide woman who struck a schoolboy when she ran through a red light while under the influence of drugs has been acquitted of dangerous driving, after two expert witnesses suggested methylamphetamine can have a positive effect on driver ability.

Actually, she was convicted of driving without due care and will be sentenced next month.

I'm willing to bet that she won't get two and a half years prison.

And the bit about driver ability is ludicrous.
It's not about ability, it's about attitude.
Alcohol and drugs have an effect on attitude and inhibitions. Even if meth improved mechanical ability, it could lower the threshold for risk-taking.

[Mr.Samsa]

That's exactly what this guy did. There's a bloody great lump of iron rolling down the road at about 40 mph, and he stepped right in front of it.

If you can't see that, then I suggest you stay away from roads.

There's no reason at all to assume that the guy believed he'd be okay because he had the right of way. He made a mistake or misjudged the behavior of the car but obviously that's not his fault.

I honestly don't understand where the disagreement is coming from. He seems to admit that legally she was supposed to stop and she didn't, and that action killed someone.

Then your comprehension is extremely poor. I didn't say, admit, or seem to admit that.

It's not my comprehension, I was being generous and assumed you accepted basic facts. Apparently I overestimated your intelligence here..

The accident was a combination of his careless jogging, and her careless driving. ( depending on what ACTUALLY happened ).

Sure, but legally it was entirely her fault.

If I get hit by a car, while crossing a road, I can assure you that I will ALWAYS blame myself, for not looking. Unless the car swerves straight at me.
That doesn't mean that I would absolve a driver, if they did jump a light. But I would still say that I could, and should, have looked.
My opinion is driver 10% and jogger 90% to blame, and that still stands.

It is good to look but if they're in the right then they aren't to blame.

Fuck, what if the jogger was driving your bus like that? You'd sing a different tune then.

That's because they have a legal and moral responsibility to behave differently.

Yeah, because he would be in charge of a moving lump of metal. Like she was.

That's exactly what I thought - did MM actually mean to contradict himself there?..

Mr Samsa wrote:

Yet somehow it's the victim's fault? The only explanation I can see would be a misunderstanding of moral blame and a kind of causal blame. If I decide to shoot arrows at a crowd of people and hit someone, then I'm morally blameworthy. But sure you could say the victim was causally responsible for choosing to go to that place, at that time, and if they had done anything at all differently then they wouldn't have been hit by an arrow.

But obviously it would be ridiculous to say that they are at fault for getting hit by an arrow.

That's pushing the analogy too far. I agree that the woman is legally at fault, but the pedestrian's actions were careless and unwise, without being legally negligent. Very different with someone just "being there" when hit by a careless arrow.

That's because it wasn't really an analogy but more an example of what I mean by causal blameworthiness. The point is that the jogger's actions contributed to the situation but the situation could only have occurred because the driver broke the law.