I’m sure he got in his car and thought: “Today’s a good day to murder someone”. Or maybe you mean he thought: “I see someone crossing the street, let’s murder her”.
There’s no mention of ill intent. There is mention of bad lighting and bad road design. Seems like the guy is guilty of not being extra careful enough in a risky road situation, but why was there a risky road situation near a university in the first place?
All automotive collisions are avoidable. In this case, it sounds like the driver was at fault. The road designers were at fault and probably politicians are also at fault.
I mean you make one method of transportation (also the deadliest) the main way of commuting with error prone humans (and occasionally vehicles), these things are going to happen.
Yeah but that’s not an excuse either. Even if your infrastructure only supports cars there are still safer vs cheaper choices. And if that Street view link is any indication, paint the damn lines.
FYI - one of my objections to self-driving cars: we never keep up the maintenance on even painting the lines. When I tried self driving, almost every time I took over was where there were no visible lines on the road
Agreed it is not an excuse but many circumstances involved with these scenarios to the degree of negligence.
It should also be a motivating factor for the state to support mass transit (although special interests want to block that). Self driving cars don’t eliminate the problem of car dependency, just enrich the tech companies and same auto industries making us dependent on cars.
The first thing investigators should do is look into the circumstances of the crash. Which seems to have been done in this case, but not satisfactorily.
There is mention of bad lighting and bad road design
The absolute right thing to do here is to fix the bad lightning immediately and the road design ASAP. Additionally, the plans need to be reviewed and anyone who signed them off should be asked why they did so.
In my vision of a just world, there isn’t a need for jail time as long as there’s a good chance at reform. The driver has a few mitigating circumstances going for him: wasn’t under influence, wasn’t speeding. Although they did fail to yield at a sign according to the article.
That being said, losing your licence for at least 4 years seems appropriate. Of course, after such a relatively long time of not driving, they should retake the test because they’ll lose their abilties since driving a car in traffic isn’t like riding a bike in a secluded area.
Another thing that should serve as an aggrevating circumstance is the car. If it was a monster truck, the person should quite obviously rot in jail regardless (which I doubt is the case here). For SUVs, lenghten the loss of licence in milder cases and do jail time for the worse ones.
If the design is found to be faulty not because the engineers were lazy or ignorant but because of a lack of funds, then a portion (say, 20%) of the county’s yearly budget should be appropriated and spent on road improvements. First at the scene, but also as a systemic overhaul elsewhere in the jurisdiction.
The 20% is on a per-grave accident (caused by a lack of funding) basis. Capped at 80% yearly, but the remainder gets pushed onto subsequent year(s) in full). That seems like a good way of keeping councils accountable and fixing damage even if they aren’t.
The solution to road deaths isn’t throwing people in jail. Sure, road “accidental” road manslaughter punsihments are lenient, but such deaths are always going to happen because tha’s what happens when you mix foot and car traffic at scale in almost any way. Especially in the way the US is doing it, although all other places have their own traffic death problems as well, so it unfortubately isn’t a solved problem.
Review, educate, fix and improve infrastracture to hopefully prevent. Jail time should be reserved for the most heinous cases (DUI, deliberate slaughter and reckless driving). Giving anyone unfortunate enough to run someone over won’t fix bad infrastructure. It also won’t get us anywhere near 0% road deaths.
I believe jail time should be used not especially sparingly, but instead that prisons should be reduced in security and allow external jobs for low level offenses. Some people really do respond to negative enforcement, and having that in a humane way allows you to sentence people for lower level offenses, creating greater deterrence while still allowing them to continue parts of their life and importantly their jobs even through the punishment.
But traffic accidents against cycles are usually due to reckless driving. A driver is driving a multi ton machine, it is their responsibility to look out and be careful. Hitting someone when you fail to do so, is murder and should be treated as such. Reckless driving is driving with intent to kill.
Importantly, enforcement rates matter even more so than the actual punishment. No matter how strong the punishment, people will freely do it if they get off Scott free, so enforcing the law and holding reckless drivers accountable even without hitting people is an important FIRST step in stopping reckless driving. That means real punishment for running stop signs and failure to use turn signals, etc. but that requires police reform.
Throwing them in jail doesn’t solve it. But it can make an example of them, and potentially reduce future bad drivers.
I’ve been doing a lot of walking around town since pandemic and it’s those rolling stops that are the most frightening. I don’t know what happened here, but. ….
Say you’re crossing a side road. Someone coming up the Main Street can’t really see you. Once they turn you’re right there. Coming to an actual stop at the red light or stop sign can make all the difference for whether they can see and avoid.
If you didn’t stop, you are responsible for an unsafe choice that killed someone. That shouldn’t be only a misdemeanor
I’m sure he got in his car and thought: “Today’s a good day to murder someone”. Or maybe you mean he thought: “I see someone crossing the street, let’s murder her”.
There’s no mention of ill intent. There is mention of bad lighting and bad road design. Seems like the guy is guilty of not being extra careful enough in a risky road situation, but why was there a risky road situation near a university in the first place?
When you choose to drive unsafely, you choose to drive with intent to kill.
There is a firm correlation between not wanting to murder others and driving carefully.
And while there are unfortunate accidents, the vast majority of pedestrian and cyclist deaths are caused by arseholes
Not accidents, collisions.
All automotive collisions are avoidable. In this case, it sounds like the driver was at fault. The road designers were at fault and probably politicians are also at fault.
I mean you make one method of transportation (also the deadliest) the main way of commuting with error prone humans (and occasionally vehicles), these things are going to happen.
Yeah but that’s not an excuse either. Even if your infrastructure only supports cars there are still safer vs cheaper choices. And if that Street view link is any indication, paint the damn lines.
FYI - one of my objections to self-driving cars: we never keep up the maintenance on even painting the lines. When I tried self driving, almost every time I took over was where there were no visible lines on the road
Agreed it is not an excuse but many circumstances involved with these scenarios to the degree of negligence.
It should also be a motivating factor for the state to support mass transit (although special interests want to block that). Self driving cars don’t eliminate the problem of car dependency, just enrich the tech companies and same auto industries making us dependent on cars.
@limer @Fredthefishlord But many of those arseholes aren’t driving, they’re sitting in offices designing dangerous streets or vehicles.
The first thing investigators should do is look into the circumstances of the crash. Which seems to have been done in this case, but not satisfactorily.
The absolute right thing to do here is to fix the bad lightning immediately and the road design ASAP. Additionally, the plans need to be reviewed and anyone who signed them off should be asked why they did so.
In my vision of a just world, there isn’t a need for jail time as long as there’s a good chance at reform. The driver has a few mitigating circumstances going for him: wasn’t under influence, wasn’t speeding. Although they did fail to yield at a sign according to the article.
That being said, losing your licence for at least 4 years seems appropriate. Of course, after such a relatively long time of not driving, they should retake the test because they’ll lose their abilties since driving a car in traffic isn’t like riding a bike in a secluded area.
Another thing that should serve as an aggrevating circumstance is the car. If it was a monster truck, the person should quite obviously rot in jail regardless (which I doubt is the case here). For SUVs, lenghten the loss of licence in milder cases and do jail time for the worse ones.
If the design is found to be faulty not because the engineers were lazy or ignorant but because of a lack of funds, then a portion (say, 20%) of the county’s yearly budget should be appropriated and spent on road improvements. First at the scene, but also as a systemic overhaul elsewhere in the jurisdiction.
The 20% is on a per-grave accident (caused by a lack of funding) basis. Capped at 80% yearly, but the remainder gets pushed onto subsequent year(s) in full). That seems like a good way of keeping councils accountable and fixing damage even if they aren’t.
The solution to road deaths isn’t throwing people in jail. Sure, road “accidental” road manslaughter punsihments are lenient, but such deaths are always going to happen because tha’s what happens when you mix foot and car traffic at scale in almost any way. Especially in the way the US is doing it, although all other places have their own traffic death problems as well, so it unfortubately isn’t a solved problem.
Review, educate, fix and improve infrastracture to hopefully prevent. Jail time should be reserved for the most heinous cases (DUI, deliberate slaughter and reckless driving). Giving anyone unfortunate enough to run someone over won’t fix bad infrastructure. It also won’t get us anywhere near 0% road deaths.
I believe jail time should be used not especially sparingly, but instead that prisons should be reduced in security and allow external jobs for low level offenses. Some people really do respond to negative enforcement, and having that in a humane way allows you to sentence people for lower level offenses, creating greater deterrence while still allowing them to continue parts of their life and importantly their jobs even through the punishment.
But traffic accidents against cycles are usually due to reckless driving. A driver is driving a multi ton machine, it is their responsibility to look out and be careful. Hitting someone when you fail to do so, is murder and should be treated as such. Reckless driving is driving with intent to kill.
Importantly, enforcement rates matter even more so than the actual punishment. No matter how strong the punishment, people will freely do it if they get off Scott free, so enforcing the law and holding reckless drivers accountable even without hitting people is an important FIRST step in stopping reckless driving. That means real punishment for running stop signs and failure to use turn signals, etc. but that requires police reform.
Throwing them in jail doesn’t solve it. But it can make an example of them, and potentially reduce future bad drivers.
I’ve been doing a lot of walking around town since pandemic and it’s those rolling stops that are the most frightening. I don’t know what happened here, but. ….
Say you’re crossing a side road. Someone coming up the Main Street can’t really see you. Once they turn you’re right there. Coming to an actual stop at the red light or stop sign can make all the difference for whether they can see and avoid.
If you didn’t stop, you are responsible for an unsafe choice that killed someone. That shouldn’t be only a misdemeanor