
Why Isn’t It a Crime to Kill a Cyclist with a Car? - jseliger
https://nextcity.org/features/view/how-much-is-a-cyclists-life-worth-anyway
======
sharpercoder
In the Netherlands, it goes as following:

\- Car drivers' fault? -> Insurance of car driver pays

\- Cyclist' fault?

1\. Cyclist younger then 14? It's the car drivers' fault. __In any case __.
Drivers should expect younger cyclists to behave unexpected.

2\. Bicycle driver older then 14? __50% __of damage is drivers ' fault. Unless
cyclist does reckless things the car driver cannot anticipate on (e.g. cycling
through red traffic light over a busy intersection where drivers drive fast).

\- Car driver & cyclist made mistakes? -> Cyclist is able to get more then 50%
of damages depending on the situation.

~~~
the_common_man
> 1\. Cyclist younger then 14? It's the car drivers' fault. In any case.
> Drivers should expect younger cyclists to behave unexpected.

Do cycles have some sort of tag (like an 'L' sign), which helps identify such
cyclists?

~~~
antisthenes
The question here is:

Does the presence of the sign make you behave differently when you're the car
driver? Will you be more aggressive and/or reckless if they cyclist doesn't
have the _tag_ ?

If the answers to both are no, which they should be, then one wonders the need
of a sign to begin with, no?

~~~
gmiller123456
>Does the presence of the sign make you behave differently when you're the car
driver?

Yes. When a car passes a cyclist they should leave enough room to pass safely
assuming the cyclist continues in a straight line (unless they signal
otherwise). A kid may suddenly try to turn left from the right side of the
street, meaning they should be given more room and the car should reduce their
speed.

------
trjordan
As pointed out in the article, it can be a crime, depending on jurisdiction
and local laws. The problem is prosecuting that crime in the same way you'd
process a murder with a knife, because the public doesn't see them the same
way.

Honestly, I get that. Driving a bike on a road with cars seems dangerous. I do
it, and I don't want to die, but it's not the same as walking on the sidewalk
or sitting in my yard. If there were bad choices made by the driver, then
sure, let's prosecute. But passing a biker going 15mph on a 45mph road doesn't
seem crazy. Going 72 in a 65 doesn't seem crazy. I like to think I'm an aware
driver, and I haven't hit any bikers yet, but I've seen myself be two
distracted moments away from hitting one. It's not crazy that I would be
checking my maps app at the same time a police siren comes into view, leading
me to miss the biker who'd just turned into the lane next to me.

The problem seems to me that we've built both physical and social structures
around roads being for cars. It needs to feel comfortable to bike while taking
up a whole lane, both for bikers and cars. ("Drive at the speed bikers go"
isn't reasonable, imho.) Bike lanes help a lot, and having a lot of bikers
around helps a lot. But we can't just start with "killing a biker is
deliberate murder", because it's simply not. It's old attitudes being applied
to a new world, and I'd rather find a way to bring people into the new world
than punish a few of them for making a mistake.

~~~
Filligree
> It's not crazy that I would be checking my maps app at the same time a
> police siren comes into view, leading me to miss the biker who'd just turned
> into the lane next to me.

Perhaps it's not crazy, but it _is_ illegal. You're supposed to keep your eyes
on the road, and looking at your smartphone is just as bad whether you're
texting or using a map app. Phones have voice output for this reason.

If you need to take your eyes off the road, then first _stop_. If you don't,
and as a result hit someone, then yes, it's murder.

~~~
jbob2000
Poor example on his part. The same situation could happen while changing the
radio, adjusting AC, or even looking in a different mirror. The safety-
dogmatism of "If you need to take your eyes off the road, then first stop" is
not practical advice.

~~~
astrodust
There's an allowance for these things, where you can spend half a second
fixing something, but some people are astonishingly bad drivers and get
fixated on things for tens of seconds, still driving.

------
bqe
It isn't just cyclists, but pedestrians too. The best way to murder someone in
America is to run them over with your car and say it was an accident. The
other person, being dead, can't testify otherwise.

There's a particularly egregious example of an NYC taxi driver killing a child
when the pedestrians had the right of way[1]. No charges other than a minor
traffic ticket.

[1]: [http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/cabbie-
mowed-m...](http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/cabbie-mowed-
manhattan-boy-traffic-fine-article-1.2184010)

~~~
koolba
> There's a particularly egregious example of an NYC taxi driver killing a
> child when the pedestrians had the right of way[1]. No charges other than a
> minor traffic ticket.

What charges do you think he should have been brought up on? Manslaughter?

If the father and son were in a car that had the right of way, would that also
justify a manslaughter charge or is it only egregious because they were on
foot?

~~~
bqe
I think vehicular manslaughter is a reasonable charge. If you can't not plow
into pedestrians who have the right of way, you are negligent.

------
xeromal
"To the three of them, it appeared as if Norton was trying to move her car to
the side of the road. But in the process, she drove over Morgan’s head, with
her right front tire placed squarely on top. (Norton’s attorney says that she
was in a state of shock.) They screamed at Norton to back the car up, which
she did, but after getting out of the car a second time, she reentered the
vehicle. “I was horrified that she was trying to drive it again,” Richardson
says. “I was screaming at her through the passenger-side window, which was
down. She was trying to put her keys in the ignition… I was trying to reach
into the sedan to grab her keys.”"

I got sick reading this.

~~~
Sholmesy
Sicker when you realise she was on the phone the entire time.

~~~
FireBeyond
Yeah, as an EMS provider, entirely possible she was in shock (of the mental
sense, not physiological).

Also entirely possible she was being told to leave, or something. You wouldn't
(or maybe you would) believe the number of times we've shown up to DUI injury
accidents where a spouse has shown up "coincidentally" and is trying to ferry
their drunk partner into their car before police or fire get there.

In one case, while we were checking out such a drunk driver, the cop looked
over and his wife was about 5 feet away, gesticulating at her chest and then a
choking sound, repeatedly. He had a confused look and then started complaining
of chest pain.

A waste of time, but counterproductive for them both - she/they were thinking
they'd lessen his blood alcohol by feigning a medical condition, but instead
an ECG was run, all clear, but due to his continuing complaint he was
transported by ambulance to hospital where the first thing done... was a blood
draw.

------
kuschku
It is in many countries. For example, in Germany, in any situation where a
driver and a pedestrian or cyclist crash, the driver always has partial fault.
In cases where the cyclist or pedestrian dies, it almost always is a crime for
the driver.

In some situations, when the driver is driving recklessly, it becomes
_murder_. On February 27, a driver was sentenced to lifelong imprisonment for
murder by car:
[http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2017-02/berlin...](http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2017-02/berlin-
illegales-autorennen-fahrer-urteil) (that was two drivers doing an illegal car
race, and hitting a car that wasn’t participating).

~~~
vaseem
Laws like these are very dangerous.

~~~
lorenzhs
No, they recognise the danger cars pose to others and the responsibility this
places on drivers. What makes cars so special that it's seen as okay when a
person is killed with one?

------
Zak
I injured a cyclist with my car when I was 18. I wasn't punished, and I don't
think I should have been.

The cyclist ran a red light on a busy 4-lane road with turn lanes, a 45 mph
speed limit and frontage roads. A box van in the left turn lane made it
impossible for me to see him until he entered my lane. His leg was broken in
three places and he spent six months in the hospital; something taller than
the sports car I was driving probably would have killed him. He was fined for
running a red light.

I don't think anybody should be criminally punished purely due to a bad
outcome when they were acting with due care. Driving negligently is another
matter entirely, and at a minimum, those who do it should be prevented from
driving for a time.

~~~
FireBeyond
I think your example shows perfectly well why you shouldn't be charged, and
why she (probably) should - you were driving with due care, other party was
negligent, whereas she (it's heavily implied) was on her phone at the time of
the accident (and after).

------
vaseem
It can be very difficult for someone to notice a bicycle on 40~55mph roads.
Cyclists are definitely taking a risk. I wear Neon cycling shirt and avoid
peak time when cycling.

Laws aside, I don't think Cyclists should block lanes esp' during peak traffic
time. I actually would like a ban on main roads during rush hours, number of
folks change lanes and create very dangerous situations for all.

~~~
yardie
As a cyclist I hate travelling on the main road. Not only do I feel guilty for
slowing traffic but all it takes is one inattentive knucklehead to end my
life.

Yet, what choice do I have? Sidewalks are obstacle courses of pedestrians,
trashbins, bus stops, sign posts, etc. Bicycle lanes are blocked by
taxis/uber/lyft, delivery vans, double parked cars.

~~~
kylec
Not to be snarky, but have you considered driving or taking a taxi/Uber/Lyft?
If you're going to spend a bunch of time on the main road, why not do it in a
car?

~~~
yardie
Because as a citizen I'm entitled to use the road as well. The city decided
that cars and bikes can share the lane so that is what I will do.

Also, in my case, it takes the same amount of time to travel by bike as a car
and costs a whole lot less.

~~~
kylec
If you have weighted the costs of driving vs the increased injury and fatality
rate of cycling and have concluded that cycling is be better option for you,
then that totally makes sense.

------
tehwebguy
Because nearly all US police have a perverse incentive to issue easy-revenue
traffic tickets. From the article:

> The New York City Police Department, for example, issued more than 96,000
> citations to drivers in 2012 for excessive window tinting, which wasn’t an
> influence in any fatal or injurious crashes.

> By comparison, according to a October 2013 Transportation Alternatives
> report, the NYPD issued fewer than 12 summonses a month in 2012 to drivers
> who failed to yield, one of the leading causes of injurious crashes in New
> York.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
> drivers who failed to yield, one of the leading causes of injurious crashes
> in New York.

That's like saying "speed causes accidents". Yes, the accident probably would
have been avoidable at 5mph. Yes, not cutting people off when taking a left
turn would be nice but eventually you just have to make eye contact and floor
it if you want to take a left turn (granted that's not a good example but
"failure to yield" is a broad enough category to be useless).

------
interfixus
It sometimes is, and often should be.

However! The one cyclist I have been centimeters from killing or causing
grievous bodily harm ought _not_ to have counted against me, even had I been a
tad less dexterous with brakes and steering. Some young woman, ears plugged
into some iDevice, running a red light at full speed. Not joking about the
centimeters. She would have been toast under the Toyota HiAce I was driving.

The girl continued, apparently without even registering the close scrape she
just had. I chased her down and delivered the shit sermon of the century. She
appeared non-comprehending and utterly indifferent.

Not claiming this to be typical cyclist behavior, but alas, it's not all that
uncommon either.

I am a sometime truck driver, and believe me, I know the terror of crowded
city traffic, right turns, and cyclists. Some drivers are squarely to blame
when the shit hit the fan, or the front wheel the cyclist, but some are most
certainly not, and may suffer undeservedly for the rest of their lives.

No, I am not reckless. I have done an awful lot of professionel driving, and
haven't had an accident since 1983 when someone from a sideroad disregarded a
stop sign.

By the way, I am in full favour of also potentially criminalising hitting an
animal. Most roadkills would be easily avoided, if people would just pay some
goddamn attention to driving while driving.

~~~
goda90
I think criminalizing hitting an animal is a terrible idea. Pedestrians, other
drivers, and cyclists can be unpredictable, but more often than not they are
within a certain range of expected behavior. Not so with animals.

Driving late evening, with high beams on, no one else on the straight road,
and right around the speed limit, I came upon a large herd of deer. I slowed
down and kept a close eye on them. A small group decided to go from standing
to running literally as I was passing them, and one grazed my right rear door
with its butt as it did a 180 next to my car. They are not predictable and no
amount of attention would prevent that.

That's not mentioning the small animals that can be very hard to see.

~~~
interfixus
I know it's tricky. Nevertheless, it's our damn duty to keep our eyes on the
road - at _all_ times. Living far out in the countryside, I see a lot of
roadkill, deer included, but have yet to hit an animal, even though I leave
home every morning long before daybreak. Cats and hedgehogs really are
avoidable by any competent driver.

~~~
Coincoin
Cats? Are you kidding? I love cats but I swear those fuckers wait for a car to
be there before they cross the street.

~~~
interfixus
They do. I have had some real close encounters. That's why drivers need their
focus on the road ahead at _all_ times, all the time. Not on phones or radios
or views or passengers. On the road.

------
peterwwillis
Because humans suck ass at preventing harm.

When cars were first introduced, they were implicitly allowed free roam over
streets that were full of pedestrians, horses and carriages. They injured so
many people they stopped counting, and each month would bring dozens of
deaths. Only after enough people had died did they invent stop signs, traffic
signals, lane markers, and one-way streets. They had to create new police
departments to enforce the law on the road, and new courts to process
offenses. They still didn't have mandatory driver education, brake lights, or
posted speed limits. Left hand turns were difficult, drinking and driving was
common, and people didn't understand why taking a corner at high speed might
flip a car over.

There were literally decades of people (mostly children) killed by automobiles
on a regular basis, usually by reckless drivers and exacerbated by a lack of
planning. And yet, even though some drivers would be pulled from their cars by
angry mobs, nobody seemed to question whether all people should even be
allowed to drive a car. Rules like crossing the street at designated
intersections were created to put responsibility on pedestrians for their
safety.

By the mid-1920s, after two and a half decades of driving, we finally adopted
national laws regarding driving, with driver education coming in the 1930's.

Can you imagine if we let just anyone fly a plane? The sheer scope of the
damage done makes even the idea laughable. But once the technology becomes
cheap and available, it will happen, and we'll run into the same stupid
problems. Because we suck at keeping people safe.

Once automated cars become reliable and widespread, we're probably going to
outlaw driving yourself, because it literally makes no sense to give a human
total control over a two ton mass of steel hurtling down the road next to
pedestrians and cyclists with no protection whatsoever (a curb is a guide, not
protection). I mean, we don't even install metal bollards around cycling paths
or sidewalks.

~~~
_jal
It was actually a fascinating early example of mass-media propaganda. Since
the rule for centuries previously was that everyone had equal access to the
roads, they had to repurpose a slur and frame the automotive road-takeover as
progress over the yokels. Lots of lessons there that can be taken in a number
of different ways.

One bit of the history here, google will give you a lot more:

[http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797)

------
notauser
In the UK, we've recently had a very rare case of a cyclists killing a
pedestrian.

The cyclist was highly irrsponsible - he had only one brake, and the law
requires two. As a result he was jailed for 18 months [1].

I think his conviction is reasonable. But it's highly unfair that the same
standard isn't applied to drunk drivers, or drivers using their mobile phone,
or drivers who have failed to renew their mandatory annual safety test (MOT)
certificate.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-
blog/2017/aug/2...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-
blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-
driving-charge)

------
fencepost
2014 article by the way.

This is something that's going to change slowly until legislators start rising
bikes to work (not holding my breath). It's also something that may get worse
- at least currently it's often possible to hear approaching cars due to
engine noise. Quieter cars will make it harder for even fully alert riders to
avoid approaching vehicles (I'm not implying that it's the riders'
responsibility to avoid being hit, but it may be the reality).

~~~
hamandcheese
At higher speeds I believe road noise from tires is the dominating noise
factor.

------
gnu8
We need to ban assault cars at once! No honest person needs a 300+ horsepower
tank powered by a fuel that is literally explosive.

~~~
lotyrin
Especially the ones with the arm rests that go up.

------
rl3
> _To the three of them, it appeared as if Norton was trying to move her car
> to the side of the road. But in the process, she drove over Morgan’s head,
> with her right front tire placed squarely on top. "_

What the fuck.

What's even the best way to proceed in that situation?

I know everyone screamed at the driver to back up, but to me that sounds
extremely dangerous, especially with a front or all-wheel drive vehicle.
Having the hysterical fool that managed to run over the victim a second time
continue to operate the car with the victim's head under the tire is crazy on
the face of it, even if it was perhaps the best course of action for that
particular situation.

If there's enough bystanders, lifting the vehicle and following it up with a
short drag of the victim from under the tire almost seems better, spinal
injury immobilization concerns be damned.

Probably not enough people to lift in this particular case however, and most
of the damage had probably already been done at that point.

I also can't help but wonder how much worse similar situations could get if
firearms came into play. At what point is it legally justifiable for an
uncompliant driver that keeps running over a victim to be shot? I'd say most
juries would likely acquit for a third time, and circumstances somewhat
similar to this instance could be trial of the century material.

That might sound absurd, but there's the argument that attempting to
physically remove a continually-uncompliant wreckless driver would not only
waste precious time, but may cause them to panic—hitting the gas and
inflicting grevious harm to the victim. The driver could concievably be drunk
and belligerent, for example.

Furthermore, it could be argued that the firearm user was hysterical
themselves: even the coolest customer in the world might snap when the tire of
some idiot's car is resting on their immediate family member's head, because
they were just run over _again_.

------
throw7
things are slowly changing. this guy was recently convicted for 2nd degree
manslaughter:

[http://gothamist.com/2017/09/25/matthew_von_ohlen_conviction...](http://gothamist.com/2017/09/25/matthew_von_ohlen_conviction.php)

The joke in nyc is, after a cycling accident, nypd will be out in force
ticketing bicyclists the day after.

------
greensoap
I don't really understand the article.

The article suggests they are advocating for a blanket law. Are they saying
that anytime an accident happens involving a car and a bike where the driver
was at fault it should be a criminal prosecution? Is that the type of society
we want? Do we expect accidents to never happen and want to criminalize
anything less than perfection?

We have manslaughter laws that allow for criminal penalties when a person's
negligence rises to a level of criminality. Accidents happen. Accidents that
result in terrible injury and death are tragic. But humans aren't perfect; we
get distracted--by things other than cell phones. Not every accident is
criminal in nature; and for that we have a civil system that--while focused on
monetary compensation--is simply the best we've come up with beyond demanding
blood satisfaction.

I guess I wish I understood the debate better.

~~~
closeparen
"The society we want" expressed in this kind of article is one where public
policy actively discourages (or at least doesn't go so far out of its way to
encourage) driving. "Humans aren't perfect" \- so they shouldn't be permitted
to drive. If draconian liability terrifies people into riding the bus, that's
victory.

The state has effectively carved out an exception to the murder statutes
because "hey, shit happens, humans aren't perfect behind the wheel."
Challenging that is perfectly reasonable, especially if you don't accept that
driving is or should be a necessary component of civilization.

------
axus
Wouldn't this lead to cycling on streets being outlawed? Should it?

------
another35
It is a crime when you do it by purpose, not if it is an accident.

A cyclist could kill a pedestrian as well in an unfortunate accident, should
we treat that as a crime?

~~~
vec
> A cyclist could kill a pedestrian as well in an unfortunate accident, should
> we treat that as a crime?

Yeah, probably. If you're operating a dangerous piece of equipment the onus is
on you to do it safely. Bikes are more dangerous than shoes, cars are more
dangerous than bikes, and commercial vehicles are more dangerous than cars.

It's not actually that difficult to drive safely around cyclists. Go the speed
limit, pay attention, and don't pass unless you can do so safely. Yes, this
means sometimes you will go 15 in a 45mph zone for a couple of blocks. If
someone finds that burdensome enough to risk killing someone else then I have
no problem calling that criminal neglect.

------
onewhonknocks
It absolutely can be a crime.

~~~
walshemj
yep causing bodily harm by "wanton or furious driving" is how its put in the
UK

~~~
andyjohnson0
In the UK the offence would be Causing Death by Dangerous Driving [1], and it
only applies to drivers of motorised vehicles. The "wanton or furious driving"
charge that was used in the recent case of Kim Briggs's death [2] was used
because the death was caused by a cyclist.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causing_death_by_dangerous_dri...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causing_death_by_dangerous_driving)

[2]
[https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist...](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-
charlie-alliston-jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian)

~~~
walshemj
no its not which is why they used such an archaic statute - there is a
campaign to extend death by dangerous driving to cyclists

------
rhino369
Like the article says, "Criminal law punishes bad intentions and bad acts, not
traffic accidents.”

Accidents happen. There is no reason to ruin two lives instead of one, by
harshly punishing another person.

If driver A takes the .002% chance they'll cause an accident while driving on
the phone and drive B takes the same .002% chance, it makes no sense to throw
B in jail and let A off with a 50 dollar fine just because driver B actually
hit someone. Drive B should be liable for all medical costs and lost income.

But society gains nothing by punishing her. It's just a way to make us all
feel more control. Accidents only happen to bad criminals! Good folks like us
would never have an accident!

~~~
astrodust
If you've killed someone using a vehicle you should be held accountable.

Would you use the same argument at a rape trial? People have, and it's utterly
disgusting. "Why ruin this young man's life for a _mistake_ ," they say.

Being called "accidents" is bullshit. These things often happen for reasons.

~~~
rhino369
Rape and accidental or negligent homicide aren't comparable because, by law,
you can't accidentally rape someone. You have to recklessly, knowingly, or
intentionally rape someone for it to be a crime.

When people say that a rape was a mistake, they mean they made an error in
judgment or something else.

When we are talking about a car accident, we mean that they didn't intend to
hurt anyone.

~~~
astrodust
> ...you can't accidentally rape someone...

"I slipped" has been used as a defense _multiple_ times.

> You have to recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally rape someone for it to
> be a crime.

In America? Not in other places like Sweden.

They're car _collisions_ , not accidents.

------
excalibur
What really grinds my gears is the frequency with which cyclists are legally
forced onto the roadway in a high-traffic area, when there is a perfectly good
sidewalk available.

Just assume that Bob is going to have an accident on his bike today. Would you
rather see him struck by a car and become a likely fatality, or see him hit a
pedestrian and cause a few scrapes and bruises? Why would you unnecessarily
force people into a potentially deadly situation for the crime of riding a
bicycle?

~~~
oxryly1
Cycling on a sidewalk is punishable by 6 months (!!!) in jail in my city.

~~~
scosman
what city is that?

~~~
oxryly1
Santa Monica, CA

------
tritium
An accident is an accident, is an accident, is an accident.

We've all had accidents, and we know what that feels like.

Negligence, maliciousness and depravity all have clear definitions.

There's no clear rule for discerning human intent and emotion,
retrospectively, but it's outlines are often detectable through residual
evidence. It is often obvious when an event required careful planning,
contrasted against chaotic incidents that couldn't possibly be replicated if
you tried.

Sometimes, things are curiously a little bit in between. Most of reality is
imperfect, and we have to accept that.

~~~
astrodust
"I was just texting in my phone. I didn't mean to run over that lady."

That is not an accident. These are not accidents. The very phrase "accident"
leads to the sort of thinking you're espousing here.

These are collisions. These are deaths. These are manslaughter. These are
negligent homicide. These are avoidable.

If you're operating a vehicle and not paying attention, not driving according
to the road conditions, aren't keeping your vehicle in proper mechanical
shape, or don't have sufficient training, you're a hazard and shouldn't be on
the road. Period.

~~~
gnu8
That’s exactly the same as saying “I was just drunk. I didn’t mean to run over
that lady.” When the driver deliberately impairs their ability to drive, they
assume culpability for any accident that might occur.

~~~
tritium
Ah, so every collision is the product of a willful decision to enter into
circumstances that place others in harms way, and may be readily equivocated
to handling a loaded gun, with the intent to possibly destroy things, yes?

And I suppose collisions are thus to be perceived as, not merely likely, but
having been inevitable once they transpire, at least in the eyes of the law.

So, every traffic infraction is the result of someone waking up and trying to
do harm, or in some way cause a problem they may have inflicted (or intended
to inflict) upon the world. And especially so, when proven guilty by a
trustworthy legal system, immune to manipulation.

Everyone is suicidal, everyone is self destructive, everyone is negligent, and
these collisions are just representative of the moments in which such people
succeed in fulfilling their desires.

I see how it works now. Thanks for the enlightenment.

~~~
uoaei
Not sure where this malice comes from, but GP specifically said "impairs their
ability to drive." You're striking at strawmen.

~~~
tritium
You're grasping for informal logical fallacies, because it makes you feel
smart to level them at people on the internet.

Within the context of this article, there's no real evidence of an impairment
to the driver's ability, willful or otherwise.

From TFA:

    
    
      ...remembers the driver [...] getting out of her car 
         with a cell phone pressed against her ear...
    

But there's no statement that this was a cell phone related accident. No
evidence denoted that the driver was willfully negligent, even after being
convicted of criminal charges, which likely would have surfaced any relevant
call records from the cell provider.

So, the very premise is bullshit with regard to this specific case, because
GP's false quote not an actual statement from the situation at hand, in this
case. It's hypothetical rhetoric.

As far I can tell, this is not really any kind of criminal assault. The law is
being manipulated to achieve a desired outcome. Maybe this is an accident, in
violation of the three foot rule, but a court requires evidence, not mere
suspicion.

In reality, to classify this as assault is to equivocate this with intentional
wrongdoing, which it isn't. Wrongful injury? Something deserving real
consequences? Sure, but you'd never convince me of an assault charge,
personally.

Revocation of driver's license? Yeah! Fines? Damages? Yeah!

Jail? Loss of rights? No way. This is not a very obviously violent person, to
be removed from society on a whim. It's not a person who's behavior was so
reprehensible that they get demoted from participating in civil society. Maybe
they lose access to the roads, and vehicles therein, but this case is not
deserving of further justice in the criminal sense. The conviction is really
just a demonstration of contempt. It's not true justice, but the making of an
example, and only to send a message, while the actual laws on the books remain
an inadequate expression of social boundaries.

~~~
uoaei
GGGP was not discussing the article per se. When GGGP said "impairs the
ability to drive" and you responded to it, you assumed they were talking about
the article. I think it's clear enough that this comment thread has opened
lines of discussion beyond the limited context of the article.

~~~
tritium
I disagree.

