View Full Version : Want to kill someone? Drive a car.
rory_20_uk
02-02-2009, 21:22
Here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5642228.ece) is a story where some moron ploughs into another motorist - killing them as she was using her mobile phone and driving at 70mph.
For this she gets 21 months.
This is at best negligent manslaughter and she should be in jail for many years. Or am I being unreasonable? :inquisitive:
~:smoking:
Strike For The South
02-02-2009, 21:26
You spell tire, tyre? What an odd little island.....
As for the bird, this should be negligent manslaughter and it should be 3-5 years.
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that 7% of drivers don't use turn signals (http://response.com/about_response/press_releases/turn_signals.aspx) because forgoing it “adds excitement to driving.” I take this to mean that 7% of the cars on the road with me are being driven by people who are utterly insane.
Ser Clegane
02-02-2009, 21:45
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that 7% of drivers don't use turn signals (http://response.com/about_response/press_releases/turn_signals.aspx) because forgoing it “adds excitement to driving.” I take this to mean that 7% of the cars on the road with me are being driven by people who are utterly insane.
I found the whopping 42% who "don't have enough time" even more confusing - what important stuff are they busy with during the one second it takes to use the signal? :inquisitive:
BTW, it's only 4% that are utterly insane
I know - I am a nitpicker
Absolutely right, Ser, and your nitpicking is appreciated. But 4% is enough out-of-their-mind people to make me a cautious driver.
You're right Ser Clegane, I noticed this as well, it's only 7% of the 57% who do not do it, nice try Lemur but we caught you. ~;)
On the actual topic, if it is against the law to use a cellphone behind the wheel and a person does it anyway and ends up killing someone I'd say let them think about it for 5 years at least. I mean a lot of people need a really long time to realize that such "petty issues" can actually be important. 21 months isn't enough. A person died here due to severe neglect and self-importance, the person needs to spend a few years in jail to realize that the dead person was important as well.
Apparently, I'm a Swerver. :smug:
The lady should have gotten 3-5 at least. If you are piloting a multi-ton hunk of metal, you really should take some responsibility and pay attention. I'm firmly behind a cellphone driving ban. Several times a day I have to navigate around chatters/texters, and my commute is not even that far.
What's the point of me signaling when the idiot I'm going around isn't paying attention anyway. ~;)
Meneldil
02-02-2009, 22:07
5 years seems like an absolute minimum. If it had happened out of pure bad luck, 21 months would have been harsh. But in that case, we're talking about a moron acting irresponsibly and killing someone.
I hate people who act responsibly when it threatens others' lives.
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that 7% of drivers don't use turn signals (http://response.com/about_response/press_releases/turn_signals.aspx) because forgoing it “adds excitement to driving.” I take this to mean that 7% of the cars on the road with me are being driven by people who are utterly insane.
I swear people who don't bother to use their turn signals should be sent to jail for 3-5 years. Is it so hard to warn someone your about to swerve infront of them? It's the darn near only thing keeping my 250 from turning that little malibu into road kill.
As for the topic, nice way of getting rid of the undesirable's in england. Get a car, a cell phone and get rid of em, it's only 21 months, not even 2 years in prison well worth it. Just remember to pay your 2 dozen taxes involved with driving that vehicle, that might be a worse sentence.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
02-02-2009, 22:12
I may disagree with phone use in a car, but I can at least see where the users are coming from. On the other hand, who texts in a vehicle? Do you have a death wish? Maybe I should install a Playstation in my dashboard and play Need for Speed or something. :dizzy2:
Peugeot 106 = death trap.
Seriously, I wonder why people would buy cars that crunch into a tin box even with relatively small force. The lady with the mobile suffered no injury even at 70 mph?
The traffic is getting more and more dangerous and I watch people driving their tin cans with no impact zone between the rear bumper and the rear seat were a new born is strapped into a car seat. :no:
This happens to everyday people too. My brother in law totalled his car this way. He was on his way to the store and he told me he only took his eyes away from the road a split second to adjust the radio and BAM!!! he was inside the car that had stopped suddenly in the middle of the road. Luckily the cars were both of a sturdy type and there were no injuries to either drivers.
On the other hand, who texts in a vehicle? Do you have a death wish? Maybe I should install a Playstation in my dashboard and play Need for Speed or something. :dizzy2:
It's quite common around here. Generally, they will hold the phone to the steering wheel with both hands, thumb in the texts, while occassionally looking up at the road. Never a pleasant feeling when you realize the person in front of you is lhao at 65 mph.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-02-2009, 23:18
I found the whopping 42% who "don't have enough time" even more confusing - what important stuff are they busy with during the one second it takes to use the signal? :inquisitive:
BTW, it's only 4% that are utterly insane
I know - I am a nitpicker
Its EGO really. You have to be so wrapped up in yourself that devoting time to signalling doesn't register OR so convinced of your own importance that you KNOW the other drivers will adjust to you and that you do, indeed, own the road.
CountArach
02-02-2009, 23:22
Gotta agree with everyone else - negligent manslaughter.
I believe this kind of story is the reason that using a mobile phone without a hands-free is illegal while driving a car in my State.
Hosakawa Tito
02-03-2009, 00:09
Hah, a more fitting, and effective, punishment would be amputating her thumbs...~;)
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that 7% of drivers don't use turn signals (http://response.com/about_response/press_releases/turn_signals.aspx) because forgoing it “adds excitement to driving.” I take this to mean that 7% of the cars on the road with me are being driven by people who are utterly insane.
The percentage of selfish plebs who refrain from using their turn signals has to be well into the double digits here in NYC. Sometimes i'll sport a disturbingly wide grin and pantomime the act of flicking on a turn signal, you know, to provide some free, quality entertainment for their enjoyment. Thanks to these folks the seemingly innocent and simple act of crossing a street with the light turns into a paranoia fueled adventure of head twisting, eye darting antics.
My favorite drivers ever? Women drivers... who talk on their cell phones... while putting on makeup... with their kids in the back seat! Add a signal-free turn or illegal u-turn for flavor... You GO girls! :2thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Seamus Fermanagh
02-03-2009, 02:05
Sometimes i'll sport a disturbingly wide grin and pantomime the act of flicking on a turn signal, you know, to provide some free, quality entertainment for their enjoyment.
And, no doubt, their return gesture let's you know that you're "#1" with them....or is that only when it's the index finger....
Vladimir
02-03-2009, 15:53
It's quite common around here. Generally, they will hold the phone to the steering wheel with both hands, thumb in the texts, while occassionally looking up at the road. Never a pleasant feeling when you realize the person in front of you is lhao at 65 mph.
While traveling in the left lane as cars pass on the right.
Askthepizzaguy
02-04-2009, 11:41
Peugeot 106 = death trap.
Seriously, I wonder why people would buy cars that crunch into a tin box even with relatively small force. The lady with the mobile suffered no injury even at 70 mph?
The reason being that if the car crumples during impact, the driver's body does not stop suddenly as it would if the car itself stopped suddenly, which would be much more fatal.
The idea is to save the driver, not the car. If the car does not stop suddenly in a collision, then there is more time between the collision and the total stoppage of the car, which means reduced acceleration of the vehicle (which causes fewer G forces) and a slower velocity for the bodies inside the vehicle when the vehicle comes to a dead stop, with the driver and passengers inside also forced to come to a dead stop if they have their seat belts on, or worse, if they don't, they travel forward and collide with the interior of the vehicle as they have not accelerated along with the vehicle to a velocity of relative zero.
(There is no such thing as deceleration, only acceleration in an opposing spatial direction)
Cars without crumple zones do not reduce the velocity of the people inside the vehicle before the vehicle comes to a complete stop, and as such, the reduction in time but no reduction in stoppage results in greater sustained forward momentum and a more violent impact.
The reason the lady with the mobile suffered no injury is precisely because her vehicle took the injury for her, like a steel egg of protection. The egg was smashed, but the chick inside is safe, no pun intended.
Decelerate a bit, Pizza, I think what Sigurd means is that the 106 crumples too easily which is just as bad as not crumpling at all because there is almost no deceleration until it is crumpled.
Askthepizzaguy
02-04-2009, 12:37
I admit I don't have firsthand knowledge of what a 106 even is.
:hides:
That's OK ATPG.
The car in question is this one:
https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/asleka/peugeot_106_1.jpg
If you find yourself in the backseat of this one, only a few inches separates you from the rear bumper. Imagine standing still on a highway and someone ramming into you at 70 mph/112 kmh. There is literally no crumple zone between you and the car ramming into you.
Oh wait yes there is. YOU ARE THE CRUMPLE ZONE.
The car from behind will run over you as if you stood on the highway outside the car.
Askthepizzaguy
02-04-2009, 15:10
Gotcha.
I was entirely unaware of this vehicle. I thought you were speaking in generalities involving the reasons why there are crumple zones.
With a car like that, I'd agree... probably better for it NOT to fold into an aluminum can upon impact. Unless you know, you want to meet all the Valkyries in Valhalla or something.
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-04-2009, 15:25
Hey, death on the parkway is relatively similar to death in battle. ~;)
Askthepizzaguy
02-04-2009, 15:27
Similar, but without the
https://img356.imageshack.us/img356/4281/1219945105145uf1.jpg
I prefers to die in GLORIOUS battle.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-04-2009, 17:14
Ok, 3-5 seems to be the consensus here, and I can see why. Question though, she's an idiot, should she be locked up with drug addicts and murderers. I find it hard to believe she doesn't already feel terrible, she's not going to be driving again, so what's the point in locking her up?
Who benefits, except the tougher criminals who get another plaything?
Old Anglo-Saxon law had my favourite punishment for manslaughter, you pay the difference of that person for life. He has a wife and kids? They just became your responsibility. Seems far more just.
Askthepizzaguy
02-04-2009, 17:23
I would guess the point is if there isn't a form of harsh punishment, some people who don't 'feel bad' the way well-adjusted people do when they accidentally kill someone, would just keep on driving and killing.
Drunk driving is the same way. I don't care if it's a cell phone or a beer, if you chose to use it while driving or drink and then drive, and it results in an accident, it's negligence. And it's not as though people are unaware of the dangers and distractions these things cause. No one can claim ignorance. If you took a driving exam to get your license, you know this information already.
And if you don't, you're too dumb to drive.
I guess the point isn't to make a relatively innocent person's life more miserable, but it is to ensure that they NEVER forget the lesson they learned, which is that those actions have deadly consequences to others and bad consequences to thine own self. And to spread the word to others who talk on a cell phone while driving 70 MPH, or to those who drink and drive, they are skating on thin ice which is already cracking, and I'm not willing to jump in and save their butts when their luck runs out.
Losing driving privileges is not enough to compensate a life destroyed. And even in an accident, there was gross negligence involved that needs to be addressed, remembered, and punished, and others who might say "what's the harm" in flipping open a cell phone or driving to a bar without a designated driver might think "do I really want to do prison time?"
If not being considerate for others doesn't stop this nonsense, then maybe being considerate for your own livelihood and freedom will do the trick. My two cents.
After she does her time, I consider the matter closed. We are only human, and it is best to forgive. The time will also help her come to terms with her own guilty conscience, and paying the debt to society can actually help with that, I would guess.
LittleGrizzly
02-05-2009, 00:29
The time will also help her come to terms with her own guilty conscience, and paying the debt to society can actually help with that, I would guess.
I think I would just 'stew' in my own guilt in jail, I think I would want to do something for for his loved ones and make an apology if they wanted it, its probably the only way I could get over my guilt, it isn't society i would feel a debt to, it would be the friends and family of the person...
Askthepizzaguy
02-07-2009, 05:44
I understand and appreciate your point of view, LG.
If it happened to my family, I'm not sure I'd really want an apology or to see them again, even if they tried to do something nice.
There are some mistakes so horrible that forgiveness is possible, but seeing that person again is a horrible reminder of something you don't need reminders of, in my view. But I see the desire to repay the debt, and I think that's honorable, if impossible.
This is at best negligent manslaughter and she should be in jail for many years. Or am I being unreasonable? :inquisitive:
~:smoking:
Unreasonable? HA! You should be outraged, 21 months is insulting, try 21 years :inquisitive: stupid cow. (i believe farmyard animal names can be posted generally)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-08-2009, 01:57
I would guess the point is if there isn't a form of harsh punishment, some people who don't 'feel bad' the way well-adjusted people do when they accidentally kill someone, would just keep on driving and killing.
Permenant loss of license will fix that problem.
Drunk driving is the same way. I don't care if it's a cell phone or a beer, if you chose to use it while driving or drink and then drive, and it results in an accident, it's negligence. And it's not as though people are unaware of the dangers and distractions these things cause. No one can claim ignorance. If you took a driving exam to get your license, you know this information already.
And if you don't, you're too dumb to drive.
The question though, is whether criminal negilence should be custodial, given the state of our prisons I'd rather we lock up a child molester or actual murderer than an idiot.
I guess the point isn't to make a relatively innocent person's life more miserable, but it is to ensure that they NEVER forget the lesson they learned, which is that those actions have deadly consequences to others and bad consequences to thine own self. And to spread the word to others who talk on a cell phone while driving 70 MPH, or to those who drink and drive, they are skating on thin ice which is already cracking, and I'm not willing to jump in and save their butts when their luck runs out.
Again, loss of license, and being forced to pay, and work off, punitite damages. Prison often destroys lives. This woman did something very stupid, she remains stupid but is in fact repentant (so she claims), so taking away her license cures the stupidity, and that leaves you with a repentant.
Losing driving privileges is not enough to compensate a life destroyed. And even in an accident, there was gross negligence involved that needs to be addressed, remembered, and punished, and others who might say "what's the harm" in flipping open a cell phone or driving to a bar without a designated driver might think "do I really want to do prison time?"
Nothing compensates for a life, you can only compensate you practical damages (loss of family income etc.). I'm not a fan of retribution, it brutalises the victims and the state as far as I am concerned.
If not being considerate for others doesn't stop this nonsense, then maybe being considerate for your own livelihood and freedom will do the trick. My two cents.
After she does her time, I consider the matter closed. We are only human, and it is best to forgive. The time will also help her come to terms with her own guilty conscience, and paying the debt to society can actually help with that, I would guess.
Prison will destroy her livelyhood, is that really the appropriate punishement? What about her family and friends?
P.S. Sorry for late reply.
Kanamori
02-08-2009, 13:21
:book:I've been saying for ages that pedestrians are worth bonus points.
If the one killed had been someone of my family...
I would make it damn sure that she would get what she deserves... at any cost... :mean:
I honestly hate when people die for someone else's complete stupidity!!! MAN now I'm officially angry ~:pissed:
Emperor of Graal
02-09-2009, 07:55
Its always the morons and Idiots that live
the innocent always die~:mad
Prison will destroy her livelyhood, is that really the appropriate punishement? What about her family and friends?
P.S. Sorry for late reply.
She murdered someone, illegally doing things while driving, thats no manslaughter so stuff her livelihood, she doesn't deserve one.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-10-2009, 01:26
She murdered someone, illegally doing things while driving, thats no manslaughter so stuff her livelihood, she doesn't deserve one.
No, she killed someone out of stupidity. Murder requires the deliberate intent to kill. No one has said she had that.
A sentence is given for three reasons, retribution, protection of the public and reform. In the case where the offender is not a violent or malicious threat to society I am not in favour of custodial sentencing. When she is released, as she must be, she will have to re-enter society. She will do so having been exposed to the criminal fraternity, the consequences of this can only be negative and the cost will be bourne by society.
:book:I've been saying for ages that pedestrians are worth bonus points.
https://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2397/deathracexku3.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
https://img401.imageshack.us/img401/deathracexku3.jpg/1/w550.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img401/deathracexku3.jpg/1/)
Frankenstein unavailable for comment...
https://img21.imageshack.us/img21/6833/deathrace2nf8.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
https://img21.imageshack.us/img21/deathrace2nf8.jpg/1/w550.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img21/deathrace2nf8.jpg/1/)
Askthepizzaguy
02-10-2009, 02:17
No, she killed someone out of stupidity. Murder requires the deliberate intent to kill. No one has said she had that.
A sentence is given for three reasons, retribution, protection of the public and reform. In the case where the offender is not a violent or malicious threat to society I am not in favour of custodial sentencing. When she is released, as she must be, she will have to re-enter society. She will do so having been exposed to the criminal fraternity, the consequences of this can only be negative and the cost will be bourne by society.
Although I disagree with you, I have to say you're making a persuasive and compelling case.
:bow:
Do you really think that not having a license will stop her from driving again??...:inquisitive:
C'mon, my grandpa (75) has driven all his life, since he was 15, without a licence... he claims that he doesn't need one as long as he do everything right...
The point is... you don't need a license to drive... (mine is already outdated... for 3 months...) and yet I keep driving.
She must be punished, that will make the deceased family feel better and sure as hell it will make me feel safer when driving, knowing that at least if someone ends my life... he would have also screwed up his life.
Imagine this.
Even if she feels "guilty", which I claim she's not, since she even said that she continues to believe that using cellphones is ok (for the love of god, she was even text messaging!!! that's like firing live rounds blinded!!), and even if she does not drive again in her life... she would still have a life, she would still be able to get married, to have kids, to get older. While the victim cant do any... Even more what if she had children (which I'm not sure if she had), or if she was about to marry, those other people's lives would be DEVASTATED!, while the responsible can still have a happy complete life, many peopel survive without driving.
Have you lost someone close to you?, Imagine if she/he died because a complete act of idiocy, ignorance, and negligence, like this case certainly is. Wouldn't you like to have the responsible to pay for his sins?.
Lord Winter
02-10-2009, 05:29
Worker Bob has been putting in long hours at work for the last couple of weeks. So one day after a confrenece in a city a couple hours away he drives home eager to make it to his familly. He's tired and has trouble concentrating, but he keeps driving reasoning that he'll be home in a few hours. Anyway, Bob falls asleep at the wheel causing a crash that kills someone. He walks away unharmed.
Should Bob have all meaning in his life taken away, like the texter?
No, she killed someone out of stupidity. Murder requires the deliberate intent to kill. No one has said she had that.
A sentence is given for three reasons, retribution, protection of the public and reform. In the case where the offender is not a violent or malicious threat to society I am not in favour of custodial sentencing. When she is released, as she must be, she will have to re-enter society. She will do so having been exposed to the criminal fraternity, the consequences of this can only be negative and the cost will be bourne by society.
If i decide to run you over, ill just give you a call, and after death with your system ill just get off with a £10 fine :inquisitive:
rory_20_uk
02-11-2009, 23:33
Worker Bob has been putting in long hours at work for the last couple of weeks. So one day after a confrenece in a city a couple hours away he drives home eager to make it to his familly. He's tired and has trouble concentrating, but he keeps driving reasoning that he'll be home in a few hours. Anyway, Bob falls asleep at the wheel causing a crash that kills someone. He walks away unharmed.
Should Bob have all meaning in his life taken away, like the texter?
A workman is having problems with his wife. He isn't thinking when he puts a piece of railway track down. The train jumps the line at 100mph and ploughs into a road.
A surgeon carries on operating when tired / knows isn't as good as colleagues and has vastly higher rates of complications / deaths.
Is there any act of negligence that a person should re responsible for?
~:smoking:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-12-2009, 01:23
Do you really think that not having a license will stop her from driving again??...:inquisitive:
C'mon, my grandpa (75) has driven all his life, since he was 15, without a licence... he claims that he doesn't need one as long as he do everything right...
The point is... you don't need a license to drive... (mine is already outdated... for 3 months...) and yet I keep driving.
You ban her for life, if she willingly breaks that ban she has "guilty thought" mens rea and can be punished appropriately. Given that she can't drive properly the comparison with your grandfather is defunct.
She must be punished, that will make the deceased family feel better and sure as hell it will make me feel safer when driving, knowing that at least if someone ends my life... he would have also screwed up his life.
Vindiction has no place in law. I would feel safe that dangerous drivers are permenantly removed from the system. "A life for a life" would actually see her executed, which is where your arguement leads. Nothing will bring the deceased back, so what's the point in destroying two lives instead of one? In any case, I am to advocating no punishment, or aquital.
Imagine this.
Even if she feels "guilty", which I claim she's not, since she even said that she continues to believe that using cellphones is ok (for the love of god, she was even text messaging!!! that's like firing live rounds blinded!!), and even if she does not drive again in her life... she would still have a life, she would still be able to get married, to have kids, to get older. While the victim cant do any... Even more what if she had children (which I'm not sure if she had), or if she was about to marry, those other people's lives would be DEVASTATED!, while the responsible can still have a happy complete life, many peopel survive without driving.
If you lock this young woman up her family will also be devestated, if she has mental problems when she is released, turns to actual criminality, society will be furtherdamaged. If you place punitive and restorative damages on her then she carries the responsibility with her,and the deceased material contribution is maintained.
You arguement that shedoes not feel guilty is flawed, she feels texting is fine; so that she persists in her stupidity and remains a danger to society. She has, however, said that she feels guilt and regret that a woman has died. Your arguement still hinges on her having the "guilty thought" but you can't prove anything except incompetence.
Have you lost someone close to you?, Imagine if she/he died because a complete act of idiocy, ignorance, and negligence, like this case certainly is. Wouldn't you like to have the responsible to pay for his sins?.
I lost a friend because her docter failed to diagnose her maleria, she was 18. It was such a screw up it made the national papers.
If i decide to run you over, ill just give you a call, and after death with your system ill just get off with a £10 fine :inquisitive:
Strawman, she didn't set out to kill. If you're trying to incite me to an emotional reaction, it isn't working.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.