Want to kill someone? Drive a car.

[rory_20_uk]

Here 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?

[Strike For The South]

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.

[Lemur]

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that 7% of drivers don't use turn signals 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]

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that 7% of drivers don't use turn signals 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?

BTW, it's only 4% that are utterly insane

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I know - I am a nitpicker

[Lemur]

Absolutely right, Ser, and your nitpicking is appreciated. But 4% is enough out-of-their-mind people to make me a cautious driver.

[Husar]

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.

[drone]

Apparently, I'm a Swerver.


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]

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.

[BigTex]

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that 7% of drivers don't use turn signals 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]

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.

[Sigurd]

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.

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.

[drone]

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.

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]

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?

BTW, it's only 4% that are utterly insane

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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]

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]

Hah, a more fitting, and effective, punishment would be amputating her thumbs...

[Spino]

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that 7% of drivers don't use turn signals 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!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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]

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]

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.

[Husar]

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]

I admit I don't have firsthand knowledge of what a 106 even is.

:hides:

[Sigurd]

That's OK ATPG.

The car in question is this one:


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]

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]

Hey, death on the parkway is relatively similar to death in battle.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Similar, but without the




I prefers to die in GLORIOUS battle.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Thermal]

This is at best negligent manslaughter and she should be in jail for many years. Or am I being unreasonable?

Unreasonable? HA! You should be outraged, 21 months is insulting, try 21 years stupid cow. (i believe farmyard animal names can be posted generally)