This drives me mad
Discussion
this drives me mad.
Don't these people realise that anybody who has killed a cyclist or someone by accident on the roads will have to live with that on their conscience for the rest of their lives?
Putting them in prison won't change their driving. Removing their licence won't change their driving. Giving them a fine and a few points won't change their driving.
What will change their driving, is the fact they are going to constantly think about the fact they've killed someone. The fact they've destroyed the lives of the person's family. The fact they've made a mistake that quite a few other people will routinely make, but they're unfortunate enough to end up killing someone as a result.
These people are going to need support and consolation, not punishing.
Does nobody understand that?
Don't these people realise that anybody who has killed a cyclist or someone by accident on the roads will have to live with that on their conscience for the rest of their lives?
Putting them in prison won't change their driving. Removing their licence won't change their driving. Giving them a fine and a few points won't change their driving.
What will change their driving, is the fact they are going to constantly think about the fact they've killed someone. The fact they've destroyed the lives of the person's family. The fact they've made a mistake that quite a few other people will routinely make, but they're unfortunate enough to end up killing someone as a result.
These people are going to need support and consolation, not punishing.
Does nobody understand that?
jimbop1 said:
But I think the point is.. Is prison necessary for making a split second mistake or is it enough that the person will have to live with the guilt for the rest of their lives enough?
As discussed on another thread the car driver may not always be 100% at fault.
My apologies for not responding.As discussed on another thread the car driver may not always be 100% at fault.
What he said is more or less my view on the matter.
I also wish to add:
Those drivers who have killed a cyclist while they were driving dangerously and were aware of the possible consequences that their actions might have on vulnerable road users, and after the event, appear to be unaffected by what just happened? They deserve to rot in hell.
What I find annoying are those who, say, go on their morning commute to work, and they're driving along, no problem, then they turn left without checking their blind-spot. A mistake they've made for a few years now, with no consequence, and suddenly the driver has killed a cyclist.
Do they deserve to go to prison?
The fact they're going to have the scenario constantly replayed in their head, the fact they might lose friends and their world might come crumbling down around them because they're unable to cope with the thought they've killed someone by accident. In my eyes, that's punishment enough.
Banning them from driving, sending them to prison, punishing them. Yeah, of course that will change their driving.
But it's going to destroy their life.
Yes, I can see how punishing the driver at fault would serve to ease the pain of the family and friends of the lost one, but you're going to destroy the driver's family. You'll deprive the driver's children of a parent by sending them to prison, all for a simple, innocent mistake?
That, my friends, is what annoys me.
will_ said:
If the risk of a lifelong guilty conscience was sufficient deterrent to poor driving there wouldn't be any such "accidents".
Sadly it appears that the thought of killing someone isn't sufficient to ensure that people check their mirrors, don't use their phones, and look before pulling out of side roads. Hopefully well reported examples of drivers being held to account for such "innocent" mistakes will focus others' minds better. It's sad that that is required.
It is not justice for you to make an error, kill someone, and receive no punishment. How does that sit with the rights of the victim or their families? Do you not think they'll go through worse than the driver? And to add insult to injury, there is no punishment for such negligence that ends someone's life?
They must live with the consequences of their actions. When it comes to driving, that includes punishment by way of going to prison. It is not just the error that is punished - the penalty must also reflect the consequences of the error otherwise the scales of justice are not balanced. Exactly the same as if you punch someone and they hit their head on the kerb and die - however unlucky "you" are, that death is still as a result of your action and the punishment must reflect the crime. And you're much luckier than your victim.
You appear to be of the view that prison is only to protect people - it isn't. It's to reflect the harm done and it is a form of retribution. I have little sympathy for someone whose life is wrecked by their own actions which involves killing another person. The fact that this also affects the killer's family should not be held against the victim or their family - it is another foreseeable result from the killer's actions.
Everyone on the road should be well aware that they are responsible for a vehicle which can kill someone. It should be treated as such. If, cocooned in their sealed box, people forget the risk that they pose to others, fail to pay attention and end up killing someone they are not deserving of sympathy and it's bizarre to think that they should be.
This country has a poor record of penalising drivers who kill others - it's easily the least punished form of killing. Drivers already receive significant discounts compared to those who kill in other ways e.g. manslaughter.
I must sadly be in the minority if I feel that the risk of a guilty conscience is enough to prevent me from doing something stupid.Sadly it appears that the thought of killing someone isn't sufficient to ensure that people check their mirrors, don't use their phones, and look before pulling out of side roads. Hopefully well reported examples of drivers being held to account for such "innocent" mistakes will focus others' minds better. It's sad that that is required.
It is not justice for you to make an error, kill someone, and receive no punishment. How does that sit with the rights of the victim or their families? Do you not think they'll go through worse than the driver? And to add insult to injury, there is no punishment for such negligence that ends someone's life?
They must live with the consequences of their actions. When it comes to driving, that includes punishment by way of going to prison. It is not just the error that is punished - the penalty must also reflect the consequences of the error otherwise the scales of justice are not balanced. Exactly the same as if you punch someone and they hit their head on the kerb and die - however unlucky "you" are, that death is still as a result of your action and the punishment must reflect the crime. And you're much luckier than your victim.
You appear to be of the view that prison is only to protect people - it isn't. It's to reflect the harm done and it is a form of retribution. I have little sympathy for someone whose life is wrecked by their own actions which involves killing another person. The fact that this also affects the killer's family should not be held against the victim or their family - it is another foreseeable result from the killer's actions.
Everyone on the road should be well aware that they are responsible for a vehicle which can kill someone. It should be treated as such. If, cocooned in their sealed box, people forget the risk that they pose to others, fail to pay attention and end up killing someone they are not deserving of sympathy and it's bizarre to think that they should be.
This country has a poor record of penalising drivers who kill others - it's easily the least punished form of killing. Drivers already receive significant discounts compared to those who kill in other ways e.g. manslaughter.
You make a bunch of good points there.
will_ said:
You call a mistake that takes a life "innocent" - that shows an extraordinary mindset. It is so far from innocent.
I must have an extremely controversial mindset if I believe in giving people second chances and giving them the benefit of doubt.The problem here is I think a large proportion of us are cynical. We're pessimistic by nature.
This leads to a view where "someone is always to blame".
I find it surprising that you consider a mistake that takes a life is not innocent.
Let me give you an example. A while ago now, there was a ferry that sunk because the operator of the door made the mistake of just falling asleep. Now it's quite possible that this mistake has been made by many ferry door operators the world over, but just this once, many lives were lost as a result.
What you are suggesting, by saying that, is that the man deliberately fell asleep in order to take lives.
Is that what you think?
Edited by TheInsanity1234 on Tuesday 22 July 15:57
walm said:
TheInsanity1234 said:
What you are suggesting, by saying that, is that the man deliberately fell asleep in order to take lives.
You don't understand the difference between negligence and intending to kill.Perhaps that's why you are going mad.
You need to understand the slightly nuanced difference between manslaughter and murder.
Murder would be planned taking of life.
What I'm saying is, it is possible to make a honest mistake and end up killing someone as a result.
Negligence can be a honest mistake.
I was responding to someone who said that a mistake that takes a life is not innocent.
I was showing him it is possible to make an innocent mistake, and cause a loss of life as a result.
heebeegeetee said:
That's fine but why should you get a lesser sentence depending on the vehicle of choice of the victim?
Motorbikes are harder to see than cars, so when a driver just pulls out on a bike, we shouldn't let the driver off because his victim wasn't as easy to see as a car - that is irrelevant.
Everybody knows that you can miss a motorbike when pulling out of a junction so therefore you ram home to people that they must look, and if they don't look then they should go to prison imo.
Likewise with cyclists. I recall one incident when a young man killed a mother-of-two on a time trial, he didn't even get a fine imo.
What could be more precious than a mum of two? You just can't go around killing these people for no reason (and the young man had no explanation for failing to see the cyclist in perfect conditions).
We shouldn't be blaming the victims - we should be focusing solely on the driving of the offender, and the sentences should be the same for whoever they've killed.
I'm not suggesting we change the types of sentence depending on the choice of transport of the victim.Motorbikes are harder to see than cars, so when a driver just pulls out on a bike, we shouldn't let the driver off because his victim wasn't as easy to see as a car - that is irrelevant.
Everybody knows that you can miss a motorbike when pulling out of a junction so therefore you ram home to people that they must look, and if they don't look then they should go to prison imo.
Likewise with cyclists. I recall one incident when a young man killed a mother-of-two on a time trial, he didn't even get a fine imo.
What could be more precious than a mum of two? You just can't go around killing these people for no reason (and the young man had no explanation for failing to see the cyclist in perfect conditions).
We shouldn't be blaming the victims - we should be focusing solely on the driving of the offender, and the sentences should be the same for whoever they've killed.
I'm not suggesting we blame the victims.
I'm suggesting that we show a tad more compassion towards people who are genuinely remorseful and are extremely affected by the incident.
In fact, I've diagnosed the exact thing that irritates me.
The article demands that car drivers are given tougher penalties for killing a cyclist, but there is no apparent consideration given to drivers who are a victim of bad cycling. It doesn't suggest anything towards improving the standards of cycling and driving.
It just comes across as "Well, anyone who runs over a cyclist is automatically at fault, even if the cyclist swerved in front of them with no signal or anything."
walm said:
I disagree. Negligence is worse than a genuine error. Have a gander here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC357605...
Honest mistakes would be running all available medical tests on someone leading to no clear diagnosis and then choosing the wrong course of treatment.
That's a mistake. Punishing that person would serve no purpose and has no deterrent effect.
Not running all the available tests is negligent. Punishing someone who does that would serve a purpose - it would encourage others to run all the tests!
Falling asleep on the job is negligent. Your conduct has fallen below an acceptable standard.
In this case the standard is that of a reasonable and careful driver. (Or reasonable and careful ferry operator.)
Reasonable and careful drivers don't fell asleep behind the wheel, for example.
That's negligent.
So drivers who don't do the 6-point check before pulling away are negligent?Honest mistakes would be running all available medical tests on someone leading to no clear diagnosis and then choosing the wrong course of treatment.
That's a mistake. Punishing that person would serve no purpose and has no deterrent effect.
Not running all the available tests is negligent. Punishing someone who does that would serve a purpose - it would encourage others to run all the tests!
Falling asleep on the job is negligent. Your conduct has fallen below an acceptable standard.
In this case the standard is that of a reasonable and careful driver. (Or reasonable and careful ferry operator.)
Reasonable and careful drivers don't fell asleep behind the wheel, for example.
That's negligent.
Does that mean if you run over a cyclist because you failed to check your blind spot, you would accept an long prison sentence, because you made one mistake?
heebeegeetee said:
TheInsanity1234 said:
but there is no apparent consideration given to drivers who are a victim of bad cycling.
Blimey. Can you show me one of them?What would probably help the entire matter is to educate people.
At the moment, there's no provision within education to teach students how to ride a bike safely, and how to be a good and courteous pedestrian.
I'd like to have spent my PE lessons learning how to ride a bike safely and in a responsible manner, rather than jumping about and playing football.
will_ said:
My post crossed with yours.
My tone is somewhat abrupt for shortness of time and for that I apologise.
However it is an interesting debate to have. The basis of "justice" and punishment is a very interesting topic and there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. That particularly applies to road-based deaths because, as you rightly say, it is often a matter of luck. However, to my mind, that "bad luck" does not mitigate the need for punishment - but that punishment is a degree lower than manslaughter which itself is a degree lower than murder (for example).
No problem, at least I'm able to admit I'm wrong My tone is somewhat abrupt for shortness of time and for that I apologise.
However it is an interesting debate to have. The basis of "justice" and punishment is a very interesting topic and there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. That particularly applies to road-based deaths because, as you rightly say, it is often a matter of luck. However, to my mind, that "bad luck" does not mitigate the need for punishment - but that punishment is a degree lower than manslaughter which itself is a degree lower than murder (for example).
walm said:
TheInsanity1234 said:
At the moment, there's no provision within education to teach students how to ride a bike safely, and how to be a good and courteous pedestrian.
I'd like to have spent my PE lessons learning how to ride a bike safely and in a responsible manner, rather than jumping about and playing football.
The insanity continues! I'd like to have spent my PE lessons learning how to ride a bike safely and in a responsible manner, rather than jumping about and playing football.
My kids (5&7) have received green-cross-code lessons or whatever it is called these days (rural state school).
Also, plenty of schools sign up for this:
http://bikeability.dft.gov.uk/
And many councils offer FREE bike training for adults - it's never too late!
Signing up is not a requirement, is it?
I think level 1 should be compulsory, as much as English and PE are compulsory.
Just to help people on their way to being good cyclists and drivers.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff