Anyone on here a judge?

Author
Discussion

FiF

43,964 posts

250 months

Friday 21st April 2017
quotequote all
Durzel said:
^ Eruditely put.
Indeed, it's another version of the argument I put when certain legislation was introduced.

Namely someone driving otherwise quite reasonably encounters a patch of ice or slippery surface that perhaps could have been anticipated by a more experienced driver, they slide off into a bus shelter and someone waiting for the bus is killed.

Another person, does exactly the same, but perhaps this time the cause of the collision is clearly entirely due to their appalling driving, but this time no one is hurt because by chance on that day the bus was on time and had picked up the passengers.

cmaguire

3,589 posts

108 months

Friday 21st April 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
That makes justice an act of chance which is entirely wrong. It's no different to trial by ordeal, get a woman to hold a hot object and if she blisters or doesn't blister she's a witch so burn her. No thanks.

For a more pertinent example, consider a car driver who passes a cyclist too closely in town. The cyclist wobbles, falls off, hits their head on the corner of the kerb, and dies from the injuries.

Another car driver at the same speed and in the same condition (not drunk, not tired, not speeding, not on the phone, cyclist not wearing a helmet) on a similar road but in another part of town, does the same thing and a cyclist wobbles/falls off, this time onto a grass verge where they bump their head on soft grass and mud but beyond the initial shock they're uninjured.

Why should a roll of the dice like that send the first driver to prison but not the second when the degree to which their driving fell below the expected standard was the same? The outcome was a matter of chance.

Immense sympathy to the OP for their loss.
It's not a prison or nothing option.
I would be perfectly happy for the first driver to receive a heavier punishment, although in reality 'passing too close to a cyclist' is unlikely to result in either being punished. The simple solution, avoiding the issue, is not to pass too close in either case.
It comes back to my former point regarding context..if I push someone over outside a nightclub there is far more chance of them banging their head on the pavement and dying than if I did the same on the football field. Should I feel inclined to do either then I would expect to take that into account, as one is potentially far more dangerous than the other. Context, as per your cycling scenario.


Edited by cmaguire on Friday 21st April 16:47

Durzel

12,232 posts

167 months

Friday 21st April 2017
quotequote all
cmaguire said:
It's not a prison or nothing option.
I would be perfectly happy for the first driver to receive a heavier punishment, although in reality 'passing too close to a cyclist' is unlikely to result in either being punished. The simple solution, avoiding the issue, is not to pass too close in either case.
It comes back to my former point regarding context..if I push someone over outside a nightclub there is far more chance of them banging their head on the pavement and dying than if I did the same on the football field. Should I feel inclined to do either then I would expect to take that into account, as one is potentially far more dangerous than the other. Context, as per your cycling scenario.


Edited by cmaguire on Friday 21st April 16:47
I'm not sure how that relates to his point to be honest. You're talking about two different environments entirely, including one where you could reasonably expect to be pushed or fall over (a competitive football match). Obviously in the circumstances you've given you'd expect the nightclub push to be treated more harshly than the football field one, but flipping it on its head - if a guy pushed someone in the heat of the moment on a football field, and they fell and somehow died, I would certainly expect common sense to err on the side of it being a tragic accident.

turbobloke was talking about two ostensibly identical incidents taking place on the road, with one of them having a much direr outcome. It also speaks to the wider argument of how far the consequences of your initial action should reasonably be expected to cascade with you remaining entirely to blame. If you pass close to an inexperienced cyclist, and they have an avoidable crash and suffer a more extreme injury than another one - are you entirely responsible for that? The crux of the matter, as it seems to be in this case, is to what extent the driver's actions could reasonably be expected to have led to, or have been likely to lead to, the outcome it did. If the outcome is extraordinary, I wouldn't expect the punishment to be meted out as if it weren't.

Edited by Durzel on Friday 21st April 19:15

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 21st April 2017
quotequote all
Keep in mind outcome does have an impact on quite a few offences. Keeping it within the context of motoring, I could compare two identical collisions where the driver has driven dangerously and collided with someone, but the availability of medical treatment is a variable. This can be the difference between a fatal and non-fatal outcome, and dangerous driving and death by dangerous driving which is out of the hands of the driver.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 21st April 2017
quotequote all
Drive Dangerously and the same driving could see you sentenced very differently, dependent on the outcome.

Hit nobody, up to 2 years in prison. Injure someone to GBH standard, up to 5 years and kill them, up to 14.

Personally think the disparity between the extremes is too much (for a driving offence).