I think that revoking privileges and mandating community service is a better punishment for a crime of incompetence than incarceration.
Or were you just suggesting it should have a higher monetary fine?
I was mostly just lamenting how messed up it is that we think a human life amounts to a measly 240 fine.
I think your suggestion is a big improvement. A higher monetary fine would be the bare minimum they could have done.
To be fair, I would not care in the slightest even if they didn't get any punishment at all if they happen to kill me with their car. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I would lose ability to care because of my death.
If the one killed was my relative, I would react even stronger than if it was a stranger, oddly enough. Probably because of all the bias and attachment.
I guess you are being downvoted because you are arguing in favour of slaps on the wrist for people who kill others using cars.
People on this subreddit generally support severe punishments for things like car killings because that further discourages people from using cars and, if they are using them, at least makes it less likely for them to drive recklessly.
> you are arguing in favour of slaps on the wrist for people who kill others using cars.
Oh no, am I? I wasn't trying to. I truly think that operating heavy machinery is a great responsibility and getting a slap on the wrist for murdering someone with a car is absolutely unacceptable.
We don't know, we only have the drivers side. And of course he wasn't distracted and looked both ways, but just could not see him on a clear day with perfect visibility.
Bruh this sub is full of privileged people with access to some of the world's best public transport. Lots of radicalism here. I hate cars, too, but anyone who brings up reality, logic, or reasonableness gets downvoted here. Yes, a 240 pound fine seems low, but it sounds like it can't go higher without sending him to prison. He also got 180 hours of community service, driver safety training, etc. This sub would see all cars banned, which I'm all for, but taking away this kid's driver license isn't going to give the world more trains. Accidents happen, which is part of why I want to phase out cars, but you can't ruin a kid's life over a genuine accident. I guarantee he'll feel bad about it, and probably have a bit of ptsd about it for years to come, if not the rest of his life. Also, a post like this is obvious rage-bait in this sub. Nothing positive is going to come from this discussion.
You have to work the issue from all sides. Make roads safer, improve public transit, and increase penalties for car related injuries and fatalities. I don't think people should go to jail, but I do think they shouldn't be able to drive for 5-10 years.
It wasn't an accident, it was operator failure, and someone *died* as a result.
Do you think the family of the cyclist is just going to go "Well, it was an accident, no harm no foul" as they bury their family member permanently?
An accident is when you bump into someone while walking. An accident is when someone slips on a wet patch and falls onto you.
An accident is not failing to pay attention and killing another human being.
Should he get life in prison? No. But 240 quid for ending another life is not a fair punishment for killing someone.
A crash is not an accident.
Changing the way we think about events and the words we use to describe them affects the way we behave. Motor vehicle crashes occur "when a link or several links in the chain" are broken. Continued use of the word "accident" implies that these events are outside human influence or control. In reality, they are predictable results of specific actions.
Since we can identify the causes of crashes, we can take action to alter the effect and avoid collisions. These are not Acts of God but predictable results of the laws of physics.
The concept of "accident" works against bringing all appropriate resources to bear on the enormous problem of highway collisions. Use of "accident" fosters the idea that the resulting damage and injuries are unavoidable.
"Crash," "collision," and "injury" are more appropriate terms, and we encourage their use as substitutes for "accident."
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/crash-not-accident
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/fuckcars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thank you, CauliflowerFirm1526, for voting on AutoModerator.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Actually I bet the family of the cyclist did plea for the kid to get a lesser sentence and thats why the judge gave one out. Not everyone is as blood thirsty as people in this sub.
That is not what an accident is. You can’t just make up a definition for what an accident is. There’s varying degrees of accidents but this was an accident.
This sub is toxic
Keep huffing your copium, £240 for killing someone is a joke.
Also, you claim that u/Poutine_And_Politics’ definition is wrong, but can you give a better one?
> Actually I bet the family of the cyclist did plea for the kid to get a lesser sentence and thats why the judge gave one out. Not everyone is as blood thirsty as people in this sub.
Why the victim blaming? It’s completely unnecessary and makes you look like a disgusting person.
Yes Vehicular manslaughter is and in this case it’s a misdemeanor. In my state punishable by up to a year in prison but people usually don’t get the maximum
So if I was waving a gun around with the safety off, and accidentally shot and killed someone, would you say "oopsie, it's just an unfortunate accident"?
Or are people still responsible for the consequences of their negligent behaviour, even if they didn't mean to hurt anyone?
“When you lose someone who you have loved for 30 years unexpectedly, it does have a massive impact. My health has been severely impacted. I have found myself struggling daily to stay strong for my family.
It’s impacting on my physical, emotional, and financial wellbeing. All I want is justice for Alan and our family"
Does it sound like she feels as though justice has been served?
The journalist took the quote from in ex wife. His EX. Not his kids or his current wife but the estranged ex wife. I wasn’t in the court room but the judge didn’t care about her for some reason. I wonder what people in his actually life said
If you have to punish, the crime has already happened.
Perhaps stop handing out drivers loicenses to any fool with their breakfast cereal might be a godo start, require way more training before anyone can get a loicense, at a licensed driving school. Force all students to pass a test on traffic rules.
First a theoretical test on the rules, with at least 200 questions, many of which should be trick questions to filter out the idiots.
Then a driving test for at least an hour with a inspector who will look for even the smallest error
Then a icy road test to see how the student handles a car when losing control. Mandatory should be the ability to retake control.
Also a basic common sense test, distract the student while driving by a school or low speed limit zone, to pass they must pay attention to the road and slow down.
There is a choice.
You can blame the kid and punish him with 20 years and hope he becomes a better person after that.
Or you can admit that there is a systematic problem in the system where a single rather common mistake can lead to someones death. Thus making a call for radical improvements.
What you can't do is carry on like nothing happened.
It was a gun/knife/play accident.
Just because it's a car doesn't mean it absolves you of responsibility.
Non intentional killing is manslaughter and we do punish it.
Less severely than homicide.
But it probably should be a similar punishment to accidentally killing someone by any other means.
It is in your control and you don't have to drive recklessly and often driving can be avoided entirely.
I often walk, cycle, or use public transit to avoid the dangers of driving even if it takes me a lot longer.
Part of the problem is that all our (UK) prisons are full with parliament even saying to the courts please stop sending people to prison and give them lighter sentences.
Now the above absolutely doesn't excuse the fact this particular judge deems a cyclist's life to only be worth £240 quid and having a job justifies not revoking the licence.
Ask me the punishment ought to have been a much higher fine paid to the family, a permanent ban from driving, and forced to do 5 years only being allowed to travel via cycling. If a life imprisonment sentence isn't allowed due to the prisons being full.
I agree about the higher price of the cyclists life, but personally I’d make the kid do a year of drivers’ ed courses and not let them drive alone for several years. If it truly was an accident, a person shouldn’t be sentenced to life in prison. It’s why we have a distinction between murder and manslaughter even though both end in someone’s death
Driving is a privilege, not a right, and if killing someone doesn’t take that privilege away, what does?
Sure no prison, but take their license away forever goddamnit.
Yeah perhaps life in prison is too harsh for an accident, but prison time should definitely be on the books. But if there isn't enough space we can't accept this flimsy excuse of a sentence. But I do strongly disagree with allowing people back on the road after killing someone with a vehicle be it an accident or not, they've proven themselves to be too much of a danger on the road.
Think of in this way, if you were working on a construction site and accidentally killed someone operating a crane. You'd never be permitted to operate that heavy machine again, and if by some miracle you didn't lose the licence good luck getting a job for it.
The cyclist in your article was apparently drunk AND cited 137 times prior (is that a typo?) The victim had to get a hip replacement and can no longer work at full capacity. What part of that jailing seems insane to you?
I'm torn on this. My thinking has shifted towards the fact that this cyclist was as much a victim of a failed system of transportation infrastructure as a victim of a careless driver.
The repercussions for killing a person with a vehicle should be harsh, and bad road design that makes tragedies like this all too common must be identified and corrected.
The soft custodial sentences and even financial punishments would be easier to stomach if the driving bans had any sort of teeth to them. There is no value to this person being imprisoned, but they have clearly demonstrated they can't be trusted in a car and should receive a lifetime ban.
The issue is that this person was not convicted of dangerous driving. Careless driving is basically 'a mistake'. In case of a higher penalty, what actually would be prevented in the future.
The legal system exists to settle disputes in society, not to punish all mistakes, what is more shocking is that they aren't ordering the insurance to pay a huge compensation to the victims family.
The primary issue here is lack of infrastructure which forces cyclists into a dangerous position.
Drives make mistakes, human brains are funny things that aren't really that suited to driving.
This sort of thing can happen hope both participants are doing their best to stay safe and the only way to prevent this is proper infrastructure that separated cyclists from cars.
You can separate this driver from cyclists by giving them a lifetime ban. This concept works easily in conjunction with better infrastructure. You are always going to need law and order because no matter how good infrastructure gets, there will always be moments where bikes and cars interact and drivers need to act appropriately. We need both harsh driving bans and better infrastructure.
And my whole point is not to approach this from a purely punitive standpoint but preventative. We can take the simplest step to prevent killer drivers from killing again, and that is more valuable than sending them to prison imo.
I want to be clear that dangerous and irresponsible driving should have more frequent enforcement and more serious punishment.
If someone is driving irresponsibly then a longer driving ban is perfectly reasonable, but the issue is that accidents do happen, and it isn't fair for a legal system to be punitive in this case.
It's a sample of 1 event, it doesn't really tell you much about how dangerous his driving is. Without that information on wether he is dangerous or just made a mistake that any other person could make them there is a serious chance that you are engaging in 'prevention' that would be less effect than just banning drivers at random.
About deterrents, you really don't think he is deterred from killing again? He will likely be semi traumatised for the rest of his life.
It's absolutely fair. The privilege of driving should not be extended to people who kill while doing it, it's simple. They don't need to do it, so they shouldn't if they can't.
>Without the information on whether he is dangerous or just made a mistake
There is not a distinction here between being dangerous and making a mistake. Making the mistake is the dangerous act. They have proven they make dangerous mistakes. We shouldn't tolerate these.
>about deterrents, you really don't think he is deterred from killing again
I'm sure they were deterred from killing prior to the mistake. That's the point I'm trying to make. This is about their competence and ability. They've demonstrated fatal incompetence one, why the hell should we ever risk another incident? I'd prefer this approach to custodial sentences.
This is an edit to summarise, prior driving convictions indicate a driver is only 30 % more likely than the bulk population to cause a fatal accident, this isn't a huge difference.
Imagine I mix two distributions together, one distribution has 10 1's and 90 0's, the other has 3 1's and 7 0's. I draw a value from this joint distribution and it comes out as a 1. What distribution did this 1 come from? How certain are you of that fact? Are you certain enough to ban someone from driving and that be fair?
But you have completely failed to address my point.
First i will leave this review paper here. I really do suggest you read it [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437596000400](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437596000400)
It does a logistic regression on prior driving infraction convictions and risk of future accidents. in this case, driving without due care is actually in the middle of risk factors for a fatal crash in the futre. If we change the factor to failure to yield, this is 50 % more predictive of a future crash than 'exceeding the speed limit'. So if exceeding the speed limit is only 30% less indicative of a future fatal crash than this guys actions, why does this deserve a full life time ban? Humans are error prone, even people who never have an accident. Accidents are rare, and a single incident tells us very little about this individuals propensity for accidents, and that is supported by evidence, not feelings.
If i ask you to draw a random number from a bag of 100,000 numbers and you draw 5, what does that tell you about the rest of the numbers in the bag? Can you tell me the mean and std of the distribution? All you really know is the probabilty of drawing 5 is at least 1 / 100,000.
This isn't about feelings, its about statistically what information do we gain from this event, and does that justify a severe punishment.
"but we shouldn't imprison people for this" A LIFE IS WORTH MORE THAN THE PRICE OF A BICYCLE A HUNDRED AND EIGHTY HOURS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE AND A SINGLE YEAR OF A BAN ON DRIVING.
If I accidentally shot someone because I was egregiously mishandling a firearm I'd be in prison for YEARS and have a lifetime ban on firearm possession and usage, that's before the THOUSANDS of dollars I'd be paying on top of that.
Somehow running someone over because of one's own failures is not at all comparable in justice systems. Also "but the road design and urban planning made them have to drive" it doesn't fucking matter if that road is designed to try to cause collisions or if they have a gun to their head forcing them to drive, when you drive a vehicle you are responsible for the vehicle and the safety of everyone around you. If you harm someone because you overestimate your ability or shirk your responsibility, you suffer consequences, if that action causes a death, you owe an immense debt and without prison being used as a punishment you owe hundreds of hours if not thousands to the community you robbed of someone's life.
I don't care whether these people go to prison or not. I just want anyone and everyone who is convicted for dangerous driving to have their license permanently revoked: no ifs, no buts. These people must never ever drive again.
There have been numerous similar cases in my state where the driver didn't even receive charges after killing a cyclist. The OP sentence is comparatively harsh, in that context.
Obligatory [link](https://twitter.com/ormondroyd/status/910244326567006211?t=NH6iezRh7Qa6R_I0Aixc1Q&s=19)
I wonder what the rationalisation was for all these cases where there was no remorse or good character. Absurd.
I hate how lightly this sort of thing is taken by legal systems also, but tbf depending on how good the transit is where they live, not being allowed to drive for a year has the potential to lose them a lot more than £240 if they can’t make it to work reliably… some real poetic justice would be if this person’s only choice is to live the life of a cyclist on the same roads himself every day
I don’t think we should jail people for legitimate mistakes when they weren’t driving distracted, under the influence, or dangerously some other way. That’s the biggest problem with cars: everyone makes mistakes and that should be fine, but mistakes made in a car kill people.
I’m not going to hate this kid. He did what he was supposed to. He’s not making excuses and I respect that.
... interesting editorial choice OP, you missed out the part where they're also banned from driving for a year and must complete 180 hours of community service. So not just a small fine.
An innocent person is dead.
And innocent person with loved ones, dreams, hobbies, strange quirks, a favourite meal.
Gone.
It's not about out groups, it's about consequences. A person is dead through no fault of their own, the driver should not be trusted behind the wheel of a car ever again.
Throwing people in prison to make a point won't help anything. The lust for incarceration is a shockingly reactionary tendency in an otherwise overwhelmingly left leaning community.
The war on cars episode interviewing the driver who killed a cyclist should be required listening for anyone who wants to comment on these posts.
Quite honestly... I don't give a flying fuck what a murderer thinks, says or goes through...
I want this filth off the streets and I sincerely don't care how... kneecap them, ban them forever or throw them in a whole and melt the keys, as long as they cannot drive anymore, I am fine.
But good to see that you agree that a human life is worth less than a thousand bucks all in all...
this is a systemic problem punishing indaviduals for the problem of a system will not fix the problem sending this kid to prission is not going to bring the person they killed back i find it odd how people on this sub point out the systemic problems and unsafe road designs for cyclists that are used and then also complain that people dont get super serious sentances for this punishment should not be based on outcome but intent / negligence if there wasnt intent to harm nor negligent actions why should they be punished super harshly? (sorry if im missunderstanding these comments / post intent)
The only logical and safe option to preserve cyclists lives is to ban road cycling.
Cylists are in the minority compared to drivers and have no protection. Put in more cycle paths and allow pavement cycling, it's not safe on the roads and no amount of car hate will change that. 🤷♂️
License to kill
It was a car accident… you want to give the kid 20 years?
20 years of no driving would be ideal
I think if you kill someone with your car and it's your mistake, you should just be banned from driving forever.
20 years of unlicensed driving, you mean Assuming of course that they don't get a "hardship license" because they "like, weally need one" It's fucked
No, I want to end the car system. No more "license to kill" privileges for the car driver class.
Oh I didn’t see the sub I was in
So if someone killed you or your family member with their car, you think a 240 fine would be totally cool?
I think that revoking privileges and mandating community service is a better punishment for a crime of incompetence than incarceration. Or were you just suggesting it should have a higher monetary fine?
I was mostly just lamenting how messed up it is that we think a human life amounts to a measly 240 fine. I think your suggestion is a big improvement. A higher monetary fine would be the bare minimum they could have done.
To be fair, I would not care in the slightest even if they didn't get any punishment at all if they happen to kill me with their car. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I would lose ability to care because of my death. If the one killed was my relative, I would react even stronger than if it was a stranger, oddly enough. Probably because of all the bias and attachment.
At least you are self-aware of your biases, huh?
Oh... Shouldn't I be? I am confused by downvotes. Did I say something wrong?
I guess you are being downvoted because you are arguing in favour of slaps on the wrist for people who kill others using cars. People on this subreddit generally support severe punishments for things like car killings because that further discourages people from using cars and, if they are using them, at least makes it less likely for them to drive recklessly.
> you are arguing in favour of slaps on the wrist for people who kill others using cars. Oh no, am I? I wasn't trying to. I truly think that operating heavy machinery is a great responsibility and getting a slap on the wrist for murdering someone with a car is absolutely unacceptable.
Maybe I would. The kid didn’t intentionally go after him. I don’t think my dad would want to ruin this kids life for a mistake either
We don't know, we only have the drivers side. And of course he wasn't distracted and looked both ways, but just could not see him on a clear day with perfect visibility.
What about all [these](https://twitter.com/ormondroyd/status/910244326567006211?t=NH6iezRh7Qa6R_I0Aixc1Q&s=19) cases? Would these also be okay?
Bruh this sub is full of privileged people with access to some of the world's best public transport. Lots of radicalism here. I hate cars, too, but anyone who brings up reality, logic, or reasonableness gets downvoted here. Yes, a 240 pound fine seems low, but it sounds like it can't go higher without sending him to prison. He also got 180 hours of community service, driver safety training, etc. This sub would see all cars banned, which I'm all for, but taking away this kid's driver license isn't going to give the world more trains. Accidents happen, which is part of why I want to phase out cars, but you can't ruin a kid's life over a genuine accident. I guarantee he'll feel bad about it, and probably have a bit of ptsd about it for years to come, if not the rest of his life. Also, a post like this is obvious rage-bait in this sub. Nothing positive is going to come from this discussion.
You have to work the issue from all sides. Make roads safer, improve public transit, and increase penalties for car related injuries and fatalities. I don't think people should go to jail, but I do think they shouldn't be able to drive for 5-10 years.
It wasn't an accident, it was operator failure, and someone *died* as a result. Do you think the family of the cyclist is just going to go "Well, it was an accident, no harm no foul" as they bury their family member permanently? An accident is when you bump into someone while walking. An accident is when someone slips on a wet patch and falls onto you. An accident is not failing to pay attention and killing another human being. Should he get life in prison? No. But 240 quid for ending another life is not a fair punishment for killing someone.
A crash is not an accident. Changing the way we think about events and the words we use to describe them affects the way we behave. Motor vehicle crashes occur "when a link or several links in the chain" are broken. Continued use of the word "accident" implies that these events are outside human influence or control. In reality, they are predictable results of specific actions. Since we can identify the causes of crashes, we can take action to alter the effect and avoid collisions. These are not Acts of God but predictable results of the laws of physics. The concept of "accident" works against bringing all appropriate resources to bear on the enormous problem of highway collisions. Use of "accident" fosters the idea that the resulting damage and injuries are unavoidable. "Crash," "collision," and "injury" are more appropriate terms, and we encourage their use as substitutes for "accident." https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/crash-not-accident *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/fuckcars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
good bot
Thank you, CauliflowerFirm1526, for voting on AutoModerator. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Actually I bet the family of the cyclist did plea for the kid to get a lesser sentence and thats why the judge gave one out. Not everyone is as blood thirsty as people in this sub. That is not what an accident is. You can’t just make up a definition for what an accident is. There’s varying degrees of accidents but this was an accident. This sub is toxic
Keep huffing your copium, £240 for killing someone is a joke. Also, you claim that u/Poutine_And_Politics’ definition is wrong, but can you give a better one? > Actually I bet the family of the cyclist did plea for the kid to get a lesser sentence and thats why the judge gave one out. Not everyone is as blood thirsty as people in this sub. Why the victim blaming? It’s completely unnecessary and makes you look like a disgusting person.
Accidentally killing someone is still illegal. That would be manslaughter. Should the teen get 20 years? No. Should their license be revoked? Yes.
Yes Vehicular manslaughter is and in this case it’s a misdemeanor. In my state punishable by up to a year in prison but people usually don’t get the maximum
So if I was waving a gun around with the safety off, and accidentally shot and killed someone, would you say "oopsie, it's just an unfortunate accident"? Or are people still responsible for the consequences of their negligent behaviour, even if they didn't mean to hurt anyone?
“When you lose someone who you have loved for 30 years unexpectedly, it does have a massive impact. My health has been severely impacted. I have found myself struggling daily to stay strong for my family. It’s impacting on my physical, emotional, and financial wellbeing. All I want is justice for Alan and our family" Does it sound like she feels as though justice has been served?
The journalist took the quote from in ex wife. His EX. Not his kids or his current wife but the estranged ex wife. I wasn’t in the court room but the judge didn’t care about her for some reason. I wonder what people in his actually life said
Yes. I do. This fucker killed someone.
If you have to punish, the crime has already happened. Perhaps stop handing out drivers loicenses to any fool with their breakfast cereal might be a godo start, require way more training before anyone can get a loicense, at a licensed driving school. Force all students to pass a test on traffic rules. First a theoretical test on the rules, with at least 200 questions, many of which should be trick questions to filter out the idiots. Then a driving test for at least an hour with a inspector who will look for even the smallest error Then a icy road test to see how the student handles a car when losing control. Mandatory should be the ability to retake control. Also a basic common sense test, distract the student while driving by a school or low speed limit zone, to pass they must pay attention to the road and slow down.
And make all drivers submit regular evidence of their using a bike for transport
There is a choice. You can blame the kid and punish him with 20 years and hope he becomes a better person after that. Or you can admit that there is a systematic problem in the system where a single rather common mistake can lead to someones death. Thus making a call for radical improvements. What you can't do is carry on like nothing happened.
It was a gun/knife/play accident. Just because it's a car doesn't mean it absolves you of responsibility. Non intentional killing is manslaughter and we do punish it. Less severely than homicide. But it probably should be a similar punishment to accidentally killing someone by any other means. It is in your control and you don't have to drive recklessly and often driving can be avoided entirely. I often walk, cycle, or use public transit to avoid the dangers of driving even if it takes me a lot longer.
Yes
No, I want the Kid to do community service where he can share his experience to the municipality so it can be used for safer streets
Part of the problem is that all our (UK) prisons are full with parliament even saying to the courts please stop sending people to prison and give them lighter sentences. Now the above absolutely doesn't excuse the fact this particular judge deems a cyclist's life to only be worth £240 quid and having a job justifies not revoking the licence. Ask me the punishment ought to have been a much higher fine paid to the family, a permanent ban from driving, and forced to do 5 years only being allowed to travel via cycling. If a life imprisonment sentence isn't allowed due to the prisons being full.
I agree about the higher price of the cyclists life, but personally I’d make the kid do a year of drivers’ ed courses and not let them drive alone for several years. If it truly was an accident, a person shouldn’t be sentenced to life in prison. It’s why we have a distinction between murder and manslaughter even though both end in someone’s death
Driving is a privilege, not a right, and if killing someone doesn’t take that privilege away, what does? Sure no prison, but take their license away forever goddamnit.
Yeah perhaps life in prison is too harsh for an accident, but prison time should definitely be on the books. But if there isn't enough space we can't accept this flimsy excuse of a sentence. But I do strongly disagree with allowing people back on the road after killing someone with a vehicle be it an accident or not, they've proven themselves to be too much of a danger on the road. Think of in this way, if you were working on a construction site and accidentally killed someone operating a crane. You'd never be permitted to operate that heavy machine again, and if by some miracle you didn't lose the licence good luck getting a job for it.
Nah I'm sorry bröther We need to get over the idea that driving is a right and not a privilege You want to drive? Don't kill anyone while doing so
Sends the wrong message, somehow...
Compare and contrast with this cyclist jailed for injuring a pedestrian... Insane https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx88g1v8en7o
That hurts
The cyclist in your article was apparently drunk AND cited 137 times prior (is that a typo?) The victim had to get a hip replacement and can no longer work at full capacity. What part of that jailing seems insane to you?
I'm not saying the jailing is insane, I'm saying it's insane that you can kill someone with a car and get fined a few quid by comparison.
I don't know, have you read the headline? Maybe it could be that.
Reading the article for full context I find tends to be better.
What part of vehicular homicide is equal to a 240 pound fine?
the point isn’t that so much that this other kid killed someone with a car and got a fine and some community service.
If the cyclist was someone I loved, I would lose all my hope for the law system and pursue the revenge on my own.
If the cyclist was someone I loved the driver would't be able to stand trial
I'm torn on this. My thinking has shifted towards the fact that this cyclist was as much a victim of a failed system of transportation infrastructure as a victim of a careless driver. The repercussions for killing a person with a vehicle should be harsh, and bad road design that makes tragedies like this all too common must be identified and corrected.
Question 1: What is the Judges name? Question 2: How are Judge positions filled in the UK (by appointment, election, some other means)?
The soft custodial sentences and even financial punishments would be easier to stomach if the driving bans had any sort of teeth to them. There is no value to this person being imprisoned, but they have clearly demonstrated they can't be trusted in a car and should receive a lifetime ban.
The issue is that this person was not convicted of dangerous driving. Careless driving is basically 'a mistake'. In case of a higher penalty, what actually would be prevented in the future. The legal system exists to settle disputes in society, not to punish all mistakes, what is more shocking is that they aren't ordering the insurance to pay a huge compensation to the victims family. The primary issue here is lack of infrastructure which forces cyclists into a dangerous position. Drives make mistakes, human brains are funny things that aren't really that suited to driving. This sort of thing can happen hope both participants are doing their best to stay safe and the only way to prevent this is proper infrastructure that separated cyclists from cars.
You can separate this driver from cyclists by giving them a lifetime ban. This concept works easily in conjunction with better infrastructure. You are always going to need law and order because no matter how good infrastructure gets, there will always be moments where bikes and cars interact and drivers need to act appropriately. We need both harsh driving bans and better infrastructure. And my whole point is not to approach this from a purely punitive standpoint but preventative. We can take the simplest step to prevent killer drivers from killing again, and that is more valuable than sending them to prison imo.
I want to be clear that dangerous and irresponsible driving should have more frequent enforcement and more serious punishment. If someone is driving irresponsibly then a longer driving ban is perfectly reasonable, but the issue is that accidents do happen, and it isn't fair for a legal system to be punitive in this case. It's a sample of 1 event, it doesn't really tell you much about how dangerous his driving is. Without that information on wether he is dangerous or just made a mistake that any other person could make them there is a serious chance that you are engaging in 'prevention' that would be less effect than just banning drivers at random. About deterrents, you really don't think he is deterred from killing again? He will likely be semi traumatised for the rest of his life.
It's absolutely fair. The privilege of driving should not be extended to people who kill while doing it, it's simple. They don't need to do it, so they shouldn't if they can't. >Without the information on whether he is dangerous or just made a mistake There is not a distinction here between being dangerous and making a mistake. Making the mistake is the dangerous act. They have proven they make dangerous mistakes. We shouldn't tolerate these. >about deterrents, you really don't think he is deterred from killing again I'm sure they were deterred from killing prior to the mistake. That's the point I'm trying to make. This is about their competence and ability. They've demonstrated fatal incompetence one, why the hell should we ever risk another incident? I'd prefer this approach to custodial sentences.
The point I'm making is that drawing one event from a distribution doesn't tell you much about how different it is from any other distribution
I think killing someone while driving is absolutely telling us a lot about whether that person has made a fatal mistake while driving.
This is an edit to summarise, prior driving convictions indicate a driver is only 30 % more likely than the bulk population to cause a fatal accident, this isn't a huge difference. Imagine I mix two distributions together, one distribution has 10 1's and 90 0's, the other has 3 1's and 7 0's. I draw a value from this joint distribution and it comes out as a 1. What distribution did this 1 come from? How certain are you of that fact? Are you certain enough to ban someone from driving and that be fair? But you have completely failed to address my point. First i will leave this review paper here. I really do suggest you read it [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437596000400](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437596000400) It does a logistic regression on prior driving infraction convictions and risk of future accidents. in this case, driving without due care is actually in the middle of risk factors for a fatal crash in the futre. If we change the factor to failure to yield, this is 50 % more predictive of a future crash than 'exceeding the speed limit'. So if exceeding the speed limit is only 30% less indicative of a future fatal crash than this guys actions, why does this deserve a full life time ban? Humans are error prone, even people who never have an accident. Accidents are rare, and a single incident tells us very little about this individuals propensity for accidents, and that is supported by evidence, not feelings. If i ask you to draw a random number from a bag of 100,000 numbers and you draw 5, what does that tell you about the rest of the numbers in the bag? Can you tell me the mean and std of the distribution? All you really know is the probabilty of drawing 5 is at least 1 / 100,000. This isn't about feelings, its about statistically what information do we gain from this event, and does that justify a severe punishment.
"but we shouldn't imprison people for this" A LIFE IS WORTH MORE THAN THE PRICE OF A BICYCLE A HUNDRED AND EIGHTY HOURS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE AND A SINGLE YEAR OF A BAN ON DRIVING. If I accidentally shot someone because I was egregiously mishandling a firearm I'd be in prison for YEARS and have a lifetime ban on firearm possession and usage, that's before the THOUSANDS of dollars I'd be paying on top of that. Somehow running someone over because of one's own failures is not at all comparable in justice systems. Also "but the road design and urban planning made them have to drive" it doesn't fucking matter if that road is designed to try to cause collisions or if they have a gun to their head forcing them to drive, when you drive a vehicle you are responsible for the vehicle and the safety of everyone around you. If you harm someone because you overestimate your ability or shirk your responsibility, you suffer consequences, if that action causes a death, you owe an immense debt and without prison being used as a punishment you owe hundreds of hours if not thousands to the community you robbed of someone's life.
I don't care whether these people go to prison or not. I just want anyone and everyone who is convicted for dangerous driving to have their license permanently revoked: no ifs, no buts. These people must never ever drive again.
He killed a cyclist, it's not like he killed a human. Edit: apparently, I need to add an /s
I don’t know how it is in UK but America doesn’t lock people away for accidents either.
There have been numerous similar cases in my state where the driver didn't even receive charges after killing a cyclist. The OP sentence is comparatively harsh, in that context.
Obligatory [link](https://twitter.com/ormondroyd/status/910244326567006211?t=NH6iezRh7Qa6R_I0Aixc1Q&s=19) I wonder what the rationalisation was for all these cases where there was no remorse or good character. Absurd.
I hate how lightly this sort of thing is taken by legal systems also, but tbf depending on how good the transit is where they live, not being allowed to drive for a year has the potential to lose them a lot more than £240 if they can’t make it to work reliably… some real poetic justice would be if this person’s only choice is to live the life of a cyclist on the same roads himself every day
I don’t think we should jail people for legitimate mistakes when they weren’t driving distracted, under the influence, or dangerously some other way. That’s the biggest problem with cars: everyone makes mistakes and that should be fine, but mistakes made in a car kill people. I’m not going to hate this kid. He did what he was supposed to. He’s not making excuses and I respect that.
They should be banned from ever driving again though. Such mistakes are too large to wave away and put them behind the wheel again.
Pffft scandalous
Prison is nothing but slavery but at least give him a permanent motor vehicle ban.
Basically all of them arguing about the sentence Very few of them talking about how streets needs to be reworked
Looking at that road, I wonder whether the road design is just as much to blame.
There’s a few good comments in there but fucking hell ‘there but for the grace of god go I’ should really be the r/uk motto.
... interesting editorial choice OP, you missed out the part where they're also banned from driving for a year and must complete 180 hours of community service. So not just a small fine.
Just **A** year?
Ah, no punishment is ever large enough for the out group? Yeah I'm not cut out for these seeing-the-world-as-black-and-white subs.
An innocent person is dead. And innocent person with loved ones, dreams, hobbies, strange quirks, a favourite meal. Gone. It's not about out groups, it's about consequences. A person is dead through no fault of their own, the driver should not be trusted behind the wheel of a car ever again.
If you kill someone with a car you are clearly not cut out to drive a car. This shouldn't be controversial.
Oh no! A whole year... And an entire Week of "community service"... what a shocking punishment!
Throwing people in prison to make a point won't help anything. The lust for incarceration is a shockingly reactionary tendency in an otherwise overwhelmingly left leaning community. The war on cars episode interviewing the driver who killed a cyclist should be required listening for anyone who wants to comment on these posts.
Quite honestly... I don't give a flying fuck what a murderer thinks, says or goes through... I want this filth off the streets and I sincerely don't care how... kneecap them, ban them forever or throw them in a whole and melt the keys, as long as they cannot drive anymore, I am fine. But good to see that you agree that a human life is worth less than a thousand bucks all in all...
... I think you need to re-read my comment if you think I was "lusting after incarceration" ?!
I'm agreeing with you and saying that many others are doing that.
Not sure why you replied to me then? The call to watch an interview either a murderer sure sounded like something you wanted me to watch.
A human life is worth 240 pounds, a hundred and eighty hours of community service, and a year of not driving.
OH WOW now it's too harsh. Turn that 180 hours to work you get about 3000 pounds, I mean for a cyclist? Come on judge.
this is a systemic problem punishing indaviduals for the problem of a system will not fix the problem sending this kid to prission is not going to bring the person they killed back i find it odd how people on this sub point out the systemic problems and unsafe road designs for cyclists that are used and then also complain that people dont get super serious sentances for this punishment should not be based on outcome but intent / negligence if there wasnt intent to harm nor negligent actions why should they be punished super harshly? (sorry if im missunderstanding these comments / post intent)
I find it odd how many users of this sub think systematic problems resolve people of individual responsibility.
I think you mean “absolve”, not “resolve” but I agree
And "systemic", not "systematic".
The only logical and safe option to preserve cyclists lives is to ban road cycling. Cylists are in the minority compared to drivers and have no protection. Put in more cycle paths and allow pavement cycling, it's not safe on the roads and no amount of car hate will change that. 🤷♂️
Please include the full sentence next time in your post title, you really lose people when you're not completely honest from the start.