3 ms·

I don't really understand the article. The article suggests they are advocating for a blanket law. Are they saying that anytime an accident happens involving

I don't really understand the article. The article suggests they are advocating for a blanket law. Are they saying that anytime an accident happens involving a car and a bike where the driver was at fault it should be a criminal prosecution? Is that the type of society we want? Do we expect accidents to never happen and want to criminalize anything less than perfection? We have manslaughter laws that allow for criminal penalties when a person's negligence rises to a level of criminality. Accidents happen. Accidents that result in terrible injury and death are tragic. But humans aren't perfect; we get distracted--by things other than cell phones. Not every accident is criminal in nature; and for that we have a civil system that--while focused on monetary compensation--is simply the best we've come up with beyond demanding blood satisfaction. I guess I wish I understood the debate better.

oxryly1 9y ago
You're getting the gist of it. Governments and advocates have already shifted away from the term "accident" and instead use the term "collision". The idea is that nothing is truly accidental and causes can always be assessed. Think of the 5 whys. Sometimes a driver is at fault, and since drivers are the ones controlling multiple tons of metal at high speeds any fault there is multiplied by that potentiality. That's my take at least.
closeparen 9y ago
"The society we want" expressed in this kind of article is one where public policy actively discourages (or at least doesn't go so far out of its way to encourage) driving. "Humans aren't perfect" - so they shouldn't be permitted to drive. If draconian liability terrifies people into riding the bus, that's victory. The state has effectively carved out an exception to the murder statutes because "hey, shit happens, humans aren't perfect behind the wheel." Challenging that is perfectly reasonable, especially if you don't accept that driving is or should be a necessary component of civilization.
rwz 9y ago
I generally agree with all you're saying, but it seems like in this particular situation the driver was using the phone the whole time and therefore her negligence rose to a level of criminality and therefore it should be treated as manslaughter.

oxryly1 9y ago

You're getting the gist of it. Governments and advocates have already shifted away from the term "accident" and instead use the term "collision". The idea is that nothing is truly accidental and causes can always be assessed. Think of the 5 whys. Sometimes a driver is at fault, and since drivers are the ones controlling multiple tons of metal at high speeds any fault there is multiplied by that potentiality. That's my take at least.

closeparen 9y ago

"The society we want" expressed in this kind of article is one where public policy actively discourages (or at least doesn't go so far out of its way to encourage) driving. "Humans aren't perfect" - so they shouldn't be permitted to drive. If draconian liability terrifies people into riding the bus, that's victory. The state has effectively carved out an exception to the murder statutes because "hey, shit happens, humans aren't perfect behind the wheel." Challenging that is perfectly reasonable, especially if you don't accept that driving is or should be a necessary component of civilization.

rwz 9y ago

I generally agree with all you're saying, but it seems like in this particular situation the driver was using the phone the whole time and therefore her negligence rose to a level of criminality and therefore it should be treated as manslaughter.