5 ms·

> constantly so protected huh? Can you cite some examples where drivers are protected where they wouldn't be if it was not for USA( or not poor).

JonnyNova 9y ago
I can't find the source right now, but drivers have been privileged versus pedestrians since around 1900 when vehicles were given the right of way instead of the pedestrian who had it before. Legislation was also introduced to change committing homicide with a vehicle to be vehicular manslaughter to reduce the severity of the penalty to increase adoption of automobiles.
- dominotw 9y ago
  > Legislation was also introduced to change committing homicide with a vehicle to be vehicular manslaughter to reduce the severity of the penalty to increase adoption of automobiles. And that applies only if you are not poor? Also that seems wrong ( see United states vs other countries) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide
  - JonnyNova 9y ago
    Not that directly, but the US legal process definitely favors the wealthier because they have access to more resources, namely better lawyers.
    - dominotw 9y ago
      > US legal process definitely favors the wealthier because they have access to more resources, namely better lawyers. In which country does this not apply? What makes this apply only to US? > Of course that is to be expected in USA, since drivers are constantly so protected, unless they are poor. I am referring to this @jessaustin. How is rich getting lenient sentences across the board relevant here? What does that have to do with driving.
      - jessaustin 9y ago
        Did someone say this applied only to US?
      - jessaustin 9y ago
        You seem to have edited this after my reply. The time to edit that reply has now elapsed so I will reply again. In USA, while crime in general is punished harshly, killing people with a car is a good way not to do any prison time and pay minimal fines. It's an issue of fairness, especially when poor people routinely see e.g. "taillight out" citations they can't afford to pay turn into years-long struggles with the criminal persecution system. If this topic interests you, look into the various reports about Ferguson MO. Your questions in this thread, while aggressive, never hit upon exactly what troubled you about my initial short parenthetical comment that I only wrote to qualify the overall short post. Was it "USA", "drivers", "poor", "protected", or "negligence"? Was there any one word you would have removed?
  - bdamm 9y ago
    The poor can't afford good lawyers. Much is then left to the district prosecutor to file correct charges - a practice with a long history of abuse.
    - dominotw 9y ago
      > The poor can't afford good lawyers. No one is disputing that well known fact. I am asking why this applied to "because USA". Do other countries not let rich people choose better lawyers?
- noir_lord 9y ago
  In the UK it's the other way around, heaviest defers to lightest, In order of right of way, On Foot, On Bike, On Horseback, In Car. It makes sense, the consequences to me as a cyclist to a car hitting me are far more severe than to the driver so the onus should be on the driver as the operator of the two tonne metal box.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    On many trails in western USA, horseback comes first because you can't really trust another person's horse not to do something harmful.
    - noir_lord 9y ago
      Same here practically but the order of precedence I described applies to on the highway.
JohnTHaller 9y ago
Do a quick search for basically any pedestrian killed in NYC in the last few years. Even when a driver hopped a curb and went up onto the sidewalk, it was ruled an accident and no major charges were made against the driver. In the US, for the most part, you can text and drive and mow down pedestrians and then just keep living your life.
- ComputerGuru 9y ago
  I don’t get it. Why pick something so easily disprovable as your argument? https://www.google.com/search?q=vehicular+manslaughter+ny&safe=off&client=safari&hl=en-us&prmd=nimv&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkvuyL7a3ZAhVSwFkKHdbGCpUQ_AUIESgB&biw=414&bih=622 https://www.google.com/search?q=vehicular+manslaughter+ny&sa... Did you even look up that “fact” before asserting it as your incontrovertible truth?
  - JohnTHaller 9y ago
    For starters, I specifically said NYC which is very different from NY state. I've lived here a while and the last year before a new law took effect was in 2013. Streetsblog covered the deaths of 134 pedestrians and cyclists in 2013 (out of a total of 178 killed city-wide). Of those 134 killed, the drivers were unknown in 19. "Of the remaining 115 crashes, nine motorists were known to have been charged with homicide. In five of those cases, the driver was also charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. One crash resulted from a police chase. In two cases, the driver was accused of running over the victim intentionally. Only once in 2013 was a sober driver charged with homicide for killing a pedestrian or cyclist in a crash that did not involve a personal dispute or fleeing police." Source: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2014/01/31/nypd-16059-pedestrians-and-cyclists-injured-178-killed-in-traffic-in-2013/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2014/01/31/nypd-16059-pedestrian... Of the 96 cases covered of a pedestrian being killed by a motorvehicle that didn't involve a DUI, a police chase, or premeditated murder, only a single one was charged with vehicular homicide. So yeah, it's been bad for a while. The most drivers used to get was a small fine and a moving violation and then go about their lives. Heck, I watched a woman get killed by a cab maybe 15 years ago and nothing happened to the driver at all. A law finally passed in 2014 to address the legal precedent after a 9 year old walking with his dad in a cross walk with the light was run down by a cab and the drive got a small fine and a minor traffic infraction. Here are some details: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/10/the-outrageous-unjust-rule-that-lets-new-york-drivers-who-hit-pedestrians-off-the-hook/380980/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/10/the-outrageous-unjust... In my original post, I should have said more than a few years ago rather than in the last few years, but I can't edit it now.

JonnyNova 9y ago

I can't find the source right now, but drivers have been privileged versus pedestrians since around 1900 when vehicles were given the right of way instead of the pedestrian who had it before. Legislation was also introduced to change committing homicide with a vehicle to be vehicular manslaughter to reduce the severity of the penalty to increase adoption of automobiles.

dominotw 9y ago
> Legislation was also introduced to change committing homicide with a vehicle to be vehicular manslaughter to reduce the severity of the penalty to increase adoption of automobiles. And that applies only if you are not poor? Also that seems wrong ( see United states vs other countries) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide
- JonnyNova 9y ago
  Not that directly, but the US legal process definitely favors the wealthier because they have access to more resources, namely better lawyers.
  - dominotw 9y ago
    > US legal process definitely favors the wealthier because they have access to more resources, namely better lawyers. In which country does this not apply? What makes this apply only to US? > Of course that is to be expected in USA, since drivers are constantly so protected, unless they are poor. I am referring to this @jessaustin. How is rich getting lenient sentences across the board relevant here? What does that have to do with driving.
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      Did someone say this applied only to US?
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      You seem to have edited this after my reply. The time to edit that reply has now elapsed so I will reply again. In USA, while crime in general is punished harshly, killing people with a car is a good way not to do any prison time and pay minimal fines. It's an issue of fairness, especially when poor people routinely see e.g. "taillight out" citations they can't afford to pay turn into years-long struggles with the criminal persecution system. If this topic interests you, look into the various reports about Ferguson MO. Your questions in this thread, while aggressive, never hit upon exactly what troubled you about my initial short parenthetical comment that I only wrote to qualify the overall short post. Was it "USA", "drivers", "poor", "protected", or "negligence"? Was there any one word you would have removed?
- bdamm 9y ago
  The poor can't afford good lawyers. Much is then left to the district prosecutor to file correct charges - a practice with a long history of abuse.
  - dominotw 9y ago
    > The poor can't afford good lawyers. No one is disputing that well known fact. I am asking why this applied to "because USA". Do other countries not let rich people choose better lawyers?
noir_lord 9y ago
In the UK it's the other way around, heaviest defers to lightest, In order of right of way, On Foot, On Bike, On Horseback, In Car. It makes sense, the consequences to me as a cyclist to a car hitting me are far more severe than to the driver so the onus should be on the driver as the operator of the two tonne metal box.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  On many trails in western USA, horseback comes first because you can't really trust another person's horse not to do something harmful.
  - noir_lord 9y ago
    Same here practically but the order of precedence I described applies to on the highway.

JohnTHaller 9y ago

Do a quick search for basically any pedestrian killed in NYC in the last few years. Even when a driver hopped a curb and went up onto the sidewalk, it was ruled an accident and no major charges were made against the driver. In the US, for the most part, you can text and drive and mow down pedestrians and then just keep living your life.

ComputerGuru 9y ago
I don’t get it. Why pick something so easily disprovable as your argument? https://www.google.com/search?q=vehicular+manslaughter+ny&safe=off&client=safari&hl=en-us&prmd=nimv&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkvuyL7a3ZAhVSwFkKHdbGCpUQ_AUIESgB&biw=414&bih=622 https://www.google.com/search?q=vehicular+manslaughter+ny&sa... Did you even look up that “fact” before asserting it as your incontrovertible truth?
- JohnTHaller 9y ago
  For starters, I specifically said NYC which is very different from NY state. I've lived here a while and the last year before a new law took effect was in 2013. Streetsblog covered the deaths of 134 pedestrians and cyclists in 2013 (out of a total of 178 killed city-wide). Of those 134 killed, the drivers were unknown in 19. "Of the remaining 115 crashes, nine motorists were known to have been charged with homicide. In five of those cases, the driver was also charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. One crash resulted from a police chase. In two cases, the driver was accused of running over the victim intentionally. Only once in 2013 was a sober driver charged with homicide for killing a pedestrian or cyclist in a crash that did not involve a personal dispute or fleeing police." Source: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2014/01/31/nypd-16059-pedestrians-and-cyclists-injured-178-killed-in-traffic-in-2013/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2014/01/31/nypd-16059-pedestrian... Of the 96 cases covered of a pedestrian being killed by a motorvehicle that didn't involve a DUI, a police chase, or premeditated murder, only a single one was charged with vehicular homicide. So yeah, it's been bad for a while. The most drivers used to get was a small fine and a moving violation and then go about their lives. Heck, I watched a woman get killed by a cab maybe 15 years ago and nothing happened to the driver at all. A law finally passed in 2014 to address the legal precedent after a 9 year old walking with his dad in a cross walk with the light was run down by a cab and the drive got a small fine and a minor traffic infraction. Here are some details: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/10/the-outrageous-unjust-rule-that-lets-new-york-drivers-who-hit-pedestrians-off-the-hook/380980/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/10/the-outrageous-unjust... In my original post, I should have said more than a few years ago rather than in the last few years, but I can't edit it now.