spindrift Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Would we lock all the shift workers up if they were in this situation ? If they killed ten people? Yes, certainly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medusa Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Yep, still waiting for evidence that that ever happened. If a driver fell asleep and veered off the road and it was found fatigue was the answer, not having charges laid kind of reinforces the point that what are entirely predictable and unsurprising road crashes are excused by the ignorant as being "accidents" when they bare nothing of the kind. 95% of RTCs have human error as a factor. Speeding, drink or drugged driving are , deliberate acts, not accidents. The inevitable accidents that ensue are not accidents. If a drunk man fires a gun in a crowded street and kills someone it's not an accident. And a truck driver who fell asleep at the wheel on a Friday afternoon after ignoring tachograph laws all week and who ploughed into the back of a standing queue of traffic, killing 4 people and seriously injuring a number more was also sentenced to 5 years for death by dangerous driving (personal case- I'll find a link in a bit). This is in line with the sentence in this case- exactly what are you finding fault with here? The law? The way it was applied? EDIT- linky for those who want proof of the example I'm talking about. The car transporter driver mentioned in the report was my ex-husband (not the cause of the crash): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1507927.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 This is in line with the sentence in this case- exactly what are you finding fault with here? The law? The way it was applied? Both, self-evidently. Take deaths caused by lorries. HGVs constitute 10% of road traffic yet more than 25% of fatalities. Were the deaths to take place on the building site the HSE would crawl all over the scene. On the roads, the word "accident" is blithely mentioned and that's it, charges are often not laid and when they are the sentences are risible. You have drivers who admit doing paperwork at then wheel, kill someone, get a £300 fine and keep their license. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2935510.ece That killer driver is still trundling around in a lorry for all I know. The charges are pathetic, sentences are wrong, the attempted mitigation is disgusting. Hart tore ten families apart. The misery and pain that odious little squit caused can't be limited by trying, and failing, to dismiss those deaths as "just an accident". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 And a truck driver who fell asleep at the wheel on a Friday afternoon after ignoring tachograph laws all week and who ploughed into the back of a standing queue of traffic, killing 4 people and seriously injuring a number more was also sentenced to 5 years for death by dangerous driving (personal case- I'll find a link in a bit). This is in line with the sentence in this case- exactly what are you finding fault with here? The law? The way it was applied? EDIT- linky for those who want proof of the example I'm talking about. The car transporter driver mentioned in the report was my ex-husband (not the cause of the crash): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1507927.stm Oh, you edited. What did your ex-husband think of the case, and would he claim tampering with a tacho would lend weight to dismissing the horrible event as an "accident"? (A word studiously avoided in the normally car-centric bbc report) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 If I made the mistake of falling asleep at the wheel and having no previous thoughts beforehand of killing, to find later that my actions caused untold deaths, I seriously would think that I was the unlucky one. The dead are dead, he has to live with that until he breaths his last breath. Through our own actions when driving we are fated with luck, some are not. How many millions of us drive while phoning, putting in a CD, driving while tired, handing sweets to the kids on the back seat? If I had to chose I would take the position of the dead rather than where he is right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medusa Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Oh, you edited. What did your ex-husband think of the case, and would he claim tampering with a tacho would lend weight to dismissing the horrible event as an "accident"? (A word studiously avoided in the normally car-centric bbc report) He was as angry as he would have been if the whole thing had been caused by a drink driver, but at the same time he acknowledged that it was a very warm Friday afternoon on a bank holiday weekend and there were probably other drivers (of vehicles not limited by tachograph) who were struggling to stay awake and fully attentive in the heat and the traffic queues. The driver who fell asleep was a German driver who was on the run back to the South coast to catch a ferry back over to spend the weekend with his family. He wasn't a 'hardened criminal', he had bent a few tacho limits to enable him to get his delivery round in a little faster than normal because he simply wanted to spend the weekend with his family and wanted to get as far as the ferry terminal before his running hours for the day ran out. No intent, plenty of negligence, 4 people dead. I don't call it an accident- it wasn't an accident, it was an act of stupidity and negligence. It was a crash, an incident, a collision, but it wasn't an 'accident' to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Had he not got behind the wheel after 36 hours without sleep, those people might still be alive today! His comments are like a bomber pilot, saying "I'm not responsible for the deaths of the people I dropped my bomb on, as I was 25,000 feet away from the point of impact!" I was going to comment but hadn't seen that there was a following 4 pages. If I fire a gun along a crowded street and the bullet hits someone and kills them, is it an "accident"? If I enter a pub and start a chainsaw up and wave it around my head, decapitating someone, is it an "accident"? Calling what happened an "accident" is insulting, ignorant and a kick in the teeth the the grieving relatives. It was NOT AN ACCIDENT! Of the first two queries that you have posed... you would need the best legal mind in the world to claim 'accident', and they would fail. Unless you could prove that you were shown to be of unreasonable mind (or legally insane), then aforethought (or one of these three: oblique intention, recklessness or knowingly) could easily throw your queries out of court. It's not even a defense. You would most likely be done for murder... even if you claimed drunk/drugged and didn't realise what you were doing. Accidents are unpredictable events. Driving a car after not sleeping makes a crash far more likely, just like driving whilst drunk or on drugs. People who defend drunk, drugged or exhausted drivers by claiming the almost inevitable carnage they cause is just "an accident" make me sick. above... and here... From a strictly legal perspective, negligence can be the same as intent. Driving drunk/drugged or exhausted and impaired is negligent, therefore, the element of intent can be satisfied. Personally, I think anyone who drinks, takes drugs or is exhausted and drives and causes a deadly accident should be charged with murder In the last two of these quotes, you've included exhausted in with drink and drugs. This spoils your argument, as although your second quote (the one above) starts off ok (but not quite correct), fails at the underlined point. 95% of RTCs have human error as a factor. Speeding, drink or drugged driving are , deliberate acts, not accidents. The inevitable accidents that ensue are not accidents. If a drunk man fires a gun in a crowded street and kills someone it's not an accident. 1st Bold... and are dealt with differently to this case and rightly so. 2nd Bold... If a drunk man fires a gun into a crowded street, he will have no case to use drunkeness, unless he was unaware of his own mind prior to intoxication; involuntarily intoxicated; epileptic; or diabetic... three of the four of which can be legally used for insanity plees. (I'm having to use my brain now as my law books aren't with me, and google only brings up US laws for some reason) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 If I made the mistake of falling asleep at the wheel and having no previous thoughts beforehand of killing, to find later that my actions caused untold deaths, I seriously would think that I was the unlucky one. The dead are dead, he has to live with that until he breaths his last breath. Through our own actions when driving we are fated with luck, some are not. How many millions of us drive while phoning, putting in a CD, driving while tired, handing sweets to the kids on the back seat? If I had to chose I would take the position of the dead rather than where he is right now. You have some strange ideas, you are supposedly a responsible adult who thinks its ok to do stupid things while driving a car and using a mobile phone incidentally is illegal now. This idiot had no sleep for 36 hours and still thought he was ok to drive, this is not luck it's crass stupidity. He's not living with his actions, he's bleating about forgiving those who wronged him. He should have kept his mouth shut and crawled back under his rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I don't claim to be the perfect human being, but some of you, you really appall me. I worry about you and what you might be capable of if pressed. Your vituperation and vengeful attitudes over things of no personal concern to you is quite repulsive. Although it makes a change to see the frothing, pitchfork waving and brand carrying on the other foot for a change. I save my pitchforks for people who actually intend to cause harm to others, child abusers, rapists and murderers, the really hateful, nasty sort of people. It must be wonderful to never have made an error of judgment and never foresee yourselves making one either. I can only hope your confidence in yourselves continues to be justified. Having googled 'cars crashing onto railway lines' I'm amazed how often it happens. Luckily usually without horrific consequences, thankfully. There's a report of a cyclist ending up on a railway track and even a plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 You have some strange ideas, you are supposedly a responsible adult who thinks its ok to do stupid things while driving a car and using a mobile phone incidentally is illegal now. This idiot had no sleep for 36 hours and still thought he was ok to drive, this is not luck it's crass stupidity. He's not living with his actions, he's bleating about forgiving those who wronged him. He should have kept his mouth shut and crawled back under his rock. And of course you are the perfect example of how to drive perfectly. Yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.