Drunk Driver kiils Cyclist

CyclingBantam

zanes wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Most accidents are not "just that" they are the consequence of someone's deliberate actions. Whether that is not paying attention, running a light, not looking in a mirror, speeding, being drunk, or otherwise distracted.

What's it like to be as perfect as you think you are and why can't you tell the difference between "mistake" and "deliberate action"?

Speaking outside the context of this thread, we all make mistakes. Sometimes they're mistakes that can't affect others, sometimes they can and every so often someone makes a mistake and they have catastrophic consequences. Applies to every "level" of mistake.

I strongly disagree. Driving a car means you are moving machinery that could and does kill people on a daily basis and yet we are so blase about it.

I don't have evidence, but I strongly believe there are very rarely 'accidents'. If people kept their distances, didn't speed, didn't drink or use phones I really think there would be far less collisions.

Are you telling me everythime you have ever tripped up or fallen off your bike it has been an accident? I can normally trace it back to me making some mistake somewhere. The difference is, on my bike or on foot I'm not likely to kill someone.

As has been said, driving is not a right and it is not taken seriously enough.

W1

BenBlyth wrote:

zanes wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Most accidents are not "just that" they are the consequence of someone's deliberate actions. Whether that is not paying attention, running a light, not looking in a mirror, speeding, being drunk, or otherwise distracted.

What's it like to be as perfect as you think you are and why can't you tell the difference between "mistake" and "deliberate action"?

Speaking outside the context of this thread, we all make mistakes. Sometimes they're mistakes that can't affect others, sometimes they can and every so often someone makes a mistake and they have catastrophic consequences. Applies to every "level" of mistake.

I strongly disagree. Driving a car means you are moving machinery that could and does kill people on a daily basis and yet we are so blase about it.

I don't have evidence, but I strongly believe there are very rarely 'accidents'. If people kept their distances, didn't speed, didn't drink or use phones I really think there would be far less collisions.

Are you telling me everythime you have ever tripped up or fallen off your bike it has been an accident? I can normally trace it back to me making some mistake somewhere. The difference is, on my bike or on foot I'm not likely to kill someone.

As has been said, driving is not a right and it is not taken seriously enough.

Is that "mistake" not an "accident" though? Or do you deliberately fall off?

It doesn't matter what the penalties were - death by stoning, a lifetime of hard labour, being forced to respond to every post in a helmet debate - there would still be people killed and injured on the roads. You can only mitigate so far.

zanes

BenBlyth wrote:

Are you telling me everythime you have ever tripped up or fallen off your bike it has been an accident? I can normally trace it back to me making some mistake somewhere. The difference is, on my bike or on foot I'm not likely to kill someone.

If my mistake leads to me falling off it is still an accident IMO.

Simple example: If I'm adjusting my cleats one night and forget to tighten the bolts properly, then use the shoes in the morning and fail to unclip at the first junction because the shoe rotates around the cleat then surely that's an accident?
If I deliberately didn't unclip and fell off then that wouldn't be an accident, it would be me being a reckless idiot.

Driving whilst ratted, on the phone or grossly speeding is in the latter category to me, but forgetting to check a mirror is in the previous category. Obviously, there are cases where this two tier system is too simplistic (as with any mandatory sentence IMHO) and different people have different thresholds for the two.

BenBlyth wrote:

As has been said, driving is not a right and it is not taken seriously enough.

^^^Word.

CyclingBantam

zanes wrote:

BenBlyth wrote:

Are you telling me everythime you have ever tripped up or fallen off your bike it has been an accident? I can normally trace it back to me making some mistake somewhere. The difference is, on my bike or on foot I'm not likely to kill someone.

If my mistake leads to me falling off it is still an accident IMO.

Simple example: If I'm adjusting my cleats one night and forget to tighten the bolts properly, then use the shoes in the morning and fail to unclip at the first junction because the shoe rotates around the cleat then surely that's an accident?
If I deliberately didn't unclip and fell off then that wouldn't be an accident, it would be me being a reckless idiot.

Driving whilst ratted, on the phone or grossly speeding is in the latter category to me, but forgetting to check a mirror is in the previous category. Obviously, there are cases where this two tier system is too simplistic (as with any mandatory sentence IMHO) and different people have different thresholds for the two.

BenBlyth wrote:

As has been said, driving is not a right and it is not taken seriously enough.

^^^Word.

You have answered your own point. If this happened with a car and you had been adjusting your brakes and not donw it propperly you would be negligable. It is all relative as well which is my point. You know that the result of not sorting your cleats out is you falling off so you will go to a certain lenght to make sure you do it (i.e. you will try to remember to do it). If you are messing about with the brakes for example on your car, you will double test it afterwards because the consequences are greater.

When I fall off due to a mistake it is the same. I pile round a corner on my bike to fast the consequence is pain to me falling off. I will take more risks doing that than if I was driving a car where the consequence is me killing someone.

P.s. What does ^^^Word mean?!

rhext

This looks pretty straightforward. I doubt very much that he intended to kill anyone when he got behind the wheel, but he was clearly reckless as to other people's safety. One would hope that he'll be dealt with pretty severely taking that into account. As a society we reserve life sentences for deliberately taking another life. But I'd hope that his sentence would be along similar lines to someone who committed manslaughter as a result of reckless behaviour.

As far as the limit is concerned, I deal with any uncertainty as to how much I can drink while remaining legal by the simple expedient of not drinking at all before getting behind the wheel. I don't think a zero limit is workable, because of the risk of spurious convictions arising from the presence of alcohol in stuff like cough mixture....but I'd support a limit which helped clarify the 'how much can I drink before I'm over the limit' problem described above with a very simple 'half a pint will probably get you there' answer!

warthog562

this one the ausie gov got right with there campaign to sort out drink driving "If you drink then drive you are a bloody idiot" this was advertisd with a hard hitting advert that made most people stop and think, to the point where lobby groups said it was too graphic but hey if works.

my own opinion is there is no excuse for drink driving. yes I drink but the two don't mix. its not that hard to arrange your life so you don't have to drive after having beers. if you can't stop at the limit then check in a hospital for help.

I think more breath tests should be conducted they are an inconviance but they are a deterent.

just my opinion on a slightly sore subjuct as I have been to three accident all causd by alchohol.

cee

rhext

I hadn't considered the cough mixture connundrum..OK, I would support a limit that is effectively 0 as in 0 drinks. So it would be lower than whatever the blood alocohol level of 1 pint is...maybe even a half.

warthog562
We have also had this campaign for years....adverts set in a bar...guy goes to buy a second drink...crash scene simulated in the bar?

I would also question the "if you can't stop at the limit"....why do we as a society feel the need to always go right to the ragged edge, particularly where either alcohol or cars are concerned.

But the rest...I agree with. The two don't mix.

W1

rhext wrote:

This looks pretty straightforward. I doubt very much that he intended to kill anyone when he got behind the wheel, but he was clearly reckless as to other people's safety. One would hope that he'll be dealt with pretty severely taking that into account. As a society we reserve life sentences for deliberately taking another life. But I'd hope that his sentence would be along similar lines to someone who committed manslaughter as a result of reckless behaviour.

As far as the limit is concerned, I deal with any uncertainty as to how much I can drink while remaining legal by the simple expedient of not drinking at all before getting behind the wheel. I don't think a zero limit is workable, because of the risk of spurious convictions arising from the presence of alcohol in stuff like cough mixture....but I'd support a limit which helped clarify the 'how much can I drink before I'm over the limit' problem described above with a very simple 'half a pint will probably get you there' answer!

Which is fine - on the night - and much harder to judge the morning after.

Anyway it's rather academic - what will reducing the limit achieve? Are there lots of people being killed by people with between 50 and 80 mgs of alcohol per 100ml of blood in their system? Shouldn't resources be spent tackling the x2 or x3 drunk drivers?

In law recklessness can be so gross as to be deemed to be deliberate.