Deterrents | GTAMotorcycle.com

Deterrents

N

nobbie48

Well-known member
Site Supporter
A senior citizen kills two bikers and has now been charged with two counts of careless driving causing death. The punishment will be a pittance.

How can we use this tragedy to stop the carnage?

Executing the senior wouldn't change a lot and could make things worse due to unintended consequences.

A million dollar fine and years in jail wouldn't likely change anything because no one thinks it's going to happen to them. Harsh punishment only works if the driver thinks it could happen to him.

Worrying about every foot of the road takes all the fun out of riding or even driving. Depression kills too.
 
nobbie48 said:
careless driving causing death.
Click to expand...
To start with... WTF is careless causing death?
Careless is operation of a vehicle without due care... OK
... but when your carelessness causes direct harm to someone else, how is that not dangerous driving causing....
You have proved it was dangerous by harming a second party.
So... the correct charge might help. I think they were under charged.
Make it harder to get a license and harder to keep a license... which, politically, will go over like a lead balloon... but smarter drivers can't hurt.
 
bitzz said:
To start with... WTF is careless causing death?
Careless is operation of a vehicle without due care... OK
... but when your carelessness causes direct harm to someone else, how is that not dangerous driving causing....
You have proved it was dangerous by harming a second party.
So... the correct charge might help. I think they were under charged.
Make it harder to get a license and harder to keep a license... which, politically, will go over like a lead balloon... but smarter drivers can't hurt.
Click to expand...
Dangerous is a much higher legal bar and easier to beat if overcharged. Careless is far more likely to result in conviction. I think if you get convicted of driving causing death (and maybe even serious injury) you should have your license cancelled. After your blackout period is over, start again with a g1 test.
 
Last edited:
Article link?
 
bitzz said:
Make it harder to get a license and harder to keep a license... which, politically, will go over like a lead balloon... but smarter drivers can't hurt.
Click to expand...
1000% in favour of this
 
GreyGhost said:
Dangerous is a much higher legal bar and easier to beat
Click to expand...
I am arguing there shouldn't BE a charge of careless causing. I am say that by the time your careless actions imperils someone else, it has entered the range of dangerous. If your careless actions imperils YOU, you're an idiot, if your careless actions imperil ME, you're dangerous.
You bip the rear of my car in traffic, that's a slip in careful-ness.
You pile into the rear of my stopped car at 75 MPH, that's dangerous.

My brother the cop once told me that careless is the easiest charge to lay, hardest to prove.
If they were charged with dangerous, with the assumption that it had to be dangerous as people were harmed, there is tort, it would reverse the proof onus, the defense would have to prove the action, that resulted in harm, wasn't dangerous, the harm proves dangerous.
Does that make sense?
 
bitzz said:
I am arguing there shouldn't BE a charge of careless causing. I am say that by the time your careless actions imperils someone else, it has entered the range of dangerous. If your careless actions imperils YOU, you're an idiot, if your careless actions imperil ME, you're dangerous.
You bip the rear of my car in traffic, that's a slip in careful-ness.
You pile into the rear of my stopped car at 75 MPH, that's dangerous.

My brother the cop once told me that careless is the easiest charge to lay, hardest to prove.
If they were charged with dangerous, with the assumption that it had to be dangerous as people were harmed, there is tort, it would reverse the proof onus, the defense would have to prove the action, that resulted in harm, wasn't dangerous, the harm proves dangerous.
Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
We go back to intent. If someone forgets to check their mirrors and kills someone there was no intent or prior behavior that would be considered a factor. Deliberately going 180 KPH in an 80 zone is a marked and deliberate action with a heighten expectation of serious consequences.

Dangerous driving can be charged on private property as it is no different than taking a risky activity from a safe venue to a public one. Archery is fine at a range but goes dangerous in a shopping mall. Drag racing at a strip vs Yonge Street etc.

We take risks for the rush or profit (IE Gambling) but normally leave a buffer based on our skills. Most drivers over estimate their skills. How many drivers go to skid school?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I see traffic offences as going digital as they are more profitable. Radar, red light cameras and breathalyzer are digital evidence and hard to fight. Other charges are judgmental and harder to prove.

Follow the money and votes (Also a form of money)

1) Hire 10% more traffic cops to do only non digital charges, sloppy turns, lane hogging, lane misuse etc.

2) Add a D 400 category to the D/L. No 400 series driving without it. Upgraded training to qualify and regular retests 5-10 years.
 
Instead of D-400 category I would rater see steps (maybe 3) based on the size of the vehicle. Full size pick-up or full size SUV requires a couple of steps up from a small car, maybe mini-van size in the middle. While there are lots of problems on the road beyond this lots of people are driving vehicles that are too large for their skills....
 
backmarkerducati said:
Instead of D-400 category I would rater see steps (maybe 3) based on the size of the vehicle. Full size pick-up or full size SUV requires a couple of steps up from a small car, maybe mini-van size in the middle. While there are lots of problems on the road beyond this lots of people are driving vehicles that are too large for their skills....
Click to expand...
The worse their skills the larger the vehicle they drive so they are safer in the inevitable crashes. Get a careless charge and they should add a spear tip to your airbag. I bet you'd pay more attention then.
 
GreyGhost said:
The worse their skills the larger the vehicle they drive
Click to expand...
I was looking at a Volvo...you know... cuz Volvos are so safe. Insurance was expensive, or at least more.
The explanation I got was bad drivers buy Volvo cuz they're safer in the inevitable crash, which more than offsets the safety savings.
Don't know if it's true but it sounded good.
 
bitzz said:
I was looking at a Volvo...you know... cuz Volvos are so safe. Insurance was expensive, or at least more.
The explanation I got was bad drivers buy Volvo cuz they're safer in the inevitable crash, which more than offsets the safety savings.
Don't know if it's true but it sounded good.
Click to expand...
Me too, seriously considered a Volvo but when I heard of the servicing costs and explanation thereof, I walked away.
Example: $400 and the reason why is "Volvo has so many software modules and we need to check and update these at a service.

Huh?
Other manufacturers provide software updates as a routine and there is no charge.

Goodbye Volvo/Geely, find another sucker!
 
bitzz said:
I was looking at a Volvo...you know... cuz Volvos are so safe. Insurance was expensive, or at least more.
The explanation I got was bad drivers buy Volvo cuz they're safer in the inevitable crash, which more than offsets the safety savings.
Don't know if it's true but it sounded good.
Click to expand...
Volvos were safer in a roll over compared to a Chevy that had a bunch of structural elements cut out. Not one of Volvo's better marketing plans.
 
When Saab decided it was time to go racing, with their groovy two stroke car, their engineers got all snooty when they learned they had to put a roll cage in the car. OUR car doesn't NEED a roll cage, OUR car is a better design.
... so the design spec for the cage was you had to be able to drop the car on it's roof, from (let's say) 2 meters and the roll cage can't bend. They installed their roll cage, dropped the car on it's roof... and the roof didn't deflect enough to touch the roll cage. They were right, it didn't need a roll cage.
Saabs were different.... and the people that bought and drove Saabs were different
When GM bought Saab, Saab NEEDED a cheaper car. GM gave Saab a chassis, to build on, all they had to do was body the car. No design work needed.
When Saab introduced the car, it shared less than 15% of the donor car, wasn't even the same dimensions and was NOT cheap and Saab died.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom