I think it's a valid comparison. I'm in charge of a gun, he was in charge of a car. I don't aim, he didn't steer.
Barrie man killed in crash that also left several friends with serious injuries
- Thread starter unoR
- Start date
I think it's a valid comparison. I'm in charge of a gun, he was in charge of a car. I don't aim, he didn't steer.
If you really don't understand the difference, then I'm afraid that I will not be able to adequately explain it to you. One is an overt act. The other is a failure to control. You might APPROACH a valid comparison if it was inherent in a firearm's design that it fire continuously without pause, but that isn't the case and it still wouldn't be a valid comparison.
Careless driving can result in imprisonment for a maximum 6 months under the HTA.
"Careless driving
130. Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $400 and not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than two years. 2009, c. 5, s. 41."
(http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm)
"Careless driving
130. Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $400 and not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than two years. 2009, c. 5, s. 41."
(http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm)
conundrum
Well-known member
The difference is if you lowside and your bike happens to hit someone, you didn't plan it nor were you in any form of control over the vehicle when it hit the person/people. Now if you had the choice between a head-on and aiming for the sidewalk (and hit someone in the process), then you would be accountable/chargeable imo.
In the case here, it's not like the kid's tire blew out at the very second the bikers were coming up in the oncoming lane. If he wasn't looking at his phone (which should be chargeable under current laws), then how does he explain why he crossed the centre line? That's the part I don't understand.
If you can't see a parade of motorcycles in on coming traffic and weave into their path and cause death and/or injury to others, there should be consequences to the operator of the vehicle. I'm sure the driver didnt mean to do it. I'm sure they are an excellent driver 99.999% of the time. I'm sure they are remorseful for what happenned. I'm sure if the operator could turn back time and avoid it all together, they would.
The law isn't perfct and I don't want to argue. I just think there is an accountability element that was lost in this particular case.
To dismiss it as an accident or mistake and move on really don't sit well with me. That's my opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own.
I do appreciate the legal opinions and how the law was applied. I get it. Do we change the law because of it? I'm not sure. It's not going prevent it from occurring in the future.
My condolences to the family and friends of everyone affected.
I just hope it brings awareness of just how dangerous it is, how quickly something can happen. And everyone takes an extra momment to consider the possibilities if they decide to txt, eat, read, smoke, blast their tunes, or whatever distracts from observing the road as they operate a vehicle.
I'm grateful to have enjoyed the last few days out on the road. Stuff like this definitely makes me appreciate the life I have.
Cheers.
The law isn't perfct and I don't want to argue. I just think there is an accountability element that was lost in this particular case.
To dismiss it as an accident or mistake and move on really don't sit well with me. That's my opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own.
I do appreciate the legal opinions and how the law was applied. I get it. Do we change the law because of it? I'm not sure. It's not going prevent it from occurring in the future.
My condolences to the family and friends of everyone affected.
I just hope it brings awareness of just how dangerous it is, how quickly something can happen. And everyone takes an extra momment to consider the possibilities if they decide to txt, eat, read, smoke, blast their tunes, or whatever distracts from observing the road as they operate a vehicle.
I'm grateful to have enjoyed the last few days out on the road. Stuff like this definitely makes me appreciate the life I have.
Cheers.
It's not inherent in the design of a car either. Someone has to make it work.
He had to gas it up, I'd put bullets in the gun. He had to start to start the engine, I'd unlock the safety. He had to put it in gear, I'd cock the hammer. He had to give it gas, I'd pull the trigger.
Last edited:
Instead of bitching on an internet forum is there anything we can do to make sure the little ***** doesn't touch a car ever again and perhaps get our gov't to send a message to cagers that cell phones kill? I'm tired of the holy crusade on speeders in Ontario. Didn't they use some kind of speeding scenario to pass the HTA172?
Every time I try to explain to someone that inattentive driving is more dangerous than speeding, I get the most awkward face staring at me...until I ask them to count the # of times a speeder almost hit them versus the # of times some dickwad on a cellphone has.
So what caused 'you' to lowside?
I'm sorry, but it's pointless for me to continue discussing this with you, if you aren't capable of differentiating between the two scenarios.
Fair enough, but I'd appreciate if you could think about a way of explaining it to me. I'm always open to learn new things.
To me, the only difference is that we are dependant on cars. If we were dependant on guns to survive, like say in a hunter/gatherer society, would we let people off lightly who shot things without due attention? I hope not but you know, we probably would.
All that I can think of, at this point, is to point to the legal definitions:
Careless: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/careless
Dangerous: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/dangerous
Other than that, I would suggest reviewing case law.
I'm arguing what's right and wrong, not legal and illegal. I think most people who aren't satisfied with the outcome are making the same claim. Do you propose that we accept the law as infallible?
What bugs me, is why there even is a difference between "careless" and "dangerous" driving. Regardless of intent or explicit action, careless driving is dangerous, and dangerous driving is careless. The result is the same, and overt action is driving the car/riding the bike.
I follow you fastar1; the idea that my unintentional actions with a result the same as my intentional actions would yield a different punishment does't sit right. Brandishing a gun and getting all trigger happy may be a little more intentional than veering out of lane, but the point is there. Short of a mechanical mishap, there are hardly any "accidents"; only a failure to maintain control.
In regards to the low-siding biker, the hypothetical would need some specifics to be considered. If the rider was barreling into a corner and lost the front end, you can damn well bet that they should be held accountable. Even if it was their first day and they were crawling around a corner; their inexperience should not grounds for getting off without recourse. Riding, like driving, is not a right, it's a privilege. With that privilege come responsibilities, which any operator should be held accountable for the moment they take off.
Frankly, there just shouldn't be as many people on the roads. It should be far more difficult to acquire a license. Wasn't there just an article posted recently regarding unlicensed and unofficial training centres? It's like people are pulling their licenses out of vending machines. Naturally, this isn't an overnight fix. It would be painful as all hell as suddenly a number of the population was stranded to the devices of public transit, but a push in that direction will lead to safer, less congested roads, more capable public transit, and a non-exist utopia in which everyone says "thanks", and "you're welcome".
I follow you fastar1; the idea that my unintentional actions with a result the same as my intentional actions would yield a different punishment does't sit right. Brandishing a gun and getting all trigger happy may be a little more intentional than veering out of lane, but the point is there. Short of a mechanical mishap, there are hardly any "accidents"; only a failure to maintain control.
In regards to the low-siding biker, the hypothetical would need some specifics to be considered. If the rider was barreling into a corner and lost the front end, you can damn well bet that they should be held accountable. Even if it was their first day and they were crawling around a corner; their inexperience should not grounds for getting off without recourse. Riding, like driving, is not a right, it's a privilege. With that privilege come responsibilities, which any operator should be held accountable for the moment they take off.
Frankly, there just shouldn't be as many people on the roads. It should be far more difficult to acquire a license. Wasn't there just an article posted recently regarding unlicensed and unofficial training centres? It's like people are pulling their licenses out of vending machines. Naturally, this isn't an overnight fix. It would be painful as all hell as suddenly a number of the population was stranded to the devices of public transit, but a push in that direction will lead to safer, less congested roads, more capable public transit, and a non-exist utopia in which everyone says "thanks", and "you're welcome".
And I'm explaining why what happened, happened. The thing is that the law is frequently more fair to all, because of the detachment between emotion and legislation, than would be individual people. In this case the accused was over-charged, based on the events as laid out by The Crown. Had he been charged accordingly it's likely that he would have been found guilty, but the outcry from the riding public wouldn't likely have been any less.
To paraphrase we have a legal system, not a justice system. If you want a justice system, then you'll have to look to a higher power.
The difference is intent, and its very important. Had he been street racing, dangerous driving would clearly apply as he intended to operate the vehicle in a dangerous fashion. In this case, the moron was simply distracted.
My gripe is with the fact that they even bothered to charge him with dangerous driving.. surely the crown knew it wouldn't fly.
It might have been a public pressure thing.
So if someone slips and falls on a banana peel, hits their head and dies, the person who dropped that banana peel should go to jail?
Banana peel registry and google map his house would make the dummies happy
