They changed the rule somewhere between your Driver’s Ed and mine. I remember arguing with Kid Kalhoun about it, and sho 'nuf it was right there in the Rules of the Road book. The Two Second Rule. However, that was also the time period when cars started shrinking. And they were no longer built like tanks.
Once again, with emphasis: There is not enough information in the article to say for certain that “bad driving” was the cause of the accident here. Regardless, even if you drive perfectly, never let your attention waver, and obey every single traffic law there is still the risk of killing someone or being killed. Shit does happen.
Eh…to the degree that you don’t have to be driving something as large as a Saturn, you maybe do have some responsibility. Let’s face it. If he were up against this, the bike would have had a much better chance.
It always irritates me when people make the blanket claim that “large cars are safer than small cars.” Clearly, this isn’t entirely accurate - they’re safer for the passengers, but more dangerous for everyone else on the road (including bicyclists).
Seems like back in the olden days, when you were in Driver’s Ed, the rule made more sense…because it DOES account for larger car size, whereas the 2-second rule doesn’t. Although maybe for ordinary cars, even SUV-sized ones, the stopping time really isn’t that closely related to the size of the car (as Bippy explained in his post).
Road rage on the information highway. Where’s my seat belt and helmet?
“As large as a Saturn?” This is my car. (Well, not actually my car. Mine’s green, and not nearly as clean as that one.) It’s not a compact car, but it’s not exactly ginormous. It’s pretty much standard car-size. Driving a standard sized car is irresponsible, is what you’re trying to say? Because that was Sal’s argument: that driving a large car is irresponsible because other people drive smaller cars. Which is a patently ridiculous argument, as it becomes instantly irresponsible for anyone to drive any vehicle at all, so long as there are pedestrians around. And that includes the micro car you linked to, which is still larger than a bike.
A few years ago in my city an elderly pedestrian was accidentally run over and killed by a cyclist on a walking/blading/biking path, so I guess this means that cyclists are irresponsible for riding such massive vehicles.
That ain’t rage. It was barely moderate annoyance. When you’re the target of my rage, believe me, you’ll know it. 
Yep. If the pedestrian were up against this, he would have had a much better chance.
So, why did you speed?
Sure, obviously if it turns out Brandy’s driving was fine, then this is all moot. But I believe most of us are arguing about the ethics of the general case, assuming that she *did * do such-and-such how should we evaluate that behavior?
So, yes, I do stipulate that shit does in fact happen even when people are behaving like saints. But that’s not the thrust of the argument that I - or anybody else - was taking issue with. The argument *I’m * disputing is “we’ve all driven a little bit badly at times, therefore it’s not such a big deal, even though in this case it (may have) resulted in a death.” Obviously there’s some blatantly faulty logic at work in that argument.
Which leads me to…
First of all, you’re evaluating the ethics of your car choiced in part based on what everyone else is driving (“the standard car”). What everyone else is doing is not a good basis for evaluating ethics. So it really doesn’t matter if your car is standard or not. There are smaller cars out there, they will have less momentum in a crash, ergo, they will be less likely to kill.
So to reiterate…*to the extent * that you don’t have to drive a car that large (ie. not that your car is ginormous, but that there are smaller cars you could have chosen) then maybe you do have *some * responsibility for the physics of any accidents you may or may not have in the future.
Second, I’m not saying you bear total responsibility for any death. I’m not saying you’re a bastard if you drive a humvee. Necessarily, anyway. I’m just saying that if a smaller car is less likely to kill others, and a larger car is more likely to kill others, there’s some ethics there to consider when you make your purchase decision.
Well since she was driving such a heavy vehicle AND infront of such a light vehicle I would think she should be even more careful and incur higher penalty.
That said a year out of someone’s life is pretty devastating. Loss of job and income, criminal record that will haunt you for the rest of your life. Nope that person’s life has just ended as she knew it if she gets a year - stiff sentence.
What punishment is required has a lot to do with what society at large thinks of the behavior that lead to the accident. We do not take a hard line against many traffic offenses, they’re treated as a minor mistake, a violation, something to be watched but not really enforced that sternly. We have the ability to ratchet up enforcement, we did it with drunk driving, you can assign any harsh punishment you want for traffic infractions, if it’s what the people want.
You can’t lightly enforce these laws then suddenly drop the hammer if a violation happens to result in a serious accident. All you do is punish someone for being “unlucky” enough to be the one in a million who caused a fatal accident. What’s the point in severely punishing this guy for something that 99.9999% of people do every day without anyone caring?
I don’t think punishment alone is a worthy enough goal. If you want to reduce speeding and other violations, step up enforcement when violations don’t cause death, since that happens a hell of a lot more often.
This is such an intensely stupid argument it makes me angry to even have to look at it. This is largely compounded by the fact that it in no way addresses the actual point of my previous point, which is that, given that piloting a vehicle of any size is inherently more dangerous than not piloting a vehicle at all, you’re arguing that any sort of locomotion besides walking represents an ethical decision. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, totally fucking stupid. It demands an absurdly high standard of ethical consideration, one that would paralyze a person if they applied it to all of their everyday actions, and not just those that involve motor vehicles.
I did address your point, you just didn’t understand it.
But let me put it this way - by your logic, considering the safety of building materials would somehow prevent constructing buildings altogether - since no material is 100% safe.
Ethical considerations are not the same thing as moral absolutes.
The family of the woman who died filed suit requesting $50 million.
Greedy fucks.
No, that would be your logic, you silly twat. I’m the one pointing out how idiotic it is, remember?
Do try to remember which side of the debate you’re on.
That was not my logic, that was your straw man. My argument is that choosing a car involves an ethical consideration of its safety to others relative to other cars, and to the extent one doesn’t, one has some responsibility for the results. This is as banal a statement as saying one should consider a car’s fuel efficiency, or try not to drive while impaired or distracted. But for some reason it leaves you frothing. And you’re intent on construing it as to necessarily imply that driving itself is absolutely unethical. I can only imagine that’s because your brain isn’t working properly.
Sorry, I simply don’t buy your claim that you’ve driven any substantial amount of time and never sped. On many freeways and open highways it’s dangerous NOT to.