This article discusses a fatal accident caused by a teen with a bad driving history and a piece of crap car with bald tires and worn brakes. The parents are being charged because they allowed her to drive knowing she was a bad driver and her car was a death trap. Two people were killed in the accident. If you click on the link, you’ll notice a survey which asks if you think the parents should be responsible for the whole thing, should not be held responsible or should they be charged with allowing her to drive this dangerous car, but not for allowing her to drive even though she sucked at driving. I voted for the third choice. What do you think?
Would the car have passed a state inspection?
The teen was doing 90 mph, according to the article. Would decent tires and breaks have even mattered?
As an aside, I remember overhearing a conversation in which it was discussed worn tires were good as long as the road is dry because you’ve got more tire-to-ground contact. The person said the tread was for wet/muddy conditions. Is this true? It seems to me that a worn/bald tire is more prone to blow out because it’s thinner.
brakes, brakes, brakes, dammit!
I hate correction posts as much as the next person but breaks/brakes is a pet peeve of mine.
This is happening in the county where I live. It was discussed on the radio this morning and a legal expert satted that it would be very difficult to succeed with the prosecution.
As for whether the car would pass a state inspection, the only inspections I’m aware of in Georgia are for emissions. Safety inspections might infringe on your “right” to drive, you know.
I followed the link and voted for the parents having responsibility for the state of her car, but not her driving.
Maybe I’m in the minority here, but according to what I read she was only 16. If that is the case and her parents knew she was a poor driver, didn’t have much experience, was prone to driving fast, etc…why shouldn’t they be held responsible?
I was a bad driver when I first got my permit. My parents wouldn’t let me drive by myself and certainly not with my teenage friends in the car until I got some experience under my belt and could act responsible enough to be entrusted with the PRIVILEDGE of driving the car they provided me with.
I might feel differently if this young lady was 18 or 19 and had been driving for a while but why didn’t these parents yank her keys and tell her she had to take a driving course or safety course or God forbid, spend time driving with her and make sure they felt confident enough in her abilities to release her onto the open road.
And Geez…90 mph in a 55 mph zone???
I feel for the parents of the 17 year old killed and the family of the 61 year old other driver killed.
We have a similar case in the Scranton area. A 15 year old out joyriding killed a pedestrian, and the “grandfather” (his guardian) is being charged with involuntary manslaughter because he allegedly loaned the kid the car. The kid will be charged in juvenille court.
On the one hand, they want to charge the parents. On the other hand, they want to try her as an adult. Is she responsible for her own actions or are her parents? Can’t have it both ways.
The child should be held fully accountable in both cases. Part of driving a car involves taking responsibility for your actions behind the wheel. Whether you are licensed or not, if you operate a vehicle, it is up to you alone to take responsibility for the roadworthiness of the car, and your actions behind the wheel. It’s not mom and dad’s fault that you took the keys without permission, or conned your “grandfather” into loaning you the car, or whatever the case may be. You alone are driving, you alone assume responsibility for your actions, you alone suffer the consequences for said actions.
If the charges to the parents do go through, it could set a potentially dangerous precedent.
How would a person define having prior knowledge that a car is in “bad shape”. First, you would have to define what is meant by prior knowledge. Did the parents take the car into a mechanic and were told that the car was dangerous to drive? Second, how do you define “bad shape”? Define “worn” brakes. Define bald tires.
How would a person define having an “erratic driving history”? The girl was only 16, after all. Assuming that she got her license at the age of 16, the girl had been driving for a grand total of less than a year. I know what my driving habits were like when I first got my license. Erratic would be an accurate description. Erratic to the point of driving 90 mph in a 55mph zone? No way. But again, how does one define erratic?
Until we can accurate and precisely define thse terms, how can we charge people based on their definitions?
What happens if say, a woman’s car is in bad need of new tires. She knows that they don’t quite look right, but no one has officially told her that the tires are bald and need to be replaced. The woman then gives the car to her newly licensed daughter to go out for the evening. She knows that her daughter isn’t the best driver, but wants to give her the benefit of the doubt. While out, the daughter speeds recklessly, gets into an accident similar to the one mentioned in the article, and kills someone.
Should the mother be responsible for the accident?
Based on the arguments in the article, maybe. Based on MHO, no.
That’s odd. Even up here in the Live Free Or Die state we submit to yearly safety inspections. Our rights are being infringed on, and we didn’t even realize it! :rolleyes:
Those issues you raise are exactly why legal experts think it will be difficult to get a conviction (see my previous post). The prosecution will have to prove that the parents let their daughter drive a car that they knew to be dangerous.
Worn brakes are defined as less than 1/32 of an inch of friction material over the backing plate or rivet head.
Worn tires. If the “wear bars” are showing the tire is worn out.
I used to inspect cars for New York safty inspections. I was tougher than the reg’s, I could tell the owners what was wrong but unless it was as bad as or worse than what was written in the book, it passed.
My take, charge the girl. Driving is a privelage. Or something thats spelled with those letters. :smack:
Charge the teen for being a shitty driver. Do not try her as an adult unless they’re prepared to let her vote, drink, and sign contracts starting the day of the trial.
Do not charge the parents for their daughter’s driving habits - her driver’s license is a stamp of approval from the state. If her driving is bad enough that they’d consider prosecuting the parents for letting her drive, the state needs to reconsider its license procedures.
I voted for the third. While parents should have used more discretion, as Aries28’s parents did, they shouldn’t be held accountable for the teen’s driving habits, but under no circumstances (okay, not no circumstances. Let’s say normal circumstances) they should not have let her drive a car in bad shape like that, especially bearing in mind that regardless of how good her driving is, being a teen she would have less experience and handling the vehicle in an emergency could have posed complications.
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but while bald tires do give more ground contact, they do wear out much faster, especially when braking hard or making sharp corners at higher speeds (by high I mean like 25. That was a bad habit I had a hard time breaking).
I agree.
The state gave her a liscense to drive. That is, the state decided that she knew the rules of the road and could operate a vehicle according to the laws of the state, based on a written test and a driving test.
If she was a terrible driver. she should not have been issued a licsense. If she could pass the test, but chose to drive in an unsafe manner, then she and she alone is responsible for that.
This child’s reckless behavior and her parents’ poor judgment led directly to the deaths of two people. All three are responsible for this and all three should face charges. The parents appear to have been criminally negligent in allowing a known reckless driver to operate their poorly maintained car. In most states when a minor vandalizes private property the parents are held financially responsible. I think the prosecutor is following that pattern except that a more severe crime requires a more severe punishment.
Delurking here for the moment.
As someone else who lives in the county this happened in, I agree with the majority so far. The parents should not be charged. She was qualified enough to get her license, so are they going to go after the State as well? This is a tragic accident, and yes, the parents should have made sure that the car was safe, but when you’re doing 90 in a 55 mph zone, good brakes and tires aren’t going to help you too much if you go airborn and fly across the median. Did the parents use bad judgement? Definitely. Should they be charged for it? Not in my opinion.
If the girl had a driver’s license then I don’t think you should charge the parents because the girl was driving. If she had a bad driving history then her license should have been suspended.
If the parents own the car then they are responsible for making sure that it is road worthy. If it wasn’t road worthy and they allowed it to be driven then it is their fault. In that case I think their charges should be what ever other people are charged with then they get found with bad brakes.
All in all the article was rather vague. I wouldn’t mind knowing exactly what they mean by “erratic driving history” and “bald tires and worn brakes”.
Where does it say that the parents GAVE her the keys? Where does it say that the parents ALLOWED her to take the car?
I’m 32, but I remember what it was like to be a teenager. I knew everything there was to know about everything, and I was bulletproof. Why is it so far out of the realm of possibility that she snuck into her parents room after her parents went to bed, fished the car keys out of dad’s pocket (or mom’s purse), and “borrowed” the car. Her parens may not have even known the car was gone until the police called.
And it’s possible that the car used was grounded in the garage, awaiting repair, and the girl took it because since the family car was parked out front or in the driveway, no one would notice it right away, and she might get away with taking it.
I may be too strict of a parent, but when my kid is old enough to drive, if he ever “borrows” my car without my permission or knowledge, the car gets reported stolen, because IMO, he will have stolen my car. Being my son does not give him carte blanche to the use of my vehicle.
I don’t think that is the point. I would agree with you that if the girl took the car without her parents’ permission, then they should not be responsible. I think the more important point is that if parents provide an unroadworthy car to a minor, should the parents then have any responsibility if the car is involved in an accident.