Of course the one thing nobody has picked up on was that he was moving at around 120 mph, the speed limit is 70mph, this means he would be coming up on law abiding traffic at 50 mph.
If you get caught driving anything above 100mph, there is every chance you will get nicked for dangerous driving, and that is without making any impact at all with any other object.
The charge he was proscecuted uner was causing death by dangerous drving even if he had not been fiddling with his iPod he would have been gulity of the charge, and the iPod was simply his rationlisation of an incident in which he was to blame.
Given both drivers were travelling in the same direction it does sound like it was more than a momentary lapse in concentration relating to pushing a single ‘skip track’ button.
Absolute rubbish. I say the sentence isn’t nearly long enough. If you’re driving, keep your damn eyes (and brain) on the fucking road, not on your iPod, cellphone, make-up, hamburger, razor, map, newspaper or any of the other things people seem to think it’s perfectly acceptable to devote their attention to while hurtling along inside a ton of metal.
In any case, he was driving more than 50mph over the speed limit. In my opinion, anyone homicidal enough to be caught driving at 120mph+ should be sent to jail, regardless of whether they kill anyone - they clearly have no regard for human life whatsoever.
I ride a bicycle on the road every day. On a curvy road, it can take maybe a second or two from when a driver first sees me to when they are alongside me. If they’re busy fiddling with their playlist during those seconds and not looking at the road, I could be toast.
Yes. 124mph, to be precise, and he rear-ended the victim who was doing about 70mph.
It looks as though he was driving in an aggressive manner as well:
It’s a lot more than “just fiddling with an iPod and getting distracted”. That wouldn’t get you a sentence of causing death by dangerous driving, which is a serious offence. Driving at 120mph, overtaking dangerously and then crashing into the back of a car that is travelling at the speed limit? That’ll do it.
I have no idea why the story linked to in the OP fails to mention the 120mph+ speed. That’s kind of an important fact, wouldn’t you say? Certainly I hope many of the posters on this thread wouldn’t have been so outraged at the jail sentence if they had known that part.
Ah yes, I probably should have read the article. This is kind of embarassing, but I skipped that part. If he is driving that fast, then who gives a shit about fiddling with the Ipod? At that speed a stray hair tickling your nose can distract you long enough to crash.
You didn’t skip that part - the article linked in the OP inexplicably failed to mention the fact that he was doing almost double the speed limit. So all these people saying “This could have been any of us”… well, I hope none of us are in the habit of driving at 120mph on public roads.
Oh my God, is this really true? This is exactly the point I was getting at in my OP. I thought the clear “reductio ad absurdum” of sentencing someone to 3 years in prison because of an accident caused by a momentary lapse in concentration, of the type that all of us are susceptible to, would be that someone would have to go to jail for, for instance, sneezing at the wheel if the circumstances that then unfolded were unlucky enough.
Moderators: I’m still irritated this in Great Debates. I’m asking a factual question about the law. Fine, my question does involve an element of asking “is this just?”, but only because the law is supposedly based on justice. I know some people have answered saying, “he met the criteria for dangerous driving”, but what I want to know is: why did he meet the criteria? If it was because he was changing a hand-held iPod, would he have also met the criteria had he pushed a button on the radio, which almost everyone has done before? Does sneezing at the wheel thus meet the criteria for “dangerous driving”? And if so, what justification have previous judges given for these things meeting the criteria of dangerous driving?
If sneezing at the wheel constitutes “culpable and dangerous driving” then I suspect every single person in this thread becomes a serious criminal, and I can’t understand how that can be a reasonable position for the law to take.
Is this true? As I said in the OP, the severity of the sentence struck me as if there was a serious consideration missing from the article, and doing 120mph would certainly be one of those!
By default, glancing down would be a brief event and not one of distraction. Distraction is an act of inattentiveness that takes your eyes off the road in a way that prevents you from reacting in a timely manner to traffic.
My car stereo has a USB port so I keep a micro-sd reader plugged in. there are 2 sets of buttons on the stereo which scroll through either the folder or the songs within a folder. I only need to glance down to see where to place my hand and I’m done. I flip through the folders until I hear the right genre and then flip through the songs in the folder. It’s simply not possible to drive and scroll through the songs by reading them. I bought the stereo specifically because it is ergonomic to use. It has a traditional volume knob that doubles as the mute button. The factory controls of the car are equally ergonomic. I can change the temperature, the fan setting, the vent setting and engage the A/C without looking down.
The proper procedure for multi-tasking is to glance away for a second and then back to the road. If it takes 20 of these glances to accomplish the task then that is what it takes. It’s easy to get distracted while driving but it doesn’t absolve the driver from the responsibility.
Actually it is the opposite, since driving is a privilege not a right. The responsibility of allowing a human, with all human tendencies including distractability must ultimately fall on the one granting that privilege, which is the state. The state is the one responsible, the guy was just being human. This person is bearing the guilt of the state, he is not responsible for that death, he should not be punished.
If driving was a right you may have a case if you want to go by the rule by fear of authority route, which is not a route I wish to choose.
Aha, so he was undertaking at 120mph, while changing a hand-held MP3 player? That answers my OP perfectly then, thanks. (And, I’d like to point out, it’s a factual type of explanation which I should be looking for from General Question, not from Great Debates).
Driving is as much a right as any other function in life. The only “privilege” involved is the certification necessary to accomplish the task safely. It carriers the same safety/fiduciary responsibility as home ownership or any other aspect of existence where the safety of others is concerned. The freedom of driving is restricted just as any other freedom is when public safety cannot be maintained.
Perhaps it’s different in the UK, but here in the US driving is a privilege is pretty much stressed by the state, as such the privilege has to extend both ways, at most I can see him loosing the privilege, though I would not like to see that either.
Please tell me I’m being whooshed. That is so absurd I don’t even know where to begin. So in no particular order:
The state permits you to drive. It doesn’t permit you to drive above the speed limit, overtake illegally or drive without due care and attention. (That is why all thouse things are illegal)
The state grants firearms licences (in the UK; other countries are… less strict). Does that mean the state is responsible when a gun owner flips out and shoots people? What about if someone steals the gun and shoots people?
The state (currently but who know for how much longer?) allows people to do all sorts of things that could potentially get them killed - swimming, climbing, flying, crossing the road. Is the state “ultimately responsible” for all deaths that occur, because it permitted people to do all these things rather than mandating that they must stay strapped into their seat at home?
Once again you’re jumping to conclusions without checking the full facts of the case. He has been convicted by a jury. He hasn’t yet been sentenced and presumably the judge will take into account any mitigating factors, so he might not go to prison. The bit about sneezing is just part of his defence, we don’t know whether there was any other evidence for this. We don’t know why the jury chose to reject this defence. We also don’t know what evidence was made put up by the prosecution with regard to speed, road conditions, what manoeuvres he was carrying out at the time etc.
Here are some more details of the charge and the Crown’s evidence.
