I didn’t know this person was speeding, and it is arguable if the state really doesn’t permit you to drive above the speed limit, or it allows and even encourages it, it but reserves the right to pull you over at it’s whim.
When a accident happens where excessive speed is involved, usually it has to be proven that the excessive speed was a factor in the accident.
Firearms ownership is a right, not a privilege.
If the state takes control of something that is really the people’s and makes it a privilege, then yes the state is responsible
Because you didn’t make the simple effort of searching for a second source for the story.
What on earth gives you the impression that the state, especially the UK state, encourages people to break the law and then arbitarily decides to invoke legal proceedings? If you have evidence of UK state intentionally and institutionally behaving in this manner I and other posters here would be interested to see the evidence.
You are not seriously suggesting that excessive speed was not a significant factor?? We have it recorded that the differance between the two vehicles was around 50mph, and only one of those was in fact riding above the speed limit. It is reasonable to conclude excessive speed was proven, and this was a significant factor, although the distraction to the iPod was also an aggravating feature.
When I wrote the OP I did search around for secondary sources, and the only two I could find were from the BBC and from The Independent, neither of which thought it was pertinent to mention that the 21-year-old had been speeding or undertaking, or that the MP3 player was a hand-held one!
Well I’m sure that the family of the dead man will feel better knowing that there are people in this thread who have similary dangerously bad driving habits …
And who assume that everyone else has aswell.
And that its only a matter of their good luck that they themselves haven’t been arrested for killing an innocent,sensible law abiding person themselves.
Makes you wonder why this driver was arrested at all.
You’re a little late to the thread (I suggest you read the 2nd page to understand why I said that) but even so, I would bite that bullet. It is a matter of luck (though not “only” of luck) that you haven’t been arrested for killing someone while driving a car. For example, if a backseat passenger surreptitiously removed her seatbelt while you were driving, and someone immediately hit you, killing that passenger, I believe you would be held partially responsible (for driving without being sure everyone has their seatbelt on) and may even go to jail. And that would be due almost completely simply to bad luck on your part.
I don’t know about in the UK, but in the US speed limits that are, shall we say, “unrealistic”, are fairly common, and fairly usually ignored by drivers and police alike, and fairly clearly enforced–when enforced–only for monetary purposes.
Kanicbird said nothing about anything happening “intentionally” or “institutionally”.
Let me again post this from The Leicester Mercury, dated 2 October, which not only reveals the speeds both were travelling at, but also the following information:
Except that he did, for you need to prove it is that state that is responsible and not individual law enforcers or law enforcment agencies - we have all heard of a few bad apples in law enforcement but this is an accusation of much more than that, it is an accusation that the state colludes.
This means it must be an institutional property - ie behaviour of the state, and the state must be cogniscent of this behaviour to ‘even encourage it’
Now if you go on to say that this is present in the US (as Kanicbird does), I cannot comment either way, but it reveals a US centric perspective, which is utterly nonsensical and irrelevant since this all took place in the UK, which is why Kanicbird’s comments are wrong, and startlingly uninformed.
I do admit that I am using a US POV, because it is the one I have. But England and the US share a common root, which has evolved into different forms of a ‘nanny state’, where people are given very restrictive rules to follow for the sake of the state taking care of everyone, instead of growing the people up. It is trust in the state, not the person. Traffic rules in the US is a great example, over-cautious and unrealistic speed limits, 4 way stop signs, many many intersections with turn arrows for every direction.
The state by instituting such rules oppresses freedom and has to bear the consequences of any one following their rules, which I believe using a MP3 device for car audio is not restricted.
The nanny state, if too oppressive, bears much of the blame, this person was just acting human, with human distractability.
If you want to argue unsafe speed I would be more accepting, but would like at most to see loss of the driving privilege, we have hopefully evolved beyond the point where the ‘right of vengeance’ requires destroying this guy’s life, for the simple act of being a human.
I regularly drive considerably quicker. 120mph is not dangerous per se. 120mph amongst busy traffic, or even approaching other traffic is dangerous (particularly on British motorways where most drivers do not expect traffic to be approaching so quickly and thus will pull in front of you to overtake a fellow middle lane day dreamer). 120mph approaching other slow moving traffic and not even watching where one is going is be disapproved of by everyone, and quite rightly too. I think the sentence is fair.
I do have some disquiet about the new “death by careless driving” law though (and I cannot at all understand the logic behind the “death with no insurance” or “death with no licence” laws that came in at the same time, unless I have misunderstood them) . It will send people to prison more or less arbitrarily. No one is 100% perfect. When said imperfection is combined with an awful piece of luck people die. Such is life.
Not the case in the UK. However, speeding enforcement tends to be targeted at places where drivers speed the most. And where do drivers speed the most? Where it’s safest to speed!
That’s because in Europe that kind of driving, as manila said, is forbidden. Police will pull you over for using a cell phone because studies have shown this to be distracting, and you will get fined. (I hope they also include hands-off headset phoning, because it’s the talk itself that’s distracting). I can’t imagine any Euroepean driver admitting that he applies makeup or reads! while driving, because everybody would tell them that they are bad drivers.
It’s really weird to see how many of the hard core “we need to kill this bastard/ Let him rot in prison/ I hope he gets raped in prison as punishment” Americans suddenly have a deeply compassionate and practical side for a criminal. I guess it’s true that people think of how likely it is that they themselves end up in a situation like that when thinking about punishments - because you drive so badly, you don’t want to go to prison, but have no problem with 3 strikes laws or similar. (The US has the highest rate of prisoners of all democratic countries).
Whereas Europeans try to drive carefully and don’t want to have a big Mercedes plow into their car killing them.
Do you understand that unless you’ve taken snuff tobacco, people don’t sneeze intentionally, thus making sneezing an accident, but look down or aside to their Ipod intentionally, and thus making it avoidable?
Furthermore, even if the original article doesn’t mention the speed in numbers, the sheer fact that he plowed into another car means either
he took his eyes off the road for more than one second or
he was driving far too fast for the conditions (sight, road etc.)
Otherwise, you don’t travel that fast in one second.
German courts have had to rule several times previously what constitutes an unavoidable emergency where a reasonable person may take his eyes off the road, and which are secondary importance when driving, that can wait till you pull over. Things like lighted cigarettes falling onto people’s laps, things falling into the foot room (where they might catch under the pedals) and so on. Very very few things are allowed to distract a conscientious driver. Even with a kid in the backseat acting up, you have to shout at the top of your lungs first, and then try and pull aside, before turning your head.
Not so in Europe. Speed limits are there for a reason that every sane responsible driver understands, and should keep to it. Driving above the speed limit is illegal because it’s dangerous.
Yes, in some places car drivers complain that the placement of speed traps is such a way as to increase revenue and not safety. However, I have usually no empathy for drivers who get caught speeding, because it’s their choice, and can have bad consequences.
But what some US dopers have described, where in a few yards the speed limit goes from 50 to 30 , only to trap out-of-towners - that doesn’t happen. There are fixed rules how high the speed limit on country lanes, outside cities, inside cities (starting with the yellow border sign) etc. is. Mobile repair crews have reduced speed for safety, also some corners with lots of accidents.
So paying money and loosing a license is the appropriate reaction to neglience that killed another person? Would you say the same thing if this was caused by a gun? (Oh, I forgot: guns are holy right in the US.) It’s really surreal, considering how quickly people end up in the US in prison or the electric chair just because they have a life insurance on their spouse …
Of course it is, esp. in busy roads in Europe, with lots more cars than the open highways. You have only fractions of a second to react at that speed, which is too fast for human mistakes.
The principle of “Death by neglience” is rather old. I thought the US had it also? It’s simply applied specifically to cars because a moving mass of 1 t of metal with electronic parts which can fail is a risk unto itself even if the driver is perfect, which he often isn’t.
I don’t know what you mean with those laws. Could you elaborate? Do you mean that in the UK and other European countries. you are required to have a license to operate a car and an insurance because of the inherent risk? If you are caught not having them, you will be punished even if you didn’t cause an accident.
No. It’s NOT arbirtraly. The driver made a choice to drive too fast, and then made another choice to fiddle with his Ipod. That the outcome was a death was bad luck for the victim. True, the driver might have gotten away with it this time - as he might have other times before - but it’s still a choice, not bad luck that happens unexpecdetly.
Contrary to all the yammering of some posters about Nanny states, we expect people to behave reasonable, and not like dumb idiots, and hold them to that standard. You can’t go to court because you used a chain saw in a way that no reasonable person would use and cut your leg off by stupidity, because if you are dumb, it’s your own fault.