Fleeing the scene is the key feature of this event that suggests to me that 1.5 years is too lenient. Add on top of that that this death occurred immediately following running a red light, another...
Fleeing the scene is the key feature of this event that suggests to me that 1.5 years is too lenient. Add on top of that that this death occurred immediately following running a red light, another illegal act. That it was a cyclist is completely uninteresting to me.
As a cyclist, I would say it's likely too lenient. If drivers follow the laws regarding bikes on the roadway then this incidents could be drastically reduced. In my state I get honked at and...
As a cyclist, I would say it's likely too lenient. If drivers follow the laws regarding bikes on the roadway then this incidents could be drastically reduced.
In my state I get honked at and aggressively driven off the road by cars, and they'll occasionally yell "get on the sidewalk." However, biking on the sidewalk is illegal and punishable by arrest if you are over 12 years old.
The reality is that too many drivers don't know the laws, and they are willing to be overly aggressive with their 2000lb vehicle against a person on a 25lb bike.
I hear you that most drivers neither know nor respect "share the road" type laws. That said I find the degree of risk that cyclists expose themselves and others to by meandering through a crowd of...
I hear you that most drivers neither know nor respect "share the road" type laws. That said I find the degree of risk that cyclists expose themselves and others to by meandering through a crowd of multiton automotives to be very irritating. If I rear end another car at low to moderate speed, chances are folks are going to be fine, and a little back and forth with insurance companies is going to make the situation go away. Rear ending a cyclist (or motorcyclist) has a far higher chance of serious bodily harm occurring.
To be clear, I 100% think that drivers must be held responsible for what they do while driving, including menacing behavior exhibited toward those with less safe means of transportation. That said, I think that those not in cars ought to bear a higher share of responsibility in a shared fault accident, as their decision to bring a knife to a gunfight creates moral and legal hazard for everyone.
I second this comment. That being said, I believe that bicyclists also need to make sure they're following the rules of the road correctly. I see it often enough that they do not (where I live,...
I second this comment.
That being said, I believe that bicyclists also need to make sure they're following the rules of the road correctly. I see it often enough that they do not (where I live, anyway). It would be nice if more people biked everywhere, but it's a hard pill to swallow since we live in such a fast-paced society. Everyone needs to get somewhere quickly, and likely with the mentality that "I'm more important so I need to do A to get to B so f**k you."
i get what you're going for here, but this is a bad take. cars are not, should not be, and should not be understood as the default mode of transportation for people, and basically punishing people...
That said, I think that those not in cars ought to bear a higher share of responsibility in a shared fault accident, as their decision to bring a knife to a gunfight creates moral and legal hazard for everyone.
i get what you're going for here, but this is a bad take. cars are not, should not be, and should not be understood as the default mode of transportation for people, and basically punishing people just for riding a bicycle or a motorcycle when most people use cars is an awful idea for a multitude of reasons that go beyond being a bad idea in the first place since cars are less safe than bicycles or motorcycles and other transportation modes in that vein. just off the top of my head, disadvantaging non-car modes of transportation reduces the viability of alternative transportation, biases people toward using cars, sets back steps to make cities more environmentally friendly, makes cities less likely to be pedestrian and bike friendly as they would then likely design with cars predominantly in mind, and so on.
Here's an idea: The maximum kinetic energy of your vehicle is a factor in the license you need as well as the insurance rates. Want to drive a 2.5t vehicle at 180km/h? Good luck with that, please...
Here's an idea: The maximum kinetic energy of your vehicle is a factor in the license you need as well as the insurance rates. Want to drive a 2.5t vehicle at 180km/h? Good luck with that, please show extensive knowledge of laws as well as demonstrate that you act according to the laws even when not supervised.
Want your 1.5t sportscar to go 300km/h? Yeah, you're paying out the nose for that one.
The beauty of energy is that it punishes velocity more than weight. Which should result in more safety for everyone, because the most safety you can get on the road is if everyone drives slow tanks.
Why are you irritated with people who are just trying to get to work, just like you? Do pedestrians also irritate you?
That said I find the degree of risk that cyclists expose themselves and others to by meandering through a crowd of multiton automotives to be very irritating.
Why are you irritated with people who are just trying to get to work, just like you? Do pedestrians also irritate you?
Because people should be able to travel safely without the risk of sudden death because someone was busy changing radio station or checking text messages. Its totally unacceptable that we allow...
Because people should be able to travel safely without the risk of sudden death because someone was busy changing radio station or checking text messages. Its totally unacceptable that we allow everyone to be put in charge of a deadly weapon daily without proper training and monitoring. Can you imagine if a pilot was caught drink flying? That would be it for them for life but a driver gets a minor punishment and can carry on.
The intentions of the drivers is not the issue its the infrastructure that causes these problems.
I'm unsure though why you're irritated with the cyclist and not the car driver, though. Cyclists don't put other people at risk, inattentive people driving weapons of fast destruction do.
I'm unsure though why you're irritated with the cyclist and not the car driver, though. Cyclists don't put other people at risk, inattentive people driving weapons of fast destruction do.
There are certainly many idiot cyclists out there. I think that some accidents are also because cyclists don't follow laws. Besides CCTV or witnesses, though, it can be hard to know who was at fault.
There are certainly many idiot cyclists out there. I think that some accidents are also because cyclists don't follow laws.
Besides CCTV or witnesses, though, it can be hard to know who was at fault.
There is the classic saying "If you want to kill someone and get away with it, do it in a car" It seems clear to me that humans as a society are incapable of driving within the rules and as the...
There is the classic saying "If you want to kill someone and get away with it, do it in a car"
It seems clear to me that humans as a society are incapable of driving within the rules and as the risks of breaking these rules are so high I think its needed to limit the risk and responsibility. Its clearly too much for a large chunk of people. A combination of removing cars from society as well as self driving cars would save many lives.
For nonviolent crimes, certainly. I may be biased (I don't have a car, ride a bicycle most places, unless I'm going with friends who are driving, but I have a license, and was studying state road...
we're incarcerating people too much in general
For nonviolent crimes, certainly. I may be biased (I don't have a car, ride a bicycle most places, unless I'm going with friends who are driving, but I have a license, and was studying state road laws before I even intended to get my license), but if your decisions cause somebody to lose a life, community service won't make up for it, especially if it's the result of you willingly breaking a law you have signed paperwork saying you understand. That is how you get your driver's license, after all. I also think you should not get your license back after killing somebody, in line with some of the sentiment of the article, because driving is a privlege, and if you are willing to make decisions that could kill somebody (as the dude in the article did), you have demonstrated you aren't worthy of it.
I would say 18 months is about right. The crime definitely falls under the definition of involuntary manslaughter "Causing another person's death through reckless behavior, or in the commission of...
I would say 18 months is about right. The crime definitely falls under the definition of involuntary manslaughter "Causing another person's death through reckless behavior, or in the commission of another crime but without intent to kill...". The sentencing under federal guidelines is 10 to 16 months, so you could even argue that 18 months is a little harsher than normal. I think he should definitely receive a lifetime ban on driving as well though
I think the involuntary part is important. Unless this guy is a total psycho, his life is ruined, no matter what. He has to live with having killed someone. The trial alone, any jail time is a...
I think the involuntary part is important. Unless this guy is a total psycho, his life is ruined, no matter what. He has to live with having killed someone. The trial alone, any jail time is a huge cut in his life.
I generally think jail time as a function of punishment makes little sense. There's magnitudes, like one month, one year, ten years... but other than that, if you genuinely believe the person can continue to be a non-threatening member of society when getting out, there's no real point of upping the time. Some genuinely unremorseful killer, for example, should spend life in prison, just to protect society from him. But other than that?
I think taking his driver's license would seem appropriate, though. If he ever even wants to drive again.
I completely agree. The purpose of incarceration should be for rehabilitation and/or the protection of the public. In this, and any, case where the crime was involuntary then neither of those...
I completely agree. The purpose of incarceration should be for rehabilitation and/or the protection of the public. In this, and any, case where the crime was involuntary then neither of those purposes can be fulfilled. That said, in a case with consequences as dire as this one the sentence could be seen as paying penance to the victims friends and family for the pain they have to live with. I imagine it might make it a tiny bit easier for them to know the person responsible is behind bars, even if it was an accident.
I'd say that 18 months is lenient. The simple fact is that someone died because the driver ran a red light, at high rate of speed, and then fled the scene. The fact that it's a cyclist should be...
I'd say that 18 months is lenient. The simple fact is that someone died because the driver ran a red light, at high rate of speed, and then fled the scene. The fact that it's a cyclist should be irrelevant. I'd say the same if it had been a pedestrian or another vehicle
I'm not the biggest fan of cyclists on the road but I live in a major metropolitan area where cyclists use the roads for recreational use, not just going to work. People who need to get to work and go to school, I understand. I don't like it, but I understand it. People who ride 30 deep on a busy roadway is just dangerous and shouldn't be allowed.
However, the law allows for it and I don't wish any harm on them nor do I do anything risky when I'm around them.
No they are not. This is a very American attitude. In my city loads of people cycle in every day. A busy city is no place for cars, there is simply no room for them.
No they are not. This is a very American attitude. In my city loads of people cycle in every day. A busy city is no place for cars, there is simply no room for them.
It is an extremely American view. Ask a Dutch person what they think of how cyclists operate in the US. The reaction is generally a mix of horror, shock, and disbelief. Because it is horrifying,...
It is an extremely American view. Ask a Dutch person what they think of how cyclists operate in the US. The reaction is generally a mix of horror, shock, and disbelief. Because it is horrifying, shocking, and unbelievable if you don't live it every day.
they really shouldn't be, and the fact that they are speaks to the fact that cities suck at making alternative transportation viable when they should be encouraging it, if anything.
they really shouldn't be, and the fact that they are speaks to the fact that cities suck at making alternative transportation viable when they should be encouraging it, if anything.
Fleeing the scene is the key feature of this event that suggests to me that 1.5 years is too lenient. Add on top of that that this death occurred immediately following running a red light, another illegal act. That it was a cyclist is completely uninteresting to me.
As a cyclist, I would say it's likely too lenient. If drivers follow the laws regarding bikes on the roadway then this incidents could be drastically reduced.
In my state I get honked at and aggressively driven off the road by cars, and they'll occasionally yell "get on the sidewalk." However, biking on the sidewalk is illegal and punishable by arrest if you are over 12 years old.
The reality is that too many drivers don't know the laws, and they are willing to be overly aggressive with their 2000lb vehicle against a person on a 25lb bike.
I hear you that most drivers neither know nor respect "share the road" type laws. That said I find the degree of risk that cyclists expose themselves and others to by meandering through a crowd of multiton automotives to be very irritating. If I rear end another car at low to moderate speed, chances are folks are going to be fine, and a little back and forth with insurance companies is going to make the situation go away. Rear ending a cyclist (or motorcyclist) has a far higher chance of serious bodily harm occurring.
To be clear, I 100% think that drivers must be held responsible for what they do while driving, including menacing behavior exhibited toward those with less safe means of transportation. That said, I think that those not in cars ought to bear a higher share of responsibility in a shared fault accident, as their decision to bring a knife to a gunfight creates moral and legal hazard for everyone.
I second this comment.
That being said, I believe that bicyclists also need to make sure they're following the rules of the road correctly. I see it often enough that they do not (where I live, anyway). It would be nice if more people biked everywhere, but it's a hard pill to swallow since we live in such a fast-paced society. Everyone needs to get somewhere quickly, and likely with the mentality that "I'm more important so I need to do A to get to B so f**k you."
i get what you're going for here, but this is a bad take. cars are not, should not be, and should not be understood as the default mode of transportation for people, and basically punishing people just for riding a bicycle or a motorcycle when most people use cars is an awful idea for a multitude of reasons that go beyond being a bad idea in the first place since cars are less safe than bicycles or motorcycles and other transportation modes in that vein. just off the top of my head, disadvantaging non-car modes of transportation reduces the viability of alternative transportation, biases people toward using cars, sets back steps to make cities more environmentally friendly, makes cities less likely to be pedestrian and bike friendly as they would then likely design with cars predominantly in mind, and so on.
Here's an idea: The maximum kinetic energy of your vehicle is a factor in the license you need as well as the insurance rates. Want to drive a 2.5t vehicle at 180km/h? Good luck with that, please show extensive knowledge of laws as well as demonstrate that you act according to the laws even when not supervised.
Want your 1.5t sportscar to go 300km/h? Yeah, you're paying out the nose for that one.
The beauty of energy is that it punishes velocity more than weight. Which should result in more safety for everyone, because the most safety you can get on the road is if everyone drives slow tanks.
Why are you irritated with people who are just trying to get to work, just like you? Do pedestrians also irritate you?
Because people should be able to travel safely without the risk of sudden death because someone was busy changing radio station or checking text messages. Its totally unacceptable that we allow everyone to be put in charge of a deadly weapon daily without proper training and monitoring. Can you imagine if a pilot was caught drink flying? That would be it for them for life but a driver gets a minor punishment and can carry on.
The intentions of the drivers is not the issue its the infrastructure that causes these problems.
I'm unsure though why you're irritated with the cyclist and not the car driver, though. Cyclists don't put other people at risk, inattentive people driving weapons of fast destruction do.
Oh sorry I miss read your comment, I thought your comment and the quote were about drivers
There are certainly many idiot cyclists out there. I think that some accidents are also because cyclists don't follow laws.
Besides CCTV or witnesses, though, it can be hard to know who was at fault.
There is the classic saying "If you want to kill someone and get away with it, do it in a car"
It seems clear to me that humans as a society are incapable of driving within the rules and as the risks of breaking these rules are so high I think its needed to limit the risk and responsibility. Its clearly too much for a large chunk of people. A combination of removing cars from society as well as self driving cars would save many lives.
For nonviolent crimes, certainly. I may be biased (I don't have a car, ride a bicycle most places, unless I'm going with friends who are driving, but I have a license, and was studying state road laws before I even intended to get my license), but if your decisions cause somebody to lose a life, community service won't make up for it, especially if it's the result of you willingly breaking a law you have signed paperwork saying you understand. That is how you get your driver's license, after all. I also think you should not get your license back after killing somebody, in line with some of the sentiment of the article, because driving is a privlege, and if you are willing to make decisions that could kill somebody (as the dude in the article did), you have demonstrated you aren't worthy of it.
I would say 18 months is about right. The crime definitely falls under the definition of involuntary manslaughter "Causing another person's death through reckless behavior, or in the commission of another crime but without intent to kill...". The sentencing under federal guidelines is 10 to 16 months, so you could even argue that 18 months is a little harsher than normal. I think he should definitely receive a lifetime ban on driving as well though
I think the involuntary part is important. Unless this guy is a total psycho, his life is ruined, no matter what. He has to live with having killed someone. The trial alone, any jail time is a huge cut in his life.
I generally think jail time as a function of punishment makes little sense. There's magnitudes, like one month, one year, ten years... but other than that, if you genuinely believe the person can continue to be a non-threatening member of society when getting out, there's no real point of upping the time. Some genuinely unremorseful killer, for example, should spend life in prison, just to protect society from him. But other than that?
I think taking his driver's license would seem appropriate, though. If he ever even wants to drive again.
I completely agree. The purpose of incarceration should be for rehabilitation and/or the protection of the public. In this, and any, case where the crime was involuntary then neither of those purposes can be fulfilled. That said, in a case with consequences as dire as this one the sentence could be seen as paying penance to the victims friends and family for the pain they have to live with. I imagine it might make it a tiny bit easier for them to know the person responsible is behind bars, even if it was an accident.
I'd say that 18 months is lenient. The simple fact is that someone died because the driver ran a red light, at high rate of speed, and then fled the scene. The fact that it's a cyclist should be irrelevant. I'd say the same if it had been a pedestrian or another vehicle
I'm not the biggest fan of cyclists on the road but I live in a major metropolitan area where cyclists use the roads for recreational use, not just going to work. People who need to get to work and go to school, I understand. I don't like it, but I understand it. People who ride 30 deep on a busy roadway is just dangerous and shouldn't be allowed.
However, the law allows for it and I don't wish any harm on them nor do I do anything risky when I'm around them.
most cyclists in busy city's are asking to be killed.
However, seeing as this dude ran a red light then fled i think the sentence is about right.
No they are not. This is a very American attitude. In my city loads of people cycle in every day. A busy city is no place for cars, there is simply no room for them.
It is an extremely American view. Ask a Dutch person what they think of how cyclists operate in the US. The reaction is generally a mix of horror, shock, and disbelief. Because it is horrifying, shocking, and unbelievable if you don't live it every day.
they really shouldn't be, and the fact that they are speaks to the fact that cities suck at making alternative transportation viable when they should be encouraging it, if anything.