[Izziwhizzi]

I can't quite believe this news piece I've just seen from an incident in Texas, USA.

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/6224538.stm

A car driving slowly in a car park hits a child - no mention if the driver was at fault, child ran out or whatever. The passenger gets out to see if the child is OK and is beaten to death by an angry mob.

Is this just mob mentality? Would it happen anywhere in the world?

Back to SCI - many are injured from RTA's - do you feel that drivers at fault who are not injured get to feel the real pain and consequences of their actions? Maybe some do in the short term, but memories fade easily, so what about long term?

Insurance companies may pay up, but what about the drivers real debt to the injured person? Would you suggest they do community service for a significant length of time? if so how much and for how long? would you suggest to impose restrictions on their lifestyles as SCI has on ours?

Just asking what you lot on the forum think.

[edlee]

As for the first, It was without a doubt racially motivated. Had it been at a Christmas festival, or high school function, or any place that the crowd was of mixed races, this simply would not have happened. Unfortunatly it was at a celebration for the ending of slavery. I shall say no more.

On the second. Life ain't fair. Should someone who accidently has an accident that kills someone be put to death? Shouldn't other things be taken into account? That's what judges and juries are for. They are the ones who see all the facts and decide on punishment.

I'm sure it would be possible to, surgically, render them paralyzed at the same level as their victim, but would you really impose that on them? It wouldn't matter anyway. I'm sure the courts would rule paralysis as cruel and unusual punishment.
ed

[Izziwhizzi]

edlee, on Jun 24 2007, 09:29 PM, said:

As for the first, It was without a doubt racially motivated. Had it been at a Christmas festival, or high school function, or any place that the crowd was of mixed races, this simply would not have happened. Unfortunatly it was at a celebration for the ending of slavery. I shall say no more.

On the second. Life ain't fair. Should someone who accidently has an accident that kills someone be put to death? Shouldn't other things be taken into account? That's what judges and juries are for. They are the ones who see all the facts and decide on punishment.

I'm sure it would be possible to, surgically, render them paralyzed at the same level as their victim, but would you really impose that on them? It wouldn't matter anyway. I'm sure the courts would rule paralysis as cruel and unusual punishment.
ed

No, I didn't mean that at all. Here in the UK if you get caught speeding over 100mph or doing 50% more than the speed limit (i.e.45mph in a 30mph zone) you have a good chance of loosing your licence for a year.

If you cause an accident by reckless driving, and it causes a death you could possibly go to jail (if it was really bad, ie. drunk, uninsured, stolen car with the death), but loose your licence at least for a year.

However if you seriously injure someone in an accident (SCI, head damage) - you get away with a small fine (few hundred pounds) and no licence lost.

Insurance companies will pick up the money tab but the drivers don't even get their licence stopped for a year. I just was pointing out its very easy to cause a serious accident over here without any significant recourse to the driver, and to me that seems unfair. Just because people are injured and not killed.

L

[gazrobsuk]

Without wishing to digress off topic I agree with Izzi in so much as if it's proven to be careless/dangerous etc the penalties are farcical.

In my case the 77 year old driver who knocked me off my bike performing a U-turn on a dual carriageway was found guilty after a year or so of careless driving & was fined £350 plus court costs (£225) & 6 points on his license whereas I'm left with a life of pain & suffering as well as the disability so it doesn't seem fair is an understatement.

I don't advocate hanging him or making him suffer like me but I was on a TV programme recently regarding older drivers/competency etc & at the very least he should have been made to do an assessment driving test otherwise (he drove away from court) he could do this again & again.

There are not enough rules in place to automatically force someone to do some kind of test after an accident in which you are 'proven' to be at fault let alone harsh enough penalties... what price my life now compared to before as for me there is no amount of money that could justify it but at least we should change the law on retesting & punishment.

Just my 2p

Izziwhizzi, on Jun 26 2007, 09:57 AM, said:

edlee, on Jun 24 2007, 09:29 PM, said:

As for the first, It was without a doubt racially motivated. Had it been at a Christmas festival, or high school function, or any place that the crowd was of mixed races, this simply would not have happened. Unfortunatly it was at a celebration for the ending of slavery. I shall say no more.

On the second. Life ain't fair. Should someone who accidently has an accident that kills someone be put to death? Shouldn't other things be taken into account? That's what judges and juries are for. They are the ones who see all the facts and decide on punishment.

I'm sure it would be possible to, surgically, render them paralyzed at the same level as their victim, but would you really impose that on them? It wouldn't matter anyway. I'm sure the courts would rule paralysis as cruel and unusual punishment.
ed

No, I didn't mean that at all. Here in the UK if you get caught speeding over 100mph or doing 50% more than the speed limit (i.e.45mph in a 30mph zone) you have a good chance of loosing your licence for a year.

If you cause an accident by reckless driving, and it causes a death you could possibly go to jail (if it was really bad, ie. drunk, uninsured, stolen car with the death), but loose your licence at least for a year.

However if you seriously injure someone in an accident (SCI, head damage) - you get away with a small fine (few hundred pounds) and no licence lost.

Insurance companies will pick up the money tab but the drivers don't even get their licence stopped for a year. I just was pointing out its very easy to cause a serious accident over here without any significant recourse to the driver, and to me that seems unfair. Just because people are injured and not killed.

L

This post has been edited by gazrobsuk: 26 June 2007 - 12:04 PM

[gsp23]

gazrobsuk, on Jun 26 2007, 07:03 AM, said:

Without wishing to digress off topic I agree with Izzi in so much as if it's proven to be careless/dangerous etc the penalties are farcical.

In my case the 77 year old driver who knocked me off my bike performing a U-turn on a dual carriageway was found guilty after a year or so of careless driving & was fined £350 plus court costs (£225) & 6 points on his license whereas I'm left with a life of pain & suffering as well as the disability so it doesn't seem fair is an understatement.

I don't advocate hanging him or making him suffer like me but I was on a TV programme recently regarding older drivers/competency etc & at the very least he should have been made to do an assessment driving test otherwise (he drove away from court) he could do this again & again.

There are not enough rules in place to automatically force someone to do some kind of test after an accident in which you are 'proven' to be at fault let alone harsh enough penalties... what price my life now compared to before as for me there is no amount of money that could justify it but at least we should change the law on retesting & punishment.

Just my 2p

THAT I agree with... I mean before I was allowed to drive again after I got out of the hospital I was required to take a driving eval and also a cognitive test as well. The driving eval took 2 hrs! It was harder for me to get my license to drive after getting out of the hospital, than it was for me to get it in the first place when I turned 16! I agree that there should be testing like that... cognetive testing as well as something like the pedal test where they check your reaction time when brake lights come on in front of you... basically the same type of test that I had to do.

[Texaswheelz]

I think anyone that has a major vehicle accident should be made to take the test again and possibly lose their license for awhile. How it is right now as far as I know, the only time they do anything with your license is if you were impaired by drugs or alcohol. But if your 90 years old and can't see and run into the back of some one or run through a red light, then your ticketed and driving again ASAP. I personally feel that after a certain age there should be new test every year. Instead you just go in and renew your license every 5 or 6 years or however long it is. In our case we have to drive with adaptive equipment now, so we have to retake the test to make sure we can drive with it ok.

When a person does lose their license from driving impaired they are not required to take a test to get it back. My younger brother had his taken from him 2 years ago from driving impaired(yes I cussed him up and down), he got it back a few months ago, no test, nothing, the time they took it away was over, he went to the office, they took a picture and gave him a new one.

[luckymom]

Izziwhizzi, on Jun 20 2007, 06:38 PM, said:

I can't quite believe this news piece I've just seen from an incident in Texas, USA.

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/6224538.stm

.


Back to SCI - many are injured from RTA's - do you feel that drivers at fault who are not injured get to feel the real pain and consequences of their actions? Maybe some do in the short term, but memories fade easily, so what about long term?

They might remember longer if they were made to do comunity service in a rehab facility, after serving their just punishment of course!