log in
register

Murder by car?

Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 19 total)
1 2
  • Author
    Replies
  • November 24, 2021 at 11:18 am #986091
    0
    GMBasix

    That’s right, it’s civil

    That’s right, it’s civil liability for insurance purposes.  

    I don’t think it is what makes the difference.  Let’s face it, with an estimated 1m drivers every day without insurance, 4m admitting driving without MOT, and 634k cars unlicensed, there’s quite a pool for whom liability is not a major consideration.

    There seems to be a correlation between enlightened attitudes towards cycling and presumed liability, but I think that relationship is association, not causation.

    November 24, 2021 at 10:06 am #986089
    0
    chrisonabike

    [ presumed liability ]

    [ presumed liability ]

    This one keeps coming up. My understanding – and I’m happy to be corrected – is that anywhere it’s applied this only applies to civil claims e.g. insurance stuff. It’s not a principle in criminal cases. Lots of folks [1], [2], [3] have written about this not doing what some campaigners think it does.

    November 24, 2021 at 10:01 am #986087
    0
    chrisonabike
    AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
    Yes, don’t want to open a can of worms on the right and wrong of the actions and trial verdict, but was surprised it is totally legal for someone to buy a gun at 18 for a 17yo from another state, especially as it would have been illegal if it was beers or fireworks.

    Yeah – the norms of other cultures are often surprising. Much of the US is still treats alcohol like we would weapons. Seems common for countries to have one or two particular issues which become a “freedom and rights” thing – likely for historic reasons. Don’t try to restrict the rights of hunters (La chasse) in France, for example!

    November 24, 2021 at 9:57 am #986085
    0
    wycombewheeler
    hawkinspeter wrote:
    I find it utterly bizarre that there’s such an acceptance that drivers can easily not be in control of their vehicle or be unaware of what’s around them and it’s considered to be just one of those things.

    The Incompetence Paradox

    Indeed, complete incompetance succesfully used as a defence against a charge of dangerous driving.

    November 23, 2021 at 11:38 pm #986083
    0
    AlsoSomniloquism

    Yes, don’t want to open a can

    Yes, don’t want to open a can of worms on the right and wrong of the actions and trial verdict, but was surprised it is totally legal for someone to buy a gun at 18 for a 17yo from another state, especially as it would have been illegal if it was beers or fireworks. 

     

    November 23, 2021 at 3:31 pm #986081
    0
    Recoveryride
    chrisonatrike wrote:
     

    Cynically I don’t think that manslaughter will ever stick. As for proving the charge is not applicable it’s not important as I think that without major changes the law will always require the prosecution to prove this wasn’t just “an accident”.

    I disagree that this would improve driving much:

    Chance of detection, charging and actual conviction have a role in any “negative reinforcement” of a law. These are all currently very low.

    Those of evil intent probably won’t care about the law. Those who are “criminally negligent” will likely neglect the law too. The majority of drivers are just fallible humans. They didn’t set out that day to kill, they weren’t angry at you, they were just not paying enough attention / up to the standard that day. Knowing themselves that they aren’t criminals they won’t be much motivated by new laws.

    I don’t disagree with the psychology.

    It is interesting, though, that away from driving, if my actions very clearly result in someone’s death or serious injury, I need a very good justification for them. Also, the UK is very much in the minority (in Europe) in not having a presumed liability law: IIRC, only Cyprus and Ireland (as well as the UK) do not require the less vulnerable user to demonstrate that they were not at fault. I’m sure Boardman has campaigned for it, and it would be a simple enough legal move. But, of course, there isn’t the popular call for it in a country where cycling is still slightly fringe (ironically, not least because of the widespread perception that the roads  are dangerous for cyclists).

    November 23, 2021 at 2:30 pm #986079
    0
    chrisonabike

    Unrelated to bikes now but a

    Unrelated to bikes now but a very recent legal case there suggests that:

    a) The US is in as much of a mess with guns and their regulation as we are with cars and:

    b) Most places bringing a gun to the party or having one with you is perfectly fine. Then anyone who you perceive as a threat can be killed with little consequence. Goes double for cops / “security” people and the colour of the victim can still count in your favour.

    November 23, 2021 at 2:14 pm #986077
    0
    AlsoSomniloquism

    Pretty sure it will be ruled

    Pretty sure it will be ruled self-defense.

    (I expect the set Armorer might be done under industrial accident type legislation if anyone is done. Afterall it is her responsibility to ensure the guns onset are used correctly and not loaded when not in use.)

    November 23, 2021 at 2:14 pm #986075
    0
    brooksby
    chrisonatrike wrote:
    Agree – but like so many things in a culture most people don’t see them, they’re just “one of those things” and you get on with your day. Only those in some way standing “outside” and looking in will notice. And they (we here) tend to be in a minority.

    Look at the way much road violence is reported – as if it’s the weather or some other natural occurence rather than a consequence of somebody’s (lack of) driving skills and decision making.

    November 23, 2021 at 2:05 pm #986073
    0
    chrisonabike

    Yeah – I think we often

    Yeah – I think we often overlook the fact that systems have to be self-sustaining and that a lot of their activity and energy has very little to do with what we conceive their “purpose” to be. So making law (politics) has lots to do with the struggles of politicians / political parties to stay on top. Those in the legal system itself all have their own ends, not least of which is hanging on to their jobs! If you set yourself against common cultural norms and prejudices you’re probably not going to win many cases, get promotion at the CPS or progress far as a judge…

    November 23, 2021 at 1:59 pm #986071
    0
    chrisonabike

    Agree – but like so many

    Agree – but like so many things in a culture most people don’t see them, they’re just “one of those things” and you get on with your day. Only those in some way standing “outside” and looking in will notice. And they (we here) tend to be in a minority.

     

    https://cdn.road.cc/wp-content/uploads/roadcc/pills.png

    November 23, 2021 at 1:54 pm #986069
    0
    chrisonabike
    Recoveryride wrote:
    [ … ] even if you did not intend to injure, anybody driving a 2 ton metal object should reasonably understand and foresee that carelessness/stupidity/incompetence when in charge of said object has a realistic possibility of hurting someone. Thus, a manslaughter charge seems appropriate.

    Agree with the principle. I really must read up on it but I think one of the points of bringing in “Death by Dangerous Driving” / “Careless” was to try to tone down the “intent” aspect because no-one was getting convicted for manslaughter and certainly not murder. However it seems to have crept back in. In recent cases it seems that just “not noticing” / “not recalling what happened” is sufficient defence. Certainly there is a requirement to prove that it was the motorist’s fault (e.g. “cyclist just fell over and I couldn’t avoid them” or “they just appeared in front of me” sometimes get you off).

    Recoveryride wrote:
    If it was announced that drivers who killed a cyclist could reasonably expect to be pursued for manslaughter unless they can show why that charge isn’t applicable (i.e. the onus is on the driver to prove it was a genuine ‘accident’), then driving in this country would improve exponentially.

    Cynically I don’t think that manslaughter will ever stick. As for proving the charge is not applicable it’s not important as I think that without major changes the law will always require the prosecution to prove this wasn’t just “an accident”.

    I disagree that this would improve driving much:

    Chance of detection, charging and actual conviction have a role in any “negative reinforcement” of a law. These are all currently very low.

    Those of evil intent probably won’t care about the law. Those who are “criminally negligent” will likely neglect the law too. The majority of drivers are just fallible humans. They didn’t set out that day to kill, they weren’t angry at you, they were just not paying enough attention / up to the standard that day. Knowing themselves that they aren’t criminals they won’t be much motivated by new laws.

    November 23, 2021 at 1:39 pm #986067
    0
    chrisonabike

    This is exactly why I got

    This is exactly why I got interested. I appreciate that having enough flexibility to deal with the messiness of the world (and indeed the law…) is often a point in favour of our legal system. Here however the mishmash of overlapping potential charges seems to work to the detriment of “fairness” (e.g. that “similar” cases – as much as you can say that – should merit similar charges and comparable outcomes if found guilty).

    Maybe I have overly high expectations of the legal system though? I mean, I read “The Secret Barrister” and not all of that came as a surprise given what I’d heard from a barrister friend, but…

    The case of the car driven into the nightclub is an outlier – as you say others have deliberately driven into a particular individual and received a wide range of lesser charges / sentences. Presumably this was seen as “clearly had designs on mass murder”?

    At the end of the day the relative positions of cycling / motoring in our culture are probably enough to make the difference. Killing in a motor vehicle – whatever the circumstances almost always mean any punishment will be substantially less relative to killing by any other means.

    November 23, 2021 at 1:06 pm #986065
    0
    Hirsute

    Different country, different

    Different country, different legal system.

    November 23, 2021 at 12:51 pm #986063
    0
    Bungle_52

    I’ve been wondering if there

    I’ve been wondering if there are any parallels with the death of Halyena Hutchins on the set of Rust. Both involve potentially deadly weapons and it will be interesting to see who is held to account.

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 19 total)
1 2
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.