I wouldn't necessarily take the comments on a web site as representative of the consensus view- internet commenters are, like talk show callers (and bikies posters?), a certain breed that's low on the evolutionary scale. For example, I tend to do it. Just sayin'...
There are a couple of reasons to have penalties for criminal actions, and deterrence is only one of them- another is promoting a general sense of justice and fairness. That's what (usually) keeps us from saddling up and riding over to slash tires or worse when a road incident leads to a poor outcome for a bicycling brother or sister. Society needs a sense that The System is delivering justice. That's why the penalty for an ill-considered action, such as driving drunk, that might well have but fortunately doesn't lead to a disastrous outcome is appropriately lower than the same action that ends less well. When you roll the dice and they come up snake eyes for an innocent victim, it's appropriate for it to come up snake eyes for the perp as well. IMO. On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Matt Logan <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree we need to work toward minimizing the safety risk (both real and > perceived) to bicyclists in this state. But I’m not sure a vulnerable user > law would be the cause (versus an effect) of that improvement. You can go > to channel3000 today and read the story about the teen driver who was > intentionally speeding on a hilly road in order to take air, but ended up > crashing and killing one of the passengers. If you check the comment > section, it is obvious there is a strong resistance to prosecuting the > driver criminally. The refrain is “the driver will have to live with this > for the rest of their life, isn’t that enough of a punishment?” Of course > if that was enough of a punishment to change behavior the driver would not > have been speeding on that hilly rural road in the first place.**** > > ** ** > > I think the conclusion you have to come to about this is that at a > fundamental level most people do not want to do what it takes to be aware > of all the risks and avoidance techniques required to drive as safely as we > would like them to. We already have a negligence law, but because of the > public’s desire to not be burdened with thinking comprehensively about > safety, a jury is unlikely to vote to convict someone of essentially > sharing their attitudes about how much effort is worth putting into safety. > Why is adding a new law going to change people’s attitudes about this? > And if those attitudes don’t change, why would a jury be willing to convict > a driver with BFW’s proposed bill? The attitudes have to change first > before a law is going to make a difference in behavior!**** > > ** ** > > And by the way, the vulnerable user bill that failed in Texas also covered > motorcyclists, farm equipment drivers, etc.:**** > > ** ** > > http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/SB00488I.htm**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Robbie Webber > *Sent:* Friday, December 07, 2012 8:19 AM > *To:* Bikies > *Subject:* [Bikies] Need for vulnerable user law**** > > ** ** > > [snip]**** > > until we make criminal driving a more serious offense - and begin to > prosecute it as such - we will continue to be at more risk than necessary* > *** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > > -- Scott M. Rose West Point Grey, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
