Very interesting article on bad driving

[Mr Bret]

Bad driving is often a topic in threads here.
Here's a very interesting article dealing with bad driving from today's Star.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/11/20/exactly-when-does-bad-driving-become-a-criminal-action-keenan.html

 

[TFZL1]

Interesting article. I think he should be fully punished. Distracted driving is not a mistake, it’s obviously more important to stay on the road than pick up your water bottle, so bad judgement on the part of the driver. And people need to know this.
Our society doesn’t value life as much as we should. Driving is a responsibility, not a right.
It should be A Lot harder to get a license, I think people should have reaction and stress tests, before we let them on the road.
My 22 yr old daughter was killed in a “accident”. It was no accident that her asshole boyfriend was racing, high speed hwy crash, 2 dead in the other car. Boyfriend lived, major injuries, but he’s out of rehab. No charges.

 

[Mr Bret]

Interesting article. I think he should be fully punished. Distracted driving is not a mistake, it’s obviously more important to stay on the road than pick up your water bottle, so bad judgement on the part of the driver. And people need to know this.
Our society doesn’t value life as much as we should. Driving is a responsibility, not a right.
It should be A Lot harder to get a license, I think people should have reaction and stress tests, before we let them on the road.
My 22 yr old daughter was killed in a “accident”. It was no accident that her asshole boyfriend was racing, high speed hwy crash, 2 dead in the other car. Boyfriend lived, major injuries, but he’s out of rehab. No charges.

Very sorry to hear about your daughter.

And yes, I agree that picking up a water bottle, or something similar is bad judgement. Things like that can wait until your next stop.

 

[sempel]

Punishment is warranted, but not necessarily to the fullest extent of the law. I've had an item or two fall down on the floor and go near the brake pedal so one can easily be distracted with the possibility of it being lodged under the brake and therefore needing removal. Of course, the question then comes how did the bottle get there? Was it already on the floor, did someone else in the car put it there, did the driver pick it up and drop it, etc. There are some cases where prior actions could have prevented the bottle from being there.

I think this specific incident is different from a phone. You choose to pick up a phone and text/call. They have hands free options that are legal. So a person who is one the phone for any reason and causes an accident should be fully charged because of negligence.

Sorry about TFZL's daughter. Fact is the boyfriend should never be allowed behind the wheel again. That is a flaw in the legal system.

 

[Samranchoi]

A lost life due to an accident or errors in judgement is so sad as they are totally unexpected by those who are the victims, especially when a motor vehicle is involved. The person who hit and killed the woman did so doing (distracted driving) something he has probably done many times over with no consequences. Does this provide the victims family with any comfort. Absolutely not. Should he be punished. Absolutely yes. But the question is, how severe should the punishment be. Honestly, I do not know but losing his privilege to drive should be taken away for a minimum of 5 to 10 years. Imprisonment? Possibly but he is a first time offender so this may not be the best punishment, IMO. He has disrupted the lives of another family and the same should be done to him. Losing the privilege to drive is nothing compared to losing a life but it is at least a punishment.

 

[oldjones]

Punishment is warranted, but not necessarily to the fullest extent of the law. I've had an item or two fall down on the floor and go near the brake pedal so one can easily be distracted with the possibility of it being lodged under the brake and therefore needing removal. Of course, the question then comes how did the bottle get there? Was it already on the floor, did someone else in the car put it there, did the driver pick it up and drop it, etc. There are some cases where prior actions could have prevented the bottle from being there.

I think this specific incident is different from a phone. You choose to pick up a phone and text/call. They have hands free options that are legal. So a person who is one the phone for any reason and causes an accident should be fully charged because of negligence.

Sorry about TFZL's daughter. Fact is the boyfriend should never be allowed behind the wheel again. That is a flaw in the legal system.

Of course having something become lodged under the brake pedal would be dangerous. Before it does, the driver finds the nearest place to signal, pull over, and stop, so he can eliminate the danger. Only a criminally negligent fool tries to get something from the floor with his right hand; ducks his head below the dashboard to try to get a glimpse of it, and continues to drive blind, in traffic, at a speed above the posted limit, while 'steering' with his left.

Or he asks his passenger to get the bottle that just rolled out from wherever.

 

[TFZL1]

They just announced, not guilty.

Sad.

 

[rhuarc29]

Distracted driving is not a mistake....

I agree, distracted driving is not a mistake, it's a conscious choice. Checking your phone would be distracted driving.

On the flip side, mistakes do happen. An example: an animal darts out in front of you, so you react by hitting the brakes, going into a slide, and killing someone walking at the side of the road.

When it comes to the guy in the article, it all comes down to one thing: was his grab for the bottle reactionary or deliberate? For example, back when I was driving a POS car during my university days, I had an aftermarket cupholder in there. My water bottle fell out when going around an on-ramp. I grabbed at the bottle to stop it falling down by the brake pedal. This grab was reactionary. If I had have hit someone during this momentary lapse, I would consider it a mistake. However, I missed, and the bottle ended up wedged behind my brake peddle (no bullshit). I then had a deliberate choice to make. Attempt to reach down while moving to remove it, or attempt to bring my vehicle to a stop at the side of the road. I chose the latter. That was a deliberate choice. If I had instead reached down as this guy did and ended up killing someone, that would be entirely my fault.

 

[sempel]

I agree, distracted driving is not a mistake, it's a conscious choice. Checking your phone would be distracted driving.

On the flip side, mistakes do happen. An example: an animal darts out in front of you, so you react by hitting the brakes, going into a slide, and killing someone walking at the side of the road.

When it comes to the guy in the article, it all comes down to one thing: was his grab for the bottle reactionary or deliberate? For example, back when I was driving a POS car during my university days, I had an aftermarket cupholder in there. My water bottle fell out when going around an on-ramp. I grabbed at the bottle to stop it falling down by the brake pedal. This grab was reactionary. If I had have hit someone during this momentary lapse, I would consider it a mistake. However, I missed, and the bottle ended up wedged behind my brake peddle (no bullshit). I then had a deliberate choice to make. Attempt to reach down while moving to remove it, or attempt to bring my vehicle to a stop at the side of the road. I chose the latter. That was a deliberate choice. If I had instead reached down as this guy did and ended up killing someone, that would be entirely my fault.

Bad example - the rule if an animal darts in front is run it over. You are never supposed to veer or brake or do anything dangerous. This is what is taught, not just my opinion. Bottom line, kill the animal vs a human.

The problem with the bottle going under the pedal is now you cannot brake. You can take the foot off the accelerator, gear down (if manual) and use your emergency brake but depending on the situation, not always possible. Plus most people will panic because the pedal is stuck.

It's all about what you do before and the choices you make. I only drink (non-alcohol) when stopped at a light, not while driving. I make sure the cup/can/bottle is secure in the holder. Now, some lessons come after making mistakes - I changed certain habits after realizing the potential dangers of them. People will not be perfect the first time around.

 

[GameBoy27]

Bad example - the rule if an animal darts in front is run it over. You are never supposed to veer or brake or do anything dangerous. This is what is taught, not just my opinion. Bottom line, kill the animal vs a human.

The problem with the bottle going under the pedal is now you cannot brake. You can take the foot off the accelerator, gear down (if manual) and use your emergency brake but depending on the situation, not always possible. Plus most people will panic because the pedal is stuck.

It's all about what you do before and the choices you make. I only drink (non-alcohol) when stopped at a light, not while driving. I make sure the cup/can/bottle is secure in the holder. Now, some lessons come after making mistakes - I changed certain habits after realizing the potential dangers of them. People will not be perfect the first time around.

Take your foot off the gas and kick the bottle out from under the pedal with either foot. Pedals are hinged at the top and should be enough space beneath them so as to have it wedged in there. It should've been easy to knock it out of the way.

 

[rhuarc29]

Bad example - the rule if an animal darts in front is run it over. You are never supposed to veer or brake or do anything dangerous. This is what is taught, not just my opinion. Bottom line, kill the animal vs a human.

The problem with the bottle going under the pedal is now you cannot brake. You can take the foot off the accelerator, gear down (if manual) and use your emergency brake but depending on the situation, not always possible. Plus most people will panic because the pedal is stuck.

I know the rule of thumb is to run the animal over, I'm just saying the initial reaction is to avoid any obstacle on the road. In the case of an animal, I'd still consider that a reactionary mistake, not a deliberate decision. Whereas the choice to duck down behind the dash and fish out the bottle IS a deliberate decision.

As for a bottle under the brake peddle, as I was in that exact situation I assure you you can still brake. Exert enough pressure and it will sufficiently displace.

 

[oldjones]

I know the rule of thumb is to run the animal over, I'm just saying the initial reaction is to avoid any obstacle on the road. In the case of an animal, I'd still consider that a reactionary mistake, not a deliberate decision. Whereas the choice to duck down behind the dash and fish out the bottle IS a deliberate decision.

As for a bottle under the brake peddle, as I was in that exact situation I assure you you can still brake. Exert enough pressure and it will sufficiently displace.

But of course he didn't have to brake, all he had to do was continue driving in the lane he was in (although slowing down to the speed limit would have been wise).

There was no impending danger at all, until he did his ostrich manouevre and ducked under the dash to needlessly tidy his car.

It should be noted that the bottle was capped, because neither he nor his passenger had been drink from it; nor was it secured in a cup holder because they were all full of other trash, as pictures taken after the killing clearly show. It had been rolling around that car floor for who knows how long, a few more minutes would have saved that woman's life.

This is a person who couldn't manage the simplest cleaning and stowage tasks, never mind simple driving skills — with entirely predictable evil consequences — how he has been judged to be a driver within the normal range of responsibility and performance baffles me. We'll have to see what the judge's reasoning was.

 

[sempel]

But of course he didn't have to brake, all he had to do was continue driving in the lane he was in (although slowing down to the speed limit would have been wise).

There was no impending danger at all, until he did his ostrich manouevre and ducked under the dash to needlessly tidy his car.

It should be noted that the bottle was capped, because neither he nor his passenger had been drink from it; nor was it secured in a cup holder because they were all full of other trash, as pictures taken after the killing clearly show. It had been rolling around that car floor for who knows how long, a few more minutes would have saved that woman's life.

This is a person who couldn't manage the simplest cleaning and stowage tasks, never mind simple driving skills — with entirely predictable evil consequences — how he has been judged to be a driver within the normal range of responsibility and performance baffles me. We'll have to see what the judge's reasoning was.

Whatever the case, the Crown had to prove criminal intent. He wasn't the getaway driver for a robbery and hit a lady while evading police. He made an error (which started by not cleaning his vehicle) that resulted in death. The only reason he needs to be in prison is to provide a deterrence for others to avoid similar types of actions. But it will not serve to rehabilitate someone who never intended to commit the crime. Suspend his license (which will inconvenience him quite a bit so he actually will understand the privilege having a license carries) and give him a ton of community service. But trying to get multiple years for criminal intent was a stretch.

 

[KBear]

In OP video the car that mounted the curb seems to be going faster than the truck he is following. Bending over for fish something off the floor while following another car so close at speed on a street like this is a really stupid move.

 

[oldjones]

Whatever the case, the Crown had to prove criminal intent. He wasn't the getaway driver for a robbery and hit a lady while evading police. He made an error (which started by not cleaning his vehicle) that resulted in death. The only reason he needs to be in prison is to provide a deterrence for others to avoid similar types of actions. But it will not serve to rehabilitate someone who never intended to commit the crime. Suspend his license (which will inconvenience him quite a bit so he actually will understand the privilege having a license carries) and give him a ton of community service. But trying to get multiple years for criminal intent was a stretch.

I saw no report that said intent was what decided the case. Drunk drivers don't intend to drive recklessly or with such poor control they cause accidents. Indeed they commonly, judge themselves fit and competent when all the world's advice says, 'you should not drive after drinking.' So we give them criminal penalties when we catch them, sadly all too often — as in this case — only after their criminally stupid behaviour has killed or injured.

What I read was that the judge distinguished between a reflexive act and a conscious one, saying that although both might be tragic and predictably dangerous, the reflex could be excused, and only the conscious act could be criminal. I'd say he mis-judged: It's an unconscious reflex to jerk your burned finger off the hot frypan, when the doctor jabs you with the antibiotic you don't jerk away, because if you do, you squander the resources of the system and your health, and you determined you would not do that when you made your appointment.

When you climb into the driver's seat you undertake to apply your full attention and thought to driving, and not to be distracted — especially in thoughtless, reflexive ways. All he had to do was ask his passenger to see that that thing was and stop it rolling around. A 'safe' reflex would have been to grab a quick look, still with both hands on the wheel and half an eye on the road. Bending under the dash to grab at a moving object with a hand that should have been on the wheel is a criminal as … Well just suppose it was an un-opened gin bottle he'd been grabbing for. By the judge's reasoning he'd be just as innocent, but I'd bet not even that same judge woulda have decided that way.

And rightly so. Only someone criminally stupid and negligent continues to drive at full speed with just one hand and their head under the dash. When the judge suggests it's a 'normal' reflex, we get an insight into why road-deaths are so common. And why the law is such an ineffective instrument for curtailing them.

 

[Mr Bret]

And here's the follow up article.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/11/21/not-guilty-verdict-for-driver-who-mounted-the-sidewalk-and-killed-pedestrian-on-dundas-st.html

I'm not crazy about this verdict.
IMHO, his actions were 100% avoidable.
He should have waited until stopped to attempt to move whatever was bothering him.

 

[rhuarc29]

What I read was that the judge distinguished between a reflexive act and a conscious one, saying that although both might be tragic and predictably dangerous, the reflex could be excused, and only the conscious act could be criminal. I'd say he mis-judged: It's an unconscious reflex to jerk your burned finger off the hot frypan, when the doctor jabs you with the antibiotic you don't jerk away, because if you do, you squander the resources of the system and your health, and you determined you would not do that when you made your appointment.

When you climb into the driver's seat you undertake to apply your full attention and thought to driving, and not to be distracted — especially in thoughtless, reflexive ways. All he had to do was ask his passenger to see that that thing was and stop it rolling around. A 'safe' reflex would have been to grab a quick look, still with both hands on the wheel and half an eye on the road. Bending under the dash to grab at a moving object with a hand that should have been on the wheel is a criminal as … Well just suppose it was an un-opened gin bottle he'd been grabbing for. By the judge's reasoning he'd be just as innocent, but I'd bet not even that same judge woulda have decided that way.

I agree that the judge made an error in his ruling, and that I would consider what took place to be a conscious choice, not a reflexive action. But otherwise I disagree with you. I think that absolutely some actions while driving are justifiably reactionary, as I've already covered in post #8. Saying it's criminal to be reflexively distracted while driving is kind of ridiculous as reflexes are uncontrolled reactions. Your example of the needle is different; you are expecting it and so don't react. Applying that logic to driving isn't possible.

 

[oldjones]

I agree that the judge made an error in his ruling, and that I would consider what took place to be a conscious choice, not a reflexive action. But otherwise I disagree with you. I think that absolutely some actions while driving are justifiably reactionary, as I've already covered in post #8. Saying it's criminal to be reflexively distracted while driving is kind of ridiculous as reflexes are uncontrolled reactions. Your example of the needle is different; you are expecting it and so don't react. Applying that logic to driving isn't possible.

I think it is. Just as you decide I won't drink, you decide I won't respond to my phone. I'll turn it off, the same way I put the open cognac in the trunk. Just as you decide to put your coffee cup in a safe place so it won't spill and make a mess of your desk, you decide to load your car safely, whether it's big stuff or small.

Mostly, you decide, "I am driving a deadly machine among people stupider and more reckless than me, on roads whose maintenance has been under-budgeted for decades and contracted always to the cheapest bidder. the only way any of us is getting home safely is if I devote my full attention to driving. Whatever the distraction I will not let my attention — never mind 50% of my control and my entire vision — waver. Until I'm stopped safely off the road, nothing is more important." To me that's quite analogous to how you psych yourself for a needle.

If his passenger instantly morphed into a fiery dragon I'd certainly agree he couldn't have mentally prepared his car or himself. Or if his fizzy water had suddenly exploded and drenched him. But a badly stowed water-bottle predictably rolling on the floor?

"Hey Bud, Sumthin's effing rolling around under my feet! Get it for me wouldya, before I have an accident." OR <"Mm, that'd be the stupid waterbottle I stuck under my seat. I guess the Owner's Manual wasn't enough to keep it from rolling. I'll slide my heels down to keep it from getting under the pedals while I signal right. OoH! Bike lane, Serious Shoulder Check!> "Sorry Bud, gotta stop for a sec and get a damn water bottle that broke free"

It's not that I think reflexive responses are bad or criminal; they sometimes can save lives. But driving is too important and dangerous to let any and every trivial thing distract you; you're supposed to have the mental maturity to handle the small stuff so when a criminal asshole in the other lane ducks under the dash and veers across the centre line you'll be ready to act reflexively.

And intelligently.

 

[jcpro]

The truth of the matter is that all of us did or will do something stupid behind the wheel, at some point. Most of us will escape, some will get hurt and some will cause something tragic to happen. It's just the way it is. The question is, how should we punish a momentary laps in judgement? An eye for an eye? Criminal law? Sure, if the offender is drunk, but in the case such as this? Sorry, a terrible tragedy, but the judgement was correct.

 

[nottyboi]

Interesting article. I think he should be fully punished. Distracted driving is not a mistake, it’s obviously more important to stay on the road than pick up your water bottle, so bad judgement on the part of the driver. And people need to know this.
Our society doesn’t value life as much as we should. Driving is a responsibility, not a right.
It should be A Lot harder to get a license, I think people should have reaction and stress tests, before we let them on the road.
My 22 yr old daughter was killed in a “accident”. It was no accident that her asshole boyfriend was racing, high speed hwy crash, 2 dead in the other car. Boyfriend lived, major injuries, but he’s out of rehab. No charges.

Sure its something that should be punished, but what do you mean by fully punished? Since he had no intent to do any harm, yet somehow someone is dead..what do you do? He did not even knowingly engage in a dangerous activity like your daughters boyfriend..