Comment by coldtea | Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldtea | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>An person is dead because of this man's inability to control a lethal force. There may be nuances to the case, but he isn't innocent, even by his own account of the facts. (...) I'm relieved this guy is off the road for a couple of years.

Are you kidding me? "Chris sustained a broken hip, broken collarbone and internal injuries, but the teenager was dead. Chris denied he’d been drinking, and a Breathalyzer confirmed it. He also said he hadn’t been speeding, which was borne out by eyewitnesses as well as a police test on the tire marks."

How would you like such a jail experience, even without the horrors, for a mere accident? Especially one when some idiot jumped at you.

You speak more "as a cyclist who has to constantly contend with aggressive motorists" than someone clearheaded who evaluated the case.

And you know cyclists can do stupid things too like cut people off, turn unexpectedly etc, and cause accidents. In fact there are tons of "aggressive cyclists" who think traffic laws don't apply to them because they don't drive a car -- and kids who just want a thrill.

Well, regardless of guilt, there is the matter of responsibility. It's absurd to suggest he deserves jail time, but there is an argument to be made that there should be some consequences (e.g. loss of driver's license). It's your responsibility not to put people in danger, even through no fault of your own. If you can't react in time to a reasonable foreseeable event (somebody being careless in traffic such as that kid walking out from behind the bus), then you're taking a risk by going that fast. The speed limit is a limit, not a minimum, nor a right.

There's no way to avoid all risk, and there's no way to precisely define when someone is taking "too much" risk. But consequences similarly don't need to be an all or nothing afair. Jail is too much - but community service may not be (say, with traffic victims?). Or a fine. Or a temporary suspension of the drivers license.

Let those best placed to prevent tragedies like this bear at least some of the consequences, even if it isn't always fair. But even if you agree with that sentiment, it's hard to imagine that years of jail time a felony conviction are proportionate to the responsibility this guy carries.

> Well, regardless of guilt, there is the matter of responsibility.

You're not making any sense. How exactly would you have responsibility when you don't have guilt? A suicidal individual jumps in front of the train. Was it the train driver's responsibility to drive with 5Km/h so he could brake in time?

To be at least somewhat comparable let's assume it's not a suicide, but an accident, as with the motor cycle driver. These actually happen - people get killed at train crossings pretty regularly in some places.

It matters to what degree you're capable of preventing the accident. The whole point of my post was to emphasize that there are shades of gray, and that it's a mistake to harshly condemn those just over some artificial line while letting those nearly as responsible get off without any consequences.

Of course, as shades of gray go, it sounds like this one is about as guilt-free as one can get: there was almost nothing the driver could have done to prevent the accident; no amount of thinking ahead could have let him slow down enough because trains (unlike motorcycles) take forever to slow down. And you didn't specify the details, those matter - people walking out from behind a stopped bus is unfortunately rather common and predictable. But there are others that do bear some responsibility, for example those building level crossings that lack barriers.

Also note that the aim is explicitly not to be fair, it's to set incentives straight. If you're in a situation that forces you to pay for risks you yourself can't avoid, you're going to get annoyed, and try to fix that situation. For example, by getting barriers at train crossings installed, or by pushing for the city to design safer bus stops, or by discouraging mixing motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic.

If you just shrug your shoulders say "c'est la vie", improvement isn't likely. In unreasonable soundbite style: "you don't like risk taking - reduce the risks, don't whine about how life isn't fair".

The severity of his own injuries indicates that he might have been going too fast for the conditions (whether or not he was exceeding the speed limit, which nobody can confirm conclusively). In his version, "It was like he fell out of the sky," but that's a misleading comparison that paints him as entirely innocent. "The kid darted out from behind a bus," sounds more like a situation that required caution (was the bus pulled over to discharge passengers?). "Doesn’t he have any responsibility for what happened?" he says of the victim. Yes, he does, but the person who wields the most lethal power also bears the most responsibility. Unless a pedestrian intentionally and directly charged me or truly fell out of the sky, I would assume blame if I hit one while riding or driving.

>The severity of his own injuries indicates that he might have been going too fast for the conditions (whether or not he was exceeding the speed limit, which nobody can confirm conclusively).

You can have severe injuries even from a simple drop at 20 mph. Actually you can break something even from a single fall in the street while walking (I've broken my hand once like that, put it forward to avoid hitting my head on the fall).

But what part of "He also said he hadn’t been speeding, which was borne out by eyewitnesses as well as a police test on the tire marks" seems hard to parse?

Even if "nobody can confirm conclusively" (which, according to the article they did just that), that still would be reasonable doubt.

>Yes, he does, but the person who wields the most lethal power also bears the most responsibility.

...

I assume then that you only travel at walking speed when passing cars waiting at a red light on the other side?

By the way, it's people projecting absolutist opinions just like you've done here that have led the the travesty that is the Rikers Island part of the justice system - where four hundred people have been imprisoned for two years or more without being charged.

Stop injecting your own biased talking points into other people's stories and show some empathy.

> I would assume blame if I hit one while riding or driving.

What a nice, safe assertion to make from the comfort of not actually facing a murder change based on that assumed blame.

The tragedy of Rikers Island is that it's inhumane to everyone involved, guilty or not. I absolutely feel empathetic to all of them. It's disingenuous to suggest that it's a problem only because some of them might be innocent.

I'm not a hypocrite. I've had plenty of close calls, and some of them were my fault. I was lucky, but left the scene with full knowledge I was to blame. However, that's a personal acknowledgement; I would still do whatever it takes to stay out of jail, because the US prison system is broken and I don't want to get raped, beaten or forced to join a gang.

>It's disingenuous to suggest that it's a problem only because some of them might be innocent.

Luckily the parent never did that. He just mentioned that's even worse to be held there if you're actually altogether innocent, which I think we all agree with.

>I've had plenty of close calls, and some of them were my fault. I was lucky, but left the scene with full knowledge I was to blame.

In the cases that it was "your one fault" yes. In the other cases why?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com