Hacker News Reader

Comment by ascar | Hacker News Reader

Can you elaborate? The US has such a high incarceration rate for in European eyes often benign offenses that I find that statement hard to believe even though I don't know the Dutch laws (I'm German). E.g. I can't imagine a Dutch person being incarcerated for injuring a cyclist unless it's on alcohol/drugs. I can totally imagine that for the US though. But I might be totally wrong. Would be really curious for some details.

My opinion on this might also be heavily and incorrectly influenced by popular media sprinkled with a few factual statistics that reinforce the bias.

View on HN

When we lived in the Netherlands, my wife rode her bike infront of a car at an unmarked crossing where the car had every right of way. The car driver sued for repair fees, but in the end, the car driver had to pay her compensation instead. It doesn't matter that he had right of way, he was the "stronger" side and hurt someone weaker by not being cautious enough. There's obviously more nuance to the laws there, but this is a good example of the common mentality.

I love the distinction between stronger and weaker road users.

With more power comes more responsibility, put into practice.

My experience in NA was that killing a pedestrian or a cyclist with your car is actually the easiest way to get away with murder. At worst you’ll get away with a 500$ fine, at best nothing. And “wooops didn’t see them, the sun was in my eyes” is a valid defense.

Some folks call it the SMIDSY defense - as in, " Sorry Mate I Didn't See You"

As a general rule US public policy is enormously biased towards being pro automobile. Putting drivers in jail (ie for less than extreme recklessness) impedes that goal. It was very eye opening when I lived abroad and the law was actually biased against the “stronger” party in a traffic accident (ie truck > car > motorbike > bicycle > pedestrian ). It makes sense to me to essentially require more responsibility in proportion to the damage you are able to cause.

Operators of heavier vehicles have a duty of care toward smaller vehicle rider.

Compare this with New York City where if you negligently kill someone with your car, the police won't even issue a ticket unless you're drunk. Then comes the civil lawsuit in which the surviving family will probably settle for your car insurance policy limits (e.g. $100,000, far lower than German limits that are in the millions of Euros).

Cyclists are protected by law, such that even if an accident is the fault of the cyclist, the car driver is still 50% liable. This in combination with the infrastructure, which separates cyclists and cars as much as possible, makes the Netherlands very safe for cyclists.

Note that younger children still usually wear a helmet, since they are more likely to have an accident on their own (i.e. falling over).

I live in a small city and have cycled to school since I was 6 years old. At first with a parent, but from about 9 years old I would cycle by myself. I have never seen anyone wear a helmet in that time.

The US is enormous, with almost no public transit outside of dense metro areas. As a result, cars hold a sacred place in society and jurisprudence. It is simply impossible to live without a car when your driveway is 10 miles long and the nearest "town" is 30 miles away.

You can get a neverending stream of OUIs and keep your license after paying fines in most cases. We often joke that the best way to get away with murder is to run someone down and tell the judge that "they came out of nowhere".

But lord help you if you get caught walking down the street with a joint in your bag.

> You can get a neverending stream of OUIs and keep your license after paying fines in most cases.

What is that based on? People I know who have had DUIs had a lot of trouble and cost, their driving was highly restricted, and a second DUI would have stopped them from driving and maybe put them in jail (IIRC).

This is about the presumed record holder, so it’s the worst kind of citation, but a WI man was convicted of his 18th OWI (presumably operating while impaired)

https://www.grievelaw.com/WisconsinOWI/Laws/Record

That article contains a common trope: an official expressing shock and surprise at the offender’s record and uncertainty as to how they still had a license.

Not OP, but I’d like to note that a woman in the US was convicted of vehicular manslaughter when she crossed a street on foot with her 4 year old son and they were struck by a drunk driver.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/06/14/raquel-nelson-finally...

I think part of the problem in the USA and Canada is that our road laws are exceedingly motorist-centric. Things that don’t seem to make sense, like drivers getting a slap on the wrist for killing cyclists, do make sense if you consider that the laws don’t expressly promote and prioritize the safety of cyclist on all road ways.

Cases of potential death do not count as "benign", at least in my book.

Shoplifting and really any property crime that doesn't result in imminent grave harm can be safely considered "benign". Ditto for victimless crimes like drug possession.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com