Hacker News Reader

Simple, "at fault" takes on a different meaning in driving. Often it's a cluster of mistakes that causes an accident, mistakes by either vehicle or even mistakes by someone not a part of the collision itself. If I'm 51% at fault should I go to jail?

But also everyone makes mistakes occasionally behind the wheel, most often nothing bad happens. And by everyone I mean every single driver without exception. That's why the law mostly operates with concept of Mens Rea, a guilty mind. Negligence only comes into play under a reasonable person standard and since we know those reasonable persons are also making same mistakes... it goes to civil court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#Criminal_negligence :

"There is credible subjective evidence that the particular accused neither foresaw nor desired the particular outcome, thus potentially excluding both intention and recklessness. But a reasonable person with the same abilities and skills as the accused would have foreseen and taken precautions to prevent the loss and damage being sustained"

and you are at fault

That's the tricky phrase. How do you prove fault in a car collision, to the same degree that's required for a charge and conviction of manslaughter or murder?

In New Jersey, we have "no-fault" laws for insurance, which basically means that when there is an accident there's no way to prove that either party is more at-fault than the other, so legally neither is at fault. In practice, both parties are treated as if the accident is their fault, and both are penalized with higher insurance rates at minimum.

My concern with any law that holds drivers responsible for deaths in accidents they're involved in by charging them with manslaughter or murder is that the same logic will be applied: every driver in every accident where someone dies will go to jail, unless they're rich enough to bend the rules and escape the charge. That's unfair, because many accidents really are accidents, and many people who die in accidents are at least as responsible as the people who survive.

Besides, there are already additional penalties for drivers in these situations. Their insurance pays out substantially to the victims or their families, and the driver's insurance rates go up, potentially to the point that the driver is no longer insurable and they can't drive anymore. So the article is wrong in saying that drivers can get away with murder with no consequences.

Why would the same logic be applied? Surely a conviction for vehicular manslaughter would be held to the same standard as a conviction for regular manslaughter, which is to say proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

If guilt can't be proven for sufficiently to assess which driver's insurance should pay for the costs of an accident, how can guilt be proven for the much stricter requirements needed for manslaughter? I think this would be especially difficult if the courts are overloaded with all accidents that involve deaths, instead of only the ones where drivers today are being charged with manslaughter and murder. (eg: cases where there appears to be intent to kill, rather than just accidental killings.)

There are many cases where guilt can be proven sufficiently, both to assess insurance responsibility and legal culpability.

Just because New Jersey has decided to punt on the whole question doesn't mean it's impossible to answer in all cases. Sure, there will be cases where somebody kills somebody else due to negligence and they get away with it because it can't be proven. People sometimes go free after murdering people with guns and knives because the crime can't be proven too, but that's not a reason to give up on prosecuting all murders.

> If guilt can't be proven for sufficiently to assess which driver's insurance should pay for the costs of an accident, how can guilt be proven for the much stricter requirements needed for manslaughter?

Guilt could be proven for more cases but the cost is prohibitive. It is cheaper for all concerned to just say "we know what happened, let's not bother finding out how and just split the costs of repair", the drivers pay higher premiums for a while, they probably share the blame anyway and both will drive more carefully from now on.

When one of the parties could go to prison for life, society decides to accept the burden and does a full investigation.

Increased insurance premiums aren't enough. That just punishes those too poor to handle the increased premiums. Everyone else just gets back on the road after the accident is "resolved" legally. A lifetime ban on driving or at least a ban of 10 years is far reasonable. Moving a multi-ton vehicle at speeds of ~40-70 mph is the ultimate privilege and it should be a privilege that is incredibly easy to lose.

All reckless driving citations should carry with them a minimum 1-5 year loss in driving privilege that no lawyer can get you out of.

Only a tiny majority of drivers will ever wilfully put cyclists at risk. Most people will genuinely believe that they are good drivers and nice people because that is exactly how everyone they know also behaves. There is simply no strong social pressure to be careful beyond a basic minimum standards. Cyclists are seen as breaking a basic social convention.

But as a cyclist, you realise how basically selfish people are and how unfair traffic accidents are. Motorists have an unrealistic idea of "fairness" and would feel that excessive penalties would be "unfair" when they made an honest mistake that is commonly made.

Personally I think that the penalties of bad driving should match the unfairness of the effects. Do not punish 99% of people who get a ticket. The other 1% are picked at random and get a very large fine (say $10,000).

Every driver on his cellphone or sending text messages is willfully putting cyclists at risk. Considering how common both those scenarios are, I would say that many if not the majority of drivers put cyclists (and pedestrians, other drivers and themselves) at risk on a regular basis.

There is a difference between human error and deliberate crimes.

> When people decry using the prison system as a cure-all, it's usually for things like [...] mental illness. [...] why punish people for things that [...] aren't their fault?

Because they're dangerous to society. Whether or not it's their fault, there are some people we can't have on the streets. If you plead insanity in a murder case, we don't want to release you, we want to imprison you in an asylum instead of a jail.