It’s No 'Accident:' Advocates Want to Speak of Car 'Crashes' Instead

Re:It’s No 'Accident:' Advocates Want to Speak of Car 'Crash... by ipsin on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @12:27AM (#12119657)

I'm intrigued by the gap between manslaughter where a car is not involved and manslaughter where it is.

The penalties involved for driving recklessly and killing someone with a car seem very light to me, even as many other kinds of criminal sentences seem disproportionately harsh.

Ending someone's life with carelessness should not forgive the result.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It’s No 'Accident:' Advocates Want to Speak of Car 'Crash... by cafard on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @06:22AM (#12120900)

Well, a small car has about 20x the mass of the average human, is much harder, and feels slow when driven at a speed that only the best athletes can reach. It also has uses recognized by society. With any other instrument not intended for killing, i.e. anything but a knife or a gun, it is generally hard work to kill someone. That is how I would explain the gap: non-vehicular homicide suggests malicious intent either by the instrument or the effort.

But I am no legislator.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It’s No 'Accident:' Advocates Want to Speak of Car 'Crash... by bjelkeman-again on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @01:32AM (#12119947)

I was going to say that I think it is the car culture. But the NYC have fewer cars, so maybe that is to simplistic. But then a lot of people I meet talk about driver behaviour in NYC being reckless. Different cities/locations have different driving behaviour. It is possible to change it, but it takes a long and dedicated effort.

Why Sweden has so few road deaths http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/02/ec...

[ Parent | on HN ]