Carthage Student Won't Be Charged

Yes. Maybe prevent her from doing it again, and maybe prevent others from doing it at all. You don't have to put her in jail to make a point that negligence behind the wheel that results in someone else's death is not acceptable. Fines, yes, sure, but also say a year, or two years even, of community service of some sort, maybe on weekends for a year, doing something such as volunteer work in a hospital, doing charity work in a mission, working in a nursing home, etc. Putting her in jail may not be of any real value, but certainly don't let her walk away with a paltry fine.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the Carthage student should be charged with negligence for the reasons those with common sense have mentioned above. There is absolutely no reason to be doing actions that take your attention off the road. And if a situation arrives that calls for it such as taking a phone call, picking up a fallen CD, helping a kid in the backseat, or anything else, PULL THE HELL OVER and take care of the situation, but DON'T do it while still driving! Yet another example of how common sense just ain't so common anymore.

- N

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

An accident would be having a blowout, or a deer running in front of your car, or any number of events that were outside of your control, causing you to veer into someone else and killing them. Talking on a cell phone and becoming distracted to the point you aren't in control of your vehicle, is not an accident. You made the conscious decision that led to your distraction.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You were going so far but you narrowly missed my point.

Was the distraction itself a conscious decision?

Leading from the previous question, we ask: how can you charge someone for something you admit they didn't do?

one_raven, this is a follow up to your comments too (for consolidation).

 

Spyke, if you take defensive driving courses they wont let you away with calling these accidents.
Blowout: did you put substandard tyres on your car? Did you check their condition before driving off? Did you carefuly look out for debris on the road liable to cause a tyre failure? etc
Deer: You are in an area where deer may be found, are you looking out for them? Are you driving at a speed that will allow you to brake if one appears suddenly? The response here is usually, if I drove that slow I'd never get where I'm going. Fine, but when that deer appears and you are going too fast, you can't call it an accident.
Not trying to nitpick, just noting that if good drivers are not ready to view blowouts and deer strikes as accidents, then bending down to pick up a CD will receive zero sympathy.

 

The decision to talk on a cell phone, despite the fact that there has been an enormous amount of public controversy over the last several years because of the increased risks of losing control of your vehicle, means that if you do choose to use the cellphone behind the wheel you consciously made the decision to ignore statistics, instead going on the old 'It won't happen to me' line of thinking. So you know the risk is there, that there is a much greater risk of distraction when talking on a cellphone than simply listening to loud music (unless maybe you are 'headbanging' while driving). So the mere act of talking on a cell phone, which has been shown to increase the risk of becoming distracted, is a conscious decision. Anything you do behind the wheel from the point you make the conscious decision to use the cell phone is your responsibility.

What exactly did I admit they didn't do?

I understand your point, having once upon a time been a professional trucker, and having had to go through the months of drving training to obtain a CDL and drive rigs. And certainly a professional driver wouldn't be able to plead 'accident' in such instances in most any state. Hell, in many traffic accidents involving trucks and cars, even when it's obviously the 4-wheel vehicle driver's fault, such as running a red light and being hit by a truck, a professional trucker has many times been the one to pay because he is supposed to be alert to all potential hazards,and he was supposed to be watching both traffic approaching the intersection from both sides. I've seen truckers not be charged with the accident, but still be sued and lose in civil courts by the person who ran the light, and that person be awarded damages from the trucker's company. And yes, a trucker must be aware of all road signs, such as Deer Xings, and must do his daily vehicle inspections, including his tires, so he should know if he's got bad tread on a tire. However, states aren't normally so harsh on civilian drivers in such 'accidents' as blowouts or hitting animals. While they might be be charged for losing control of their vehicle and causing the accident, they're not going to be prosecuted for vehicular manslaughter, as they might for talking on a cell phone.

 

In other words you are inferring causality where it is not established.

That is all I was trying to point out.

 

But the driver did cause the wreck through her conscious action, to do something behind the wheel which put her at a much greater risk of becoming distracted. Obviously it wasn't the woman's attempt to purposely veer across the line and kill someone, but still, she caused the wreck. It's negligent driving. As I said before, I don't think it rates jail time, , but I do think it deserves more than a paltry $321 fine.

 

You are not getting my point. Let me break down your statement.

"Obviously it wasn't the woman's attempt to purposely veer across the line and kill someone"

- Admission that there is no causal relationship.


"but still, she caused the wreck."

- Attempt to expose a causal relationship you just admitted wasn't there.

 

You just don't get it. Just because someone doesn't intend to hurt someone, it doesn't mean what they're doing isn't stupid. I can go ahead and put a blindfold on while driving and not have the intention of getting in a wreck, but if I do, it's my fault. Or heck, next time I'll sit in the backseat and steer the wheel with my feet and accelerate with a broomstick in hand.

There are rules and guidelines when it comes to driving. If one doesn't operate a vehicle in the manner that is intended, it's negligence and it's the person's fault if they get in a wreck, regardless of how good they usually are at multitasking or whatever. Not to mention that there are laws in process against driving while talking on a phone. I guess let's just tack this up to the girl getting off the hook by having this happen before the law actually passed, regardless of her killing someone.

- N

 

No, that's an admission that she didn't intend for it to happen, not that she didn't cause it to happen.

Obviously I didn't admit any such thing. A drunk driver has no intention of causing an accident either, but he/she made the decision to get behind the wheel. If that decision, like the decision to talk on a cell phone, ultimately causes a fatal accident, then there is indeed a causal relationship. Neither driving while drunk or talking on a cell phone while driving are necessary causes, because after all, any number of other events can cause a wreck without those two factors being present, but they are both sufficient causes, meaning either of themselves can directly contribute to the wreck occurring, meaning the individual by their conscious decision to do either caused the wreck.

 

why do you guys have no laws against mobile phones?

here if you are talking on a phone without a car kit or head set then its a fine (think its $250 but im not sure) if you kill someone while doing it it becomes caluable driving as the acident was YOUR FAULT and you WILL do jail time for it

 

It's up to the individual states. At this point, some do, some don't, although most are working towards some sort of law.