Hacker News Reader

Comment by Swizec | Hacker News Reader

Over here in Europe, or possibly only Slovenia, we have a similar thing going on. If the driver does something stupid and plows into a pedestrian - that's manslaughter.

If an accident happens and they end up on the sidewalk ... well then it's not really anybody's fault. It was an accident.

I'm not sure why you would really want to press criminal charges against somebody who, following a difficult situation on the road, ended up unfortunately damaging someone.

However, if the person is on a crosswalk. Then it's the driver should be charged at least with manslaughter ... unless they're rear-ended or there's some other circumstance out of their control that made them unable to stop.

View on HN

> I'm not sure why you would really want to press criminal charges against somebody who, following a difficult situation on the road, ended up unfortunately damaging someone.

I've been driving in New York City since I was 16. I'm 31 now. I've been in many difficult situations, even a major collision, but I've never found the need to plow into the sidewalk.

There are people out there who are cowards. By that, I mean they would rather risk harm to others than to themselves. When you are about to collide with another vehicle on the road, you do not swerve into the sidewalk. No. You take your chances with the collision.

People who endanger others for the sake of their own skin are trash and should be prosecuted. You use your driving expertise to stay on the road and if you do not have the skill-set to do that, you shouldn't be driving.

> You use your driving expertise to stay on the road and if you do not have the skill-set to do that, you shouldn't be driving.

Unfortunately, in most many places in North America you cannot function in society without a vehicle thus even if you know you shouldn't be drive the penalty is so great that almost all keep on driving. If there were reasonable alternatives like mass transportation then we could reasonably expect thus unqualified to use them, but in suburbia mass transit does not work.

To me this is as rediculous campaigns against drunk driving that don't push for local busses to operate until at least an hour after bars close.

tl;dr: one cannot reasonably expect people to behave responsibly without there being reasonable alternatives

Actually there is a reasonable alternative: Don't live in cities that fail to provide a reasonable alternative. A car is only a reasonable alternative in rural areas and as a mode of inter-city transport.

I think in Canada that describes only 3 cities, and even then a lot of the tech companies are on the outskirts since the offices are cheaper.

What about personal responsibility?

The answer to "society hasn't provided me with a convenient way to get around without a significant risk of killing someone" is not "oh wells! bad luck pedestrians!"

Where it comes to a situation where they might kill someone, I do expect people to behave responsibly.

So but it is more like "I can't get a job, or live where I can afford because I'm too easily distracted to be a good driver and I might kill someone, but it's that too likely since there are lots of shitty drivers and not that many people die and I don't really have alternatives."

I bus to work, but I wouldn't work minimum wage if all the good jobs required commuting; I'd just be another shitty driver. It's not selfish either, it's selfish of you to expect me to give up anything resembling a normal life to make you a little safer.

If a car have to go up on a sidewalk and kill someone then the driver does not have a good enough control over the car.

You should press charges not against the driver of the car who kills/injures a pedestrian (on the sidewalk), but the one that caused the accident - he's the ultimate reason why the person got killed/injured.

If a car ends up on the pavement and kills someone, then there should be at the very least an investigation to see if charges should be pressed.

Given that pedestrians stepping into the road seems criminal by default in many US cities, then surely so should be cars driving on the pavement.

Or would you be able to get out of a jaywalking ticket by claiming that it was accidental?

Tickets aren't "criminal". It's just a ticket. And yes, drivers do get ticketed and fined when they drive on the pavement.

But a ticket does not criminal charges make.

Perhaps I'm less on the semantic side of things, but you get tickets for violating the law, or penal code. The definition of criminal is (I'm guessing) 'person who breaks the law'.

I suspect that, in light of that, you get tickets for criminal behavior.

There are less criminal charges, for sure -- like driving at night without working headlights, but that still violates the law requiring you to maintain a safe and drivable vehicle, and is as such a criminal act.

There is a legal distinction between 'civil' and 'criminal' law. To oversimplify things, 'criminal' laws are ones that reflect some sort of moral code (e.g. laws against murder and manslaughter), and 'civil' laws are ones that are simply rules (e.g. speed limits, jaywalking). Civil cases can't be punished with jail time or anything like that.

I don't know that I'm yet convinced that speeding is a civil offense. Can you give me an example of a civil offense that I would get a ticket for? I have always thought of civil laws as those that corporations need to abide. Perhaps I'm wrong?

As for speed limits and jaywalking specifically, you appear to be right that they aren't criminal offenses until a threshold has been crossed (e.g., speeding 15 over the limit). But those seem to be considered 'infractions', and I admittedly don't know where the lines are.

In the US we have three kinds of charges: felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions.

Felonies are major criminal offenses. Misdemeanors are minor criminal offenses. Infractions are oopsies.

Most traffic charges are treated as infractions, even when they lead to levels of damage or injury that would ordinarily mean a misdemeanor or felony. Cars are somehow "special." If you want to get away with murder in the US, definitely use a car not a gun.

(But don't be drunk. Drunk driving is no longer socially acceptable -- if you're drunk and kill someone with your car, that's serious jail time. If you're just a bad driver and kill someone with your car, that's an oopsie.)

What state do you live in where vehicular manslaughter isn't a felony charge? Rich and/or well-connected folks notwithstanding...

It's theoretically a felony charge in every state, but in practice, drivers who run over pedestrians or cyclists often get charged with traffic infractions or don't get charged at all.

If you think a ticket can't be punished with jail time, try not paying one and then don't show up to court.

Is the US unique in that you can go to jail for not paying a ticket for a minor traffic violation?

Civil cases are when the court is acting to resolve a dispute between two parties. If I sued you, it would be a civil case.

Criminal cases are when a law is broken. Therefore, jaywalking is indeed a criminal offense, albeit a very minor one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(common_law)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law

I've learned something new today. Thanks!

It is indeed a criminal charge. By paying the ticket, you are submitting a guilty plea. A low-level charge, sure (depending on the ticket), but a charge nevertheless.

It sounds to me like all charges are criminal in your mind if they involve a finding of the court. This is not true

Just the findings that involve charges stemming from the penal code, and involve being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt vs. the civil standard of a preponderance of evidence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com