It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More than one victim in an accident

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
In a car accident, where a fatality results, we often only feel sorrow for the person/s killed. What's worse is we often hold something against the perpetrator and look to persecute them in some way. perhaps it's only me, but I often think of the driver held responsible for the fatality and feel empathy for that person, as well as the victim. In many accidents the driver is also an innocent victim that now must live with killing someone for the rest of their lives. To me this is just as dire a fate as being killed in the accident, if not more so, especially when they had no way of avoiding the situation. Does anyone share this view?

Edit to completely change topic of discussion

[edit on 27/4/06 by mytym]




posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Edit as second post now redundant due to change of topic

[edit on 27/4/06 by mytym]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Due to the age of this thread, just wanted to know if I am alone with this view? Does it seem like a reasonable conclusion to arrive at? Any thoughts are welcome.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
In many accidents the driver is also an innocent victim that now must live with killing someone for the rest of their lives.


In the bolded part above is the reason I disagree (at least in part).

It is because of the guilt acquired through the accident that the drivers life becomes a living hell. Innocence, therefore, is not a part of the equation.

I seldom feel much less than anger, mainly due to the fact that most accidents happen for a variety of avoidable reasons like tiredness, inattentiveness, preoccupation (shaving or applying lipstick while driving, etc.

I do, however, feel sorry for a driver who, through no fault of their own, cause injury or death to another. It happens and the driver then is definitely a victim as well in this case.

I also feel very sorry for the families of all involved in severe accidents.
.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Over half of auto accidents are caused by under the influence, then there are the distractions, so driver is victim of him/herself. But, yes, it does happen some truly accidentally cause death, and the anguish is enormous. I agree it is a tragedy for all.

BTW when my son carelessly rode his bike into the path of a car (which was going the speed limit, actually a little slower), was severly injured but recovered, I had no anger for the driver but did feel badly for him, as I thought, that could have happened to me.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Vehicular collisions are never accidents, unless an act of nature was involved. Like what has been stated there is almost always a fault due to someones mistake, neglect or carelessness. They are tragic and a good share is because of a total lack of respect for the responcibilty a person has been given with the privlage to drive.

You try cutting up a car with patients trapped inside and your POV will change.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Try havign two friends killed because they couldn't be bothered to wear seatbelts.. They were only doing 30mph.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   
People go to war and kill the enemy and come home and still feel guilt over it, despite not doing anything wrong, simply carrying out their duty.

I realise that this is a sensitive issue for many and I apologise in advance if I am opening up old wounds, but the portrayal of the driver in these cases seems unjust and extreme. Accidents may happen due to a variety of avoidable reasons that the driver could control but in most cases the punishment of living with killing someone does not fit the crime in my opinion.

There is an ad on TV aimed at reducing speed which shows a guy driving a car at 65kmph instead of 60. A girl crosses in front of him without looking where she was going and he hits her, severely injuring or perhaps killing her. They try to imply that had he been going 5 kmph slower the accident could have been avoided. This is true, but had she been looking where she was going and not walking blindly into the cars domain the accident could have been avoided too. Had she walked out 5 meters closer to the car the same fate would have resulted even if he was doing 60. Now he has to live with this for the rest of his life despite it being largely the pedestrians fault that she was hit. This is what I'm talking about.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I see, yes, the ad is not the best. Maybe 50 mph in a 25 zone. Or, like around here, cars speed and cannot negotiate curves, roll over or crash into oncoming traffic. Now that would have made a more effective ad. Even on a fairly straight road, increased speed plays a part in accidents.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Everything plays a part in accidents, but I would say that concentration, or lack thereof is a much more significant factor. Should we make it law to concentrate and prosecute people who do not? Why don't we remove all distractions such as radios and other passengers to aid in achieving maximum concetration? Should those that cause accidents due to lack of concetration be thrown in jail for culperable(sp) driving? Where do we draw the line?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join