I fully believe that smoking while driving is just as bad, you may not be distracted by talking to some one and using one hand on the wheel, but a smoking a cigarette ITS ON FIRE PEOPLE. What happens if the end falls off in their lap or a flaming zippo lighter is dropped, or even just smoke in the eye (stings like hell for those uninitiated out there) - easily as bad.

This been tolerated while driving long before mobile phones showed up!!! So if mobiles are banned how come lighting things on fire and using one hand still is!!!!

Two hands on wheel at all times, change gear when safely able to, change radio station when safe to do so, no excuses.

As for the punishments its hard to come down fairly as its hard to prove what caused the accident unless they admit it or are found to have been drinking alcohol (through a blood test)

S+F

I thj k we should lock the bastards pup!


Sort for the typos distracted drives make it impossible go post on ATS while merging

Originally posted by Hawking
I thj k we should lock the bastards pup!


Sort for the typos distracted drives make it impossible go post on ATS while merging

edit on 22-12-2012 by Hawking because: (no reason given)

Joking aside, I absolutely agree with you. Distracted driving resulting in death should be negligent homicide.


Trying not to drag another debate in to this, a car can be a deadly weapon. Ultimately it's the user's responsibility.

You're making the assumption that the justice system is fair and treats all people charged with similar offenses the same. But actually that is not the case.

Punishments given by the courts often depend on how much money you can afford to pay to a lawyer and how much influence that lawyer has. Get a good lawyer who is friends with the judge and you're back at the country club in no time. Can't afford a lawyer? You can expect to be locked up.

There are always a few exceptions. Like a judge wanting to make an example of someone famous or something like that. But for the most part that is the way the justice system works. There is no such thing as blind justice anymore. Accidents are not considered violent crimes and are not intentional. But if you get the wrong judge then your punishment can still be severe. It's all up to the judge.

However, the courts do consider past offenses and other factors like your current status in the community, when making their decisions. If you have a job and have never committed a crime before. You are more likely to get probation for your first offense. It also depends on the area your crime is committed in. If the area has high crime, then their jails will be overcrowded. But get caught in an area with low crime and there will be plenty of rooms without a view for you.

Being certified via licensing necessary to legally operate a vehcile would imply that you know what is necessary to responsibly and safely operate a motor vehicle. In other words, if you're operating a vehicle on the road in terms that make doing so legal with your government, you're also operating that vehicle under terms of contract with that government.

So I would consider harm caused by a motorist not performing their duty as their certification instructs to be negligent manslaughter. Or treat it as you would treat any homicide that occurs through willful neglect.

However despite my way of seeing it, I'm still not a lawyer and how various local laws are enforced or interpreted is up for grabs. It seems law in practice has a lot of wiggle room and is softer and more vague than I'd be in this regard.

But my personal opinion is that it's a breach of contract with the state to operate a vehicle safely, and if it's proven that you are willfully distracted then you should be charged with willful negligent homicide (manslaughter) in that regard. Driving a vehicle really should carry that burden of responsibility, particularly when considering what it's capable of. (This is also why most places also require insurance for a vehicle to be licensed for operation on public roadways.)

Also it's my opinion that penalties in general when it comes to traffic laws should scale their fines in accordance with income. The well-off aren't paying their share or anywhere near an amount that discourages reckless driving. Even better yet, the well off really should hire somebody else better skilled to do their driving. (Which is why I don't shed any tears for any atheletes or celebs that die from a self-inflicted DUI. It's a shame and a disappointment to their fans, but they really should know better. Hiring a chauffeur at $200 for the entire night so you can get buzzed while out clubbing is pretty damn cheap when you're making $7,000,000 a year.)

About 20 years ago a friend of mine was involved in an accident that killed someone.

He was driving on a large main street that always has lots of traffic.

He was driving the speed limit, on an uphill grade, facing west and the sun was impairing his view.

A very old man carelessly stepped out into the street off of the sidewalk (he was not in a cross walk).

My friend accidentally struck this man and he died from his injuries.

Even though it was determined that the pedestrian was negligent, he was still charged with vehicular homicide.

My friend admitted that the sun was blinding his vision and the court found that he should have reduced his speed according to the conditions at the time of the accident.

He received probation and his license was temporarily suspended.