The only problem with RC's argument is exemplified by all of those who stupidly harm themselves and leave us picking up the tab. Those smokers whose smoke you can't smell? Many end up not paying for their own expensive end-of-life care, leaving the expenses to you and I. While they don't necessarily harm us personally they do suck off the system. That's clearly not the same gravity as the negligent behavior towards others RC describes, but it exacts a toll nonethelss. It's why helmet laws make sense for motorcycles. If you want to kill or maim yourself, go ahead, just don't ask me to fund your recovery.
Dave Sherman
-----Original Message-----
From: RCJohnson1@attglobal.net
To: steve@digitaldjservice.com
Cc: obra@list.obra.org
Sent: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] FW: From the Oregonian today...
I see two different situations in this:
Eat bacon, maybe affect your health and no one elses - no problem. Have fun on your way to a greasy grave. Same with smoking, my caring stops when I don't have to smell it or breath it.
On the other hand kill someone else with your inattentive, careless, or negligent behavior and you just made it everybodys problem.
To me that's a huge difference.
Rick
steve truesdale-Digital DJ Ser wrote:
You could say the same thing about seat belts and that is exactly what we need to stop. Pretty soon the Govt. will be making it against the law to eat bacon because people are dying from heart disease. More laws beget more laws and more dependence on the Govt. to tell us what to do and how to do it.
There are a lot of people that can talk and drive. The ones that can't are not going to be better drivers by putting hands free phones in their cars. They will still be talking and will have to dial something to get the call through. If you think they will outlaw phones all together, you are dreaming.
So there will always be something that the lawmakers will tell us that we need them to protect us from in order to boost the budget keep the bureaucratic ball rolling.
Fear sells.
Not buying it, Steve.
"Freyensee, James P" wrote:
I could say the same thing about seat belts, and we have that as a law. And not only that, I could argue that law is just to protect your idiot self, which is not what I think laws are for. Only you are going to die if you fail to wear the seltbelt. At least with the cell phone law, there will be two hands now on the wheel- more control of the weapon. And that law protects the other person from dying.
From: steve truesdale-Digital DJ Ser [mailto:steve@digitaldjservice.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:57 PM
To: Freyensee, James P; Monty Hill; obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] FW: From the Oregonian today...
The same people that can't talk on a cell phone and drive can't drive and carry on a conversation either so you are going to have to create a law that no other people can be in the car.
You can't legislate responsibility. It starts at home, when you are young.
Steve.
"Freyensee, James P" wrote:
I am for a state law that makes it illegal for someone to drive while
also holding a cell phone to their ear. Make it a steep fine...this
will help correct one example of people driving their cars much too
carelessly.
-----Original Message-----
From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of Monty Hill
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:56 AM
To: obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] FW: From the Oregonian today...
I concur, that action must be taken to educate others that more caution
must be taken when driving the most deadly weapon in the history of man.
People drive their cars much too carelessly.
"In the U.S. alone 3 times as many people have died in car related
crashes in the last 100 years, than those that have died in the Wars
over the last 300 years." Let's do he math that is a 9:1 average ratio.
A friend told me that the sun glare was examined at the same time and
place and there was no evidence of sun glare in the drivers eye. It is
just B.S. made up to absolve her own shame. Even if the sun were in
her eyes she should have slowed down to drive for the conditions. Now
that it is cloudy can someone say it was too dark to see?
Prison time is probably no good, but how about community services for
the next 20 years teaching drivers how not to kill someone while
driving. It is possible. Accidents don't just happen, it is a
euphemism for driving without concern for others. Many people live
their whole life without killing someone. It takes driving defensively
to be able to accomodate others mistakes as well. And not talking on
the cell phone, while looking at the radio.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this message is privileged and
confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the named recipient.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
transmission is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in
error, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> "Jason Ford" 9/14/2006 10:35 am >>>
"I can't help thinking that sending the woman who did it to prison would
not
help anyone"
I get the feeling this is the general consensus of law enforcement and
many
others. Seeing that the person doesn't have a criminal record and
knowing
the prisons are filled, why prosecute? One persons life is already taken
and
why ruin a second life by bringing charges against them? It won't bring
the
person back. It's rational.
On the other hand, could punishing people who run others over with their
car
save future lives?
So far, there appears to be a free get out of jail card when a person
hits
and kills a cyclist. You won't see any logging trucks slow when passing
cyclists on the road any time soon. In these cases, and the case of Jane
Higdon's death, a clear message has been sent to both the trucking
community
and other motorists. "Bikes don't belong on the road".
>From: "Doug Hormann"
>To:
>Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] FW: From the Oregonian today...
>Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:27:18 -0700
>
>
> >If a person crosses into the oncoming lane no matter what the
>circumstances and causes a death, it is considered negligent homicide.
>
> Not really. In Oregon law, criminal negligence is defined as
follows:
>
> "Criminal negligence" or "criminally negligent," when used with
respect
>to
>a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an
offense,
>means that a person fails to be aware of a substantial and
unjustifiable
>risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The
risk
>must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it
>constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a
reasonable
>person would observe in the situation. (Oregon Revised Statutes)
>
> The key words here are "substantial and unjustifiable risk" and "
gross
>deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would
>observe."
>What this means is that accidents are accidents. People make mistakes
>without rising to the level of negligence and sometimes those mistakes
will
>end in tragedy. A good example might be a situation wherein you were
>driving
>a car and got in a wreck that seriously injured or killed a passenger.
The
>fact that you got in a wreck and something bad happens does not
necessarily
>mean that you committed a crime. In othe words, sh*% happens. However,
if
>you were drunk at the time, or driving way over the speed limit, or
your
>car
>had no brakes, the "reasonable person" would probably say that you
should
>have known that such things would increase the likelihood of you
getting in
>a wreck. This could result in a prosecution for criminally negligent
>homicide if a death were to result.
>
> Another example might be in a bike race. How many times has someone
made
>a
>bad move in the course of a race that resulted in a crash of other
riders,
>sometimes sending someone to the hospital with serious injuries. Would
you
>consider the person who caused that accident to be criminally
negligent?
>Stupid maybe, but not criminally negligent. While both of these
examples
>could potentially result in civil action, they aren't criminal.
>
> I've investigated these types of accidents many times in my career
and
>in
>many cases criminal negligence was clearly a factor. In those cases I
don't
>even call them accidents, because while there may be no intent to harm,
the
>actions taken by the driver, whether drinking, driving recklessly, etc.
are
>clearly actions of choice. They chose to drink, they chose to drive 90
in a
>45 zone. But in other cases the actions of the driver present no clear
>picture of negligence. A moments inattention, a glance down at the
radio,
>etc. It's those cases that perhaps bother me even more, because you
feel
>that somehow you let the injured or killed victim down by not finding
>someone for they, or their families, to blame.
>
> I ride by the two small white crosses that mark where the McDaniels
were
>killed once or twice a week. It makes me angry when I think of how
>senseless this tragedy was, but I can't help thinking that sending the
>woman
>who did it to prison would not help anyone. It was, in the end, an
>accident.
> Doug Hormann
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org
[mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org]On
>Behalf Of c.rycewicz@comcast.net
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 1:01 PM
> To: joec@aracnet.com; Evan MacKenzie
> Cc: obra@list.obra.org
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] FW: From the Oregonian today...
>
>
> Why is that the police will arrest somebody for driving 100mph in a
>remote
>location when the only threat of harm is to the driver yet frequently
take
>no action against someone who negligently or carelessly causes a
death?
>If
>the sun is in your eyes, you need to account for that in your driving.
If
>you are tired and in danger of veering off the road, you need to stop
>driving.
>
> --
> Christopher A. Rycewicz
> c.rycewicz@comcast.net
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "Joe Cipale"
>
> > Evan MacKenzie wrote:
> >
> > > No criminal charges for drivers who killed 3 cyclists=20
> > > Deaths - A county prosecutor calls the cases the "intersection
of
>events
> > > that just end in tragedy."=20
> > > Wednesday, September 13, 2006=20
> > >
> > > Prosecutors said the case involving the Aug. 5 death of
bicyclist
> > > Michael J. Wilberding, 58, of Tigard was more clearcut and
will
>not
>be
> > > presented to a grand jury. Wilberding, who was in a bike lane
and
> > > wearing a helmet, died four days after being hit by a car
driven
>by
> > > Aaron M. Hessel, 25, of Beaverton.=20
> > >
> >
> > Regarding the case of Mike Wilberding, it certainly was a
terrible,
>terrible
> > tra gedy. The driver did nothing overtly or covertly wrong and
>cooperated
> > fully with the police investigating the scene of the accident.
> >
> > AT the risk of being a wet blanket - accidents happen. And when
they
>do, they
> > are just that. Accidents. I am not defending the driver. I
worked
>and
>rode
> > with Mike. He will sorely be missed by all of us who knew him.
> >
> > Joe
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>_______________________________________________
>OBRA mailing list
>obra@list.obra.org
>http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
_________________________________________________________________
Call friends with PC-to-PC calling -- FREE
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&sour
ce=wlmailtagline
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
Steve Truesdale
Digital DJ Service
503-232-1704
http//www.digitaldjservice.com
Steve Truesdale
Digital DJ Service
503-232-1704
http//www.digitaldjservice.com
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.