Gross Negligence, Incompetence, Stupidity

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

John_Corey

Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
156
Location
San Jose, California, United States of America
Hi all,

Similar to DUI and to mixing up gas and brake, wrong-way driving is one of those infractions that should result in mandatory license removal no matter what. It's just one of those driving errors that in my opinion are inexcusable, even if caused not willingly, but merely out of negligence, incompetence, or plain stupidity.

Cheers,
-J

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/13/idaho.wreck.family.killed/index.html?hpt=T2
 
I don't have much argument with that. The limited access interstate system is engineered to prevent such things from happening. Even if one manages to accidentally breach those engineering safeguards, the sensible reaction would be to STOP on the shoulder of the roadway. Even if one were to (this is NOT a recommendation) continue to drive against traffic on the shoulder, you would present (ideally) no more hazard than a parked vehicle.

I've been on empty limited access highways with a racing car driving the wrong way coming at you at super high speeds. You have little time to react with a closing velocity of 150+ mph. You might be able to grab the shoulder in time if he happens to be in the same lane, but you can't anticipate what they will do to avoid a collision either if that's the case.

It's a very tense experience ..as brief as it would be regardless of the outcome.
 
1 strike and you are out....I don't know.

Why not test peoples mental and physical abilities at birth or after puberty and decide then who will drive and who wont? Then we can have no accidents at all, we'll all be perfect drivers and no one ever need die needlessly on our roads.
 
Last edited:
Most of the highway entrance have wrong way reflective signs all over the place, it is obviously the alcohol that causes this accident to begin with (he is booked into prison but they haven't got the blood alcohol % at the moment).

Having those rental car lot reverse direction spikes on the ground could help a lot. If you enter the road the wrong way, your tire get popped. Seriously, it's not a bad idea.
 
Yes, 150mph+ closing speed=very little time to react, even when prepared for it.

I have gone wrong way twice in my life, once four weeks ago, in TOTALLY SCREWED UP DOWNTOWN CONSTRUCTION! But never on the freeway.

Drunk drivers should be shot. End of story.
 
We just had one in the UK where two Jaguars collided head on; one going the wrong way.

Alcohol often plays a part but I have frequently seen these accidents involve elderly drivers who became disoriented; this latest UK one appears to be the latter.

I have had my GPS suggest an inaccurate turn a time or two but common sense said don't do it; some people just go with what they hear I think given the not infrequent write ups in the press about people doing daft things following their GPS directions.

I used to work on a ferry from the UK to Europe and one day was driving back to the boat when a Dutch driver came toward me on my side of the road. People were swerving around him but he refused to stop or move to the correct side of the road (it was a simple two lane road so no central divider). I too had to go around him on the 'wrong' side of the road and best thing was he didn't slow down, he was doing 50MPH at my reckoning
33.gif
 
Quote:

1 strike and you are out....I don't know.


+1; Sole bread winner might not be able to get to work and you have 5 people out on the street.

Article is pretty thin on details. Would it matter if he were in a diabetic shock?
 
A diabetic has the same liability to make sure he's competent to drive.

I wound up the wrong way on a divided highway at 3:30 am in a blinding snow storm once, I overshot the right turn then immediately noticed a guard rail to my right where there usually isn't one.
blush.gif
I immediately turned around though an oncoming plow truck gave me the evil eye when I was about finished.

Drivers license tests should pass the 70th percentile on the first exam. This would motivate people to not be in the 30% of losers and raise the bar for everyone.

And retest after 30 years of licensing then every 5 years after that. Bah humbug if it's too expensive, make the examiner a jobs program.
 
Hi LS2JSTS and simple_gifts,

Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
Quote:

1 strike and you are out....I don't know.

How many strikes would you propose are appropriate for a sole bread winner. How many chances to kill his own family do you want to give him?

+1; Sole bread winner might not be able to get to work and you have 5 people out on the street.

That is exactly what the sole bread winner should have considered before getting behind the wheel.

Article is pretty thin on details. Would it matter if he were in a diabetic shock?
If the sole bread winner has a known medical condition that impairs his driving ability, then he is quite guilty of gross negligence.
 
It's a big problem down here, with tourists on rural roads turning out of an intersection onto a major road, straight into oncoming traffic.

We got a nice new speed camera at the bottom of a hill a few years ago, as it was a "black spot". Nearly every fatality in the vicinity was caused by someone on the wrong side of the road.
 
Originally Posted By: John_Corey
Hi Shannow,

Every tourist should have a mandatory guide.


That would do wonders for their tourism...
33.gif


You aren't going to eliminate these things no matter how many regulations you put in people's path.
 
Originally Posted By: John_Corey
Hi LS2JSTS and simple_gifts,

Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
Quote:

1 strike and you are out....I don't know.

How many strikes would you propose are appropriate for a sole bread winner. How many chances to kill his own family do you want to give him?

+1; Sole bread winner might not be able to get to work and you have 5 people out on the street.

That is exactly what the sole bread winner should have considered before getting behind the wheel.

Article is pretty thin on details. Would it matter if he were in a diabetic shock?
If the sole bread winner has a known medical condition that impairs his driving ability, then he is quite guilty of gross negligence.


There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of situations where the fault or negligence may be something that was reasonably unforeseeable by the driver. Your absolutes don't work in the real world, where weird things happen every day. I just get the vibe that you think that one can regulate or micro manage a perfect driving environment....never gonna happen. Even when cars are coupled together by computer to maintain safe distances between each other(coming soon) there will still be accidents. I think your apparent willingness to trust your own privledges/rights to some Doctor or some State employee to decide if you are competent enough to drive is foolish at best.

And I make that assumption based on this comment of yours from another thread........."I am in favor of a mandatory competency test that driver's license holders would have to take regularly, for example every 5 years. This test would include an eye exam, a cognitive test, and a physician's document stating physical and mental condition and impairments, and listing prescription medications."

While I wholeheartedly agree that our current system, in most states is dreadfully poor. I think the above is draconian and opens the door for far worse abuses of our rights based on the argument of the "public good/safety"....No thanks.
 
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: John_Corey
Hi LS2JSTS and simple_gifts,

Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
Quote:

1 strike and you are out....I don't know.

How many strikes would you propose are appropriate for a sole bread winner. How many chances to kill his own family do you want to give him?

+1; Sole bread winner might not be able to get to work and you have 5 people out on the street.

That is exactly what the sole bread winner should have considered before getting behind the wheel.

Article is pretty thin on details. Would it matter if he were in a diabetic shock?
If the sole bread winner has a known medical condition that impairs his driving ability, then he is quite guilty of gross negligence.


There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of situations where the fault or negligence may be something that was reasonably unforeseeable by the driver.
Hi LS2JTSTS,

I am talking about potentially lethal errors of epic proportions that point at a driver who is clearly too incompetent to safely operate a vehicle. I believe you are lumping together all instances of negligence, as if they were all of the same severity.

Your absolutes don't work in the real world, where weird things happen every day. I just get the vibe that you think that one can regulate or micro manage a perfect driving environment....never gonna happen.
I never said that or meant to imply what you read into what I said.

Even when cars are coupled together by computer to maintain safe distances between each other(coming soon) there will still be accidents.
I have nowhere and never suggested anything like this.

I think your apparent willingness to trust your own privledges/rights to some Doctor or some State employee to decide if you are competent enough to drive is foolish at best.
And I make that assumption based on this comment of yours from another thread........."I am in favor of a mandatory competency test that driver's license holders would have to take regularly, for example every 5 years. This test would include an eye exam, a cognitive test, and a physician's document stating physical and mental condition and impairments, and listing prescription medications."
We do have driving tests in this country, and we do need a driver's license to drive. I do believe that driver training is marginal. I also believe that a driver's license should not be for life with merely a preposterously lax vision test every few years. You would no want to fly in a plane piloted by a 85 year old diabetic captain with cataracts, would you? Why are you willing to share the road with him?

While I wholeheartedly agree that our current system, in most states is dreadfully poor. I think the above is draconian and opens the door for far worse abuses of our rights based on the argument of the "public good/safety"....No thanks.
Which of a driver's rights are infringed upon if all drivers' competence is verified regularly? Please, tell me, which rights? Driving is a privilege and not a right with good reason.

Cheers,
-J
 
Not meaning to be nasty, but some practice with the quote function would make this thread much more interesting.

Highlighting blocks of text within quotes makes comprehension difficult, and correct quoted responses nigh on impossible.
 
Hi Gary,

You may want to stop lumping all and everything into one pot. There are mistakes that one must not make when operating a vehicle. It's very simple, really. Here are three examples:

-driver cannot tell gas from brake
-driver heads into oncoming traffic in absence of instantly adverse conditions
-driver operates vehicle despite known impairment that affects safely operating the vehicle

Cheers,
-J

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Purity codes
 
Hi Shannow,

I will do my best to quote properly before my posting privilege is revoked!

Cheers,
-J

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Not meaning to be nasty, but some practice with the quote function would make this thread much more interesting.

Highlighting blocks of text within quotes makes comprehension difficult, and correct quoted responses nigh on impossible.
 
Originally Posted By: John_Corey


"I am in favor of a mandatory competency test that driver's license holders would have to take regularly, for example every 5 years. This test would include an eye exam, a cognitive test, and a physician's document stating physical and mental condition and impairments, and listing prescription medications."


You tell me who will be conducting these "cognitive" and "mental" evaluations and we'll move forward from there. Otherwise all I'm reading is a bunch of misunderstanding or purposeful misrepresentation of what I was saying.

Notice I never said that you said anything about future cars being tethered, only made the point that even they will have their accidents as well. The point being that a perfectly safe mass transit system doesn't exist, and may never exist.

As to rights, I merely suggest that you back up and look at the bigger picture. While you paint my comments as if they are centered around driving and that sole priviledge. You miss my point that your willingness to hang the 85 year olds out to dry, wont be stopped with them...or with driving.

The thin end of a wedge you accept and propose, as just and righteous.....well it's just a tool waiting to be turned and used against YOU.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom