Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Pyrrho · 07-02-2003, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by njhartsh
This is, indeed, a conundrum that criminal law classes can't avoid dealing with.

There's at least one other scenario that presents the same issue: attempted murder. If I intentionally shoot someone in the chest and he's taken to the hospital, my sentence may well depend upon the talents of the surgeons. Let's say that the injury is such that the hospital's median surgeon won't be able to prevent death but the hospital's best surgeon will be able to save the victim; then, the crime I'm guilty of depends directly on ER happenstance. Which seems really bizarre--the very same act and intent on my part can be one crime in one surgical situation but a considerably more serious crime in another.

In the end, I agree (as do most, but not all, legal scholars) with brighid and Loren, but I for one do see the "odd"ity of the situation.

I guess the question for Jamie is: what's our alternative? Should we reduce all sentences for crimes to the sentences for the attempted crimes? (Or, for something like reckless driving, cite a vehicular manslaughterer for mere speeding/running a red light/DUI/etc.?) That outcome doesn't seem right for me either.

- Nathan

I have already stated what I think should be done for cases involving someone not wearing seatbelts (or helmets with motorcycles); in my opinion, all injuries that someone receives when they are not wearing a seatbelt should be considered the responsibility of the one not wearing the seatbelt, no matter who is "at fault" for the accident. In many states in the U.S., it is a legal requirement to wear one, but the law doesn't really make people responsible for their actions in this case. If you don't value your life enough to wear a seatbelt, then I think others should honor your estimate of your life's worth.

As for the comparison between an SUV and a compact car, people should realize that many SUVs are NOT safe for the people inside the vehicle; bigger is not always better for safety, and SUVs are considered to be "trucks", not "cars", and therefore different regulations obtain regarding them (not to mention the fact that two vehicles that both meet U.S. safety regulations can be dramatically different regarding the actual safety of the vehicle). Here is a website with crash tests for midsized SUVs; some are good, some are poor:

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat...ary_midsuv.htm

You can also, from the above link, find ratings for other vehicles, though they have not tested everything.

ImGod · 07-02-2003, 12:43 PM

Just in case it may add to the discussion, here is some light reading from this site:

Nebraska Law

Quote:

28-306
Motor vehicle homicide; penalty.

(1) A person who causes the death of another
unintentionally while engaged in the operation of a motor vehicle
in violation of the law of the State of Nebraska or in violation
of any city or village ordinance commits motor vehicle homicide.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this
section, motor vehicle homicide is a Class I misdemeanor.
(3)(a) If the proximate cause of the death of another
is the operation of a motor vehicle in violation of section
60-6,213 or 60-6,214, motor vehicle homicide is a Class IIIA
felony.
(b) If the proximate cause of the death of another is
the operation of a motor vehicle in violation of section
60-6,196, motor vehicle homicide is a Class IIIA felony. The
court shall, as part of the judgment of conviction, order the
person not to drive any motor vehicle for any purpose for a
period of at least sixty days and not more than fifteen years and
shall order that the operator's license of such person be revoked
for the same period.
(c) If the proximate cause of the death of another is
the operation of a motor vehicle in violation of section
60-6,196, motor vehicle homicide is a Class III felony if the
defendant has a prior conviction under section 60-6,196, under a
city or village ordinance enacted pursuant to such section, or
under a law of another state if, at the time of the conviction
under the law of such other state, the offense for which the
defendant was convicted would have been a violation under section
60-6,196. The court shall, as part of the judgment of
conviction, order the person not to drive any motor vehicle for
any purpose for a period of at least sixty days and not more than
fifteen years and shall order that the operator's license of such
person be revoked for the same period.
(d) An order of the court described in subdivision (b)
or (c) of this subsection shall be administered upon sentencing,
upon final judgment of any appeal or review, or upon the date
that any probation is revoked, whichever is later.

Source:
Laws 1977, LB 38, � 21; Laws 1979, LB 1, � 1;
Laws 1992, LB 291, � 2; Laws 1993, LB 370, � 9;
Laws 1993, LB 575, � 3; Laws 1997, LB 364, � 3;
Laws 2001, LB 38, � 1.

Cross Reference:
Operator's license,assessment of points and revocation, see sections
60-497.01, 60-498, and 60-4,182 et seq.

Annotations:
In order to convict a defendant of felony motor vehicle
homicide under this section, the State must prove the
defendant's driving in violation of section 39-669.07
proximately caused the death of another.
State v. Batts, 233 Neb. 776, 448 N.W.2d 136 (1989) (pursuant to Laws
1993, LB 370, section 293, language from section 39-669.07 was placed in
section 60-6,196).
In order to convict a defendant under this section, the
State must prove that the accused's intoxication was the
proximate cause of the accident and resulting death.
State v. Ring, 233 Neb. 720, 447 N.W.2d 908 (1989) (pursuant
to Laws 1993, LB 370, section 293, language from section
39-669.07 was placed in section 60-6,196).
Motor vehicle homicide is a lesser-included offense of manslaughter.
State v. Roth, 222 Neb. 119, 382 N.W.2d 348 (1986).

Quote:

29-3605
Minor traffic violations; terms, defined.

For purposes of sections 29-3606 to 29-3609:
(1) Department means the Department of Motor Vehicles;
and
(2) Minor traffic violation does not include leaving
the scene of an accident, sections 60-696 to 60-698, driving
under the influence of alcoholic liquor or drugs, sections
60-4,164, 60-6,196, and 60-6,211.01, reckless driving or willful
reckless driving, sections 60-6,213 and 60-6,214, participating
in a speed competition, section 60-6,195, operating a motor
vehicle to avoid arrest, section 28-905, refusing a breath or
blood test, sections 60-4,164, 60-6,197, and 60-6,211.02, driving
on a suspended or revoked operator's license, sections 60-4,107
to 60-4,110, speeding twenty or more miles per hour over the
speed limit, operating a motor vehicle without insurance or other
financial responsibility in violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety
Responsibility Act, any injury accident, or any violation which
is classified as a misdemeanor or a felony.

Source:
Laws 2002, LB 1303, � 5.

Cross Reference:
Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act,see section 60-659.

From my quick reading, the charge is a subset of manslaughter and is in the highest misdemeanor class. Based on they type of law you break committing the action you can get bumped up to a lower class felony.

brighid · 07-03-2003, 05:22 AM

ImGod,

Thank you for the valuable information!

Brighid

Claudia · 07-03-2003, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Looking at the article the collision is as I suspected--a hit on the driver's side. Your belt does basically nothing against such impacts other than reduce the chance of ejection.

I have twice witnessed such an accident where seat belt possibly saved life (or at least prevented serious injuries): as result of lateral impact, the car rolled over. I remember in the second accident, we saw things flipping inside the car (back seat, and we thought "oh, the kids!" Fortunately, it was only clothes. Dirver and passenger had fastened their belts, and they had only bruises.

My daughter has a school friend whose father died when his oldest kid was in 5th form, because he was ejected from the car (he was the driver, and lost control when trying to change the music tape). Other passengers had fastened their belts, and had nothing. Did he not had responsability not to take risk of such a stupid death when he had kids to take care of?

Pyrrho · 07-03-2003, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Claudia

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking at the article the collision is as I suspected--a hit on the driver's side. Your belt does basically nothing against such impacts other than reduce the chance of ejection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have twice witnessed such an accident where seat belt possibly saved life (or at least prevented serious injuries): as result of lateral impact, the car rolled over. I remember in the second accident, we saw things flipping inside the car (back seat, and we thought "oh, the kids!" Fortunately, it was only clothes. Dirver and passenger had fastened their belts, and they had only bruises.

My daughter has a school friend whose father died when his oldest kid was in 5th form, because he was ejected from the car (he was the driver, and lost control when trying to change the music tape). Other passengers had fastened their belts, and had nothing. Did he not had responsability not to take risk of such a stupid death when he had kids to take care of?

Yes, a lot of people imagine that seatbelts do less than they do. Whenever there is an impact, a seatbelt helps prevent one from being knocked into the steering wheel, side of the car, or whatever. It helps hold one in place rather than letting one bounce off of some interior surface of the vehicle. A seatbelt is good in almost any kind of collision.

I am reminded of the death of Lady Diana; as I recall, even though they were going way too fast, only those who were not wearing seatbelts died in that accident; the person who wore one survived. Of course, that was not the kind of accident being discussed in this thread, but it is the kind of thing that people should remember.

brighid · 07-03-2003, 09:52 AM

A close friends father died in a car crash. He was not wearing a seat-belt, but his passenger was. The passenger walked away from the crash with only a few cuts and bruises. I was once in an accident and flipped my car (with my son in it and he was 4 months old.) He was in his car seat and he was unharmed. I was wearing my seatbelt and had I not I would have been ejected from the car. The paramedics were pleasantly surprised to see that I sustained only minor injuries from a roll over. Scariest damned experience of my life.

B

Loren Pechtel · 07-03-2003, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Claudia
I have twice witnessed such an accident where seat belt possibly saved life (or at least prevented serious injuries): as result of lateral impact, the car rolled over. I remember in the second accident, we saw things flipping inside the car (back seat, and we thought "oh, the kids!" Fortunately, it was only clothes. Dirver and passenger had fastened their belts, and they had only bruises.

My daughter has a school friend whose father died when his oldest kid was in 5th form, because he was ejected from the car (he was the driver, and lost control when trying to change the music tape). Other passengers had fastened their belts, and had nothing. Did he not had responsability not to take risk of such a stupid death when he had kids to take care of?

Oh, I agree, people should always wear seat belts. It's just that they aren't perfect. If you get t-boned on the driver's door the belt isn't going to matter.

Pyrrho · 07-03-2003, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Oh, I agree, people should always wear seat belts. It's just that they aren't perfect. If you get t-boned on the driver's door the belt isn't going to matter.

Although I agree that seatbelts are not perfect, I disagree with your claim that they don't matter for side impact. A seatbelt can help hold you in place so you won't be slammed against the door the way you would without it. And if you are slammed into the door without your seatbelt, there is nothing preventing you from bouncing into something else. Being held in place is extremely helpful in virtually all cases.

Side airbags with head protection also can be very beneficial.

Javaman · 07-04-2003, 07:57 AM

I have another story to add as well. My cousin was driving in West Virginia (I think???) and rolled down a mountainside. It was so long ago, I don't remember if he was driving or not. There were two other folks in the car, both not wearing seat belts, and both were killed. My cousin had bruising along his chest from the belt but was otherwise OK.

I agree that we tend to underestimate the impact of seat belts. Even if I was T-boned, I'd rather be belted than not. I believe the TV news photos showed the van (in the OP) was hit mostly on the front quarter-panel.

Loren Pechtel · 07-04-2003, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Although I agree that seatbelts are not perfect, I disagree with your claim that they don't matter for side impact. A seatbelt can help hold you in place so you won't be slammed against the door the way you would without it. And if you are slammed into the door without your seatbelt, there is nothing preventing you from bouncing into something else. Being held in place is extremely helpful in virtually all cases.

Side airbags with head protection also can be very beneficial.

I'm not saying that they are of no value. I'm saying that when the driver's door is hit hard they aren't going to do much--the primary impact is going to be you and the door and the belt won't stop that.

Side impact air bags are the only thing that gives you any real protection in such a hit.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-03-2003, 05:22 AM	#43
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	ImGod, Thank you for the valuable information! Brighid

07-03-2003, 09:52 AM	#46
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	A close friends father died in a car crash. He was not wearing a seat-belt, but his passenger was. The passenger walked away from the crash with only a few cuts and bruises. I was once in an accident and flipped my car (with my son in it and he was 4 months old.) He was in his car seat and he was unharmed. I was wearing my seatbelt and had I not I would have been ejected from the car. The paramedics were pleasantly surprised to see that I sustained only minor injuries from a roll over. Scariest damned experience of my life. B

07-04-2003, 07:57 AM	#49
Javaman Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Nebraska Posts: 1,708	I have another story to add as well. My cousin was driving in West Virginia (I think???) and rolled down a mountainside. It was so long ago, I don't remember if he was driving or not. There were two other folks in the car, both not wearing seat belts, and both were killed. My cousin had bruising along his chest from the belt but was otherwise OK. I agree that we tend to underestimate the impact of seat belts. Even if I was T-boned, I'd rather be belted than not. I believe the TV news photos showed the van (in the OP) was hit mostly on the front quarter-panel.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.