Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
It would be if you were building a case. Your post was implying that it would be a "slam dunk", and you used "did not have high beams on" as evidence of this. If high beams were necessary for safety, there would be a law requiring it. The driving regulations set the minimum safety standards and if you are meeting those standards, you can not prove someone is operating "unsafe". Hitting someone doesn't prove you were operating outside of the rules. I've had a lot of peers and higher-ups state that we should just "this" and "that" (legal action) to someone because they got in a crash. I've been down this road in court more than once and that doesn't hold up for a second under a judge. What holds up is evidence, and evidence is not "the person killed someone so we need to punish them!". As badly as you might feel that and think that you are right, we operate in a system of laws and regulations. We might need to make new regulations if we can't prove the person was operating outside the regulations, we might need to change some of the current regulations. It's hard for some people to detach their emotions in these cases, like what I was stating above. Those people are usually the ones that lose cases or screw them up so bad (even if there was wrong-doing) that they can't possibly be prosecuted. When you don't have the evidence, you have to be able to drop it and move on.
|
Posters clearly have no concept of the law.
If this was not an autonomous car, this would be just another traffic death with no charges to driver and no press - or threads.
If car ran stoplight and death in crosswalk, entirely different matter.