Tomasz Kroker - the Lorry Driver.

boogieman

CabbageCat said:

boogieman said:

CabbageCat said:

boogieman said:

CabbageCat said:

Gassage said:

As I'm shored up at Gassage Towers with busted ribs I have watched this unfold today and 10 years is a minimum for me

I am no angel in previous times- I have called and texted with impunity whilst driving.

So, given that you have effectively done the same thing as this guy (just you got lucky because you didn't have a stopped car in front of you) do you think that you deserve a 10 year sentence?

I know the answer, obviously. I don't think you deserve any sentence. But the driver is a victim of circumstances. He rolled the die and got a 1, you did it and got a 6. The impact of the error is different but the error is identical.

I understand that a big sentence is probably forthcoming as a deterent but I do feel sorry for the guy. I feel sorry for the victims too, naturally, just as I do for the victims of any such catastrophe.

Identical crime: yes. Different consequence: maybe.

I'm not defending his actions by any means but I suspect Gassage wasn't driving an HGV at the time. I have no sympathy for the lorry driver at all. He's a professional driver in charge of something that he knew can do a hell of a lot of damage if not handled properly. He's acted totally unprofessionally and irresponsibly. 10 years for killing 4 people? That's a pitiful sentence. He'll be out in 5 no doubt if he behaves himself. 

Do you think that, in general, the punishment should fit the outcome or the intent? If someone chucked a nail bomb into a crèche and no-one was killed should he be sentenced less heavily than someone who crossed a road without looking and caused a fatal car accident?

Interesting point. To answer the question; no I'm sure he had no intent to kill. The fact remains he's acted so irresponsibly that he's directly caused four deaths. Does a ten year sentence adequately reflect that behaviour? I guess that's the maximum sentence allowed for in the guidelines, I don't know what he'd get for manslaughter. Yes he's shown remorse, but those people died solely because of his stupid actions. I'm not sure if it was my family that had been wiped out that I'd want to see him at liberty quite so quickly. 

Do you think that the feelings of the victim's family should be the most significant factor in sentencing?

I'm not deliberately getting at you here - I just think people don't always think through what they are pointing fingers at when they are trying to find something to blame for a tragedy.

Well yes the case is a bit of a moral minefield. I just keep going back to the fact that the man has killed four people and could potentially be back on the steeets in five years. That doesn't sit very easily with me. 

Modellista

fields5069 said:

I'll only ever text through the car's scrolly wheel system. My merc won't let me enter text while moving, if I'm stationary then it's OK. But really this is still distracting enough that it's probably the cause of a few low-speed shunts and that's not on.

I'm having a facepalm moment imagining the meeting where they approved using the car's own systems - arguably more difficult to use than an actual phone - to do something illegal.

Modellista

bob21 said:

One interesting thing (though it still doesn't make it okay to use a phone whilst driving a HGV) is that Mercedes now have a feature on their artics called Active Brake Assist, that can bring a fully loaded HGV to a complete stop in some stupidly small distance, completely autonomously of the driver, when the truck detects a 'hazard' like a stationary vehicle.. 
Designed entirely to prevent (ideally) or significantly lessen the impact of accidents like this, regardless of whether the driver is alert, or fallen asleep/on the phone/etc.. 
As far as I'm aware, other manufacturers have similar, but nowhere near as effective systems. Will be interesting if this incident leads to more pressure being put on all HGV manufacturers to implement a similar solution..

Yep, I was thinking that too.  Surely only a matter of time before such systems are commonplace.  

Also to mention the self-driving car issue - I have to agree, given the absolute shambles quality of driving you now see - and with the majority of drivers on the phone - that I would feel safer knowing that all the cars around me were programmed by experts rather than half-heartedly "driven" by distracted morons.

CabbageCat

Gassage said:

Re the sentence-

Not defending anything, just explaining legal mechanism.

This carries a max of 14 years.

He pleaded guilty at earliest opportunity- he gets 33% discount off the sentence- hence 10 years (or 10.3333)

If four people died because of your maths fail you would definitely deserve √2(π^2) years in prison. 

randella

modellista said:

Yep, I was thinking that too.  Surely only a matter of time before such systems are commonplace.  

Also to mention the self-driving car issue - I have to agree, given the absolute shambles quality of driving you now see - and with the majority of drivers on the phone - that I would feel safer knowing that all the cars around me were programmed by experts rather than half-heartedly "driven" by distracted morons.

Couple of issues here:

1) The majority of drivers aren't on the phone, nowhere near. Some are, certainly a lot more than should be (i.e. none), but not the majority.

2) Even the shortest spell of writing software for a living ought to dispel the notion that 'cars programmed by experts' are the magic panacea. I write code for money, and would consider myself quite good at it, but the notion of programming something like an autonomous vehicle would fill me with dread. There's a reason air traffic control uses the same shitty code written in the 80's - it's time-served and the bugs are well-known. I wouldn't fancy my chances on the M1 at 80mph with software that hadn't had at least ten years of daily hammering. 

ToneControl

bluechargeboy said:

Gassage said:

bluechargeboy said:

Let us not forget that hands-free calling also significantly reduces driver attention to the road. It is more acceptable than using a handset or texting, but still equivalent to being on the alcohol limit, reactions-wise.

I reckon the actual dialing of the call is the danger time. If that is true, should we only be alowed incoming calls?

Actually the conversation is what causes you to lose interest in your surroundings. See here for example. conversations with passengers are different because they notice when the driver's attention is alerted to a hazard.

If you have kids they must be very very quiet

CabbageCat

The simple act of driving a car is dangerous. We know when we get behind the wheel of a car that we are putting lives at risk. I like to think that people bear that in mind when deciding whether driving somewhere is really necessary (or at least when deciding whether to criticize others for putting people's lives at risk).