Snarkpit Forum Index » General Banter » Who's at fault?
Who's at fault?
« previous page 1
2
3 next page »
Post Reply
Quote
 Re: Who's at fault?
Posted by fishy on Fri Apr 29th at 2:06am 2005

? quoting Orpheus
? quoting satchmo

It's like saying, which is worse, a rapist or a murderer?

surely you can come up with a better comparison than this.

i thought my "what's heavier, a pound of sweets or a pound of used diapers?" was a goodun.

if the driver that's on the phone swerved across the middle of the road and hit the drunk head-on, then the fault is his, and vice versa. if both swerved at the same time in some freakish event and hit each other, then both are equally at fault. fault and responsibility are the same, but often often differ from 'legal' resonsibility. if you're asking who is legally responsible, then that would depend on whatever laws were in place where the accident happened.

tail-ending someone used to be the same here. automatic legal responsibility. the law was changed to take into account arseholes that cut in on you, or brake hard for no reason.

i seen tv prog that showed a german system on the autobans. there was no speed limit at all, so to stop you getting too close to the car in front there was these big long boxes painted on the road. if a car goes into the box before the car in front has cleared it, a camera takes a pic and the law kicks some ass. it looked like a really good way of detering tail-gaters.

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Who's at fault?
Posted by Orpheus on Fri Apr 29th at 2:15am 2005

for the record, i feel each is equally responsible. the only deciding factor being whom actually set the event into action leading to the wreck.

i am no more apt to blame drunk drivers than i am cell phone users to be honest, but i was curious to see how the mind set was here.

i am a bit surprised to note that some do share my belief that cell phones are indeed accident inducing items, but i was not surprised to note that drunk drivers still take first place.

thats sad really when you consider just how many people use them improperly, and how really few drivers are actually trained to drive. i took a six week intensive course on how to drive. i still feel it should have been longer, but...

anyways. please continue the debate.

/me is off to bed

nite/nite all

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Who's at fault?
Posted by Cassius on Fri Apr 29th at 2:27am 2005

A woman goes out in the middle of the night and waits by the road. As a drunk driver approaches, she shines a light in his face, and he hits her. Whose fault is the accident?

The woman's, of course - what was she doing outside the kitchen?





Quote
 Re: Who's at fault?
Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Fri Apr 29th at 2:29am 2005

Night Orph.

There are a lot of facts and studies that prove drunk driving is the number one cause of vehicular deaths. And while I don't doubt cell phones cause accidents, so do talking to passengers, fiddling with the radio, and reaching/leaning over to grab something. A study I cited showed these things to be more of a problem than cellphones. I think we all notice the oblivious driver with the cell phone, but we don't really notice all the oblivious drivers out there who don't really have a visible excuse.

I'm going to open myself up for some flack, but I think that unless they ban passengers from talking to drivers under all circumstances, I don't really understand this uproar about cell phones. There have been studies (like Crono mentioned and are talked about in one of aforementioned sources) that show handhelds aren't any more dangerous than hand-free phones. The issue is attention and awareness, not simply having 1 less hand on the wheel. A distracting conversation is a distracting conversation, whether it's with someone on the phone, or someone in the car. I guess the only difference is that a passenger will scream just before you crash your car.
[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Who's at fault?
Posted by G4MER on Fri Apr 29th at 5:46am 2005

? quoting Orpheus
We had this debate over the CB radio on my last run, with no real solution resolved by topics end..

A drunk driver and a driver on a cell phone collide while driving. Who is at fault? Both are driving impaired so how would you determine who is responsible?

discuss...

Ok in Texas it is against the law to talk on a cell phone and drive at the same time.. by state law you are required to pull off to answer or talk on your cell phone, unless its a hands free built into the car type phone.

On the other hand it is also against the law to drive while under the influence.

In this cituation both drivers are at fault. I think the Drunk faces a more substanial penelty, because of his impaired mode of being. He faces a DWI, and sever fines and maybe even jail time, and in the state of texas the loss of his licence for 1 year with a $100-$300 fee applied to its renewing.

The Cell phone person would face a couple tickets and a huge insurance penelty for driving with a cell phone.

The answer to your question from a Police point of view, the Drunk would be at fault, it can be more proven in a court of law, where as the cell phone person can put the cell phone in his/her pocket, and can just denigh ever driving while on it.

Moraly - they are both at fault and both breaking the law.

One more fact.. If either hit the other from behind, that person would be the cause. In a Head on collision, see above.. ( the drunk would most likely survive and be blamed ).

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Who's at fault?
Posted by Orpheus on Fri Apr 29th at 6:07am 2005

? quoting Addicted to Morphine
Night Orph.

There are a lot of facts and studies that prove drunk driving is the number one cause of vehicular deaths. And while I don't doubt cell phones cause accidents, so do talking to passengers, fiddling with the radio, and reaching/leaning over to grab something. A study I cited showed these things to be more of a problem than cellphones. I think we all notice the oblivious driver with the cell phone, but we don't really notice all the oblivious drivers out there who don't really have a visible excuse.

I'm going to open myself up for some flack, but I think that unless they ban passengers from talking to drivers under all circumstances, I don't really understand this uproar about cell phones. There have been studies (like Crono mentioned and are talked about in one of aforementioned sources) that show handhelds aren't any more dangerous than hand-free phones. The issue is attention and awareness, not simply having 1 less hand on the wheel. A distracting conversation is a distracting conversation, whether it's with someone on the phone, or someone in the car. I guess the only difference is that a passenger will scream just before you crash your car.

fact: test can be displayed in any light the person taking it wants to.
fact: you can have an accident doing anything while driving, including... just driving.
fact: its completely irrelevant to include "reaching" and "radio adjusting" because they are separate incidents, and not as provable.
fact: you can check a persons air time and determine exactly when they were on it last.
fact: to use a stupid act, to defend another stupid act, is...still stupid.
fact: if you wanted to take attention away from the cell phone issue, wouldn't you concentrate on all the other causes?
fact: being drunk is no more impairing than cell phone use. its just a longer duration impairment.
fact: cell phones kill. i have seen it. in fact, i have seen it more often but it usually only involves the person doing it. directly opposite from drunk drivers. /me wonders why?
fact: cell phones make America far more revenue, it will take far more time to recognize the threat.
fact: you cannot fix something, until you admit its broken.
fact: hands FREE phones cause just as many accidents!

http://www.statehighwaysafety.org/html/state_info/laws/cellphone_laws.html
http://www.geocities.com/morganleepena/
http://www.mrtraffic.com/cellular.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=states+that+currently+have+cell+phone+laws

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Who's at fault?
Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Fri Apr 29th at 12:33pm 2005

? quote:

fact: being drunk is no more impairing than cell phone use. its just a longer duration impairment.


How can you say that's true? When you're drunk you're MUCH more impaired than when you're on a cell phone. The site where you get this information claims that : "The risk of having a traffic accident while using a cellular phone is the same as that while driving drunk (NEJM, 2/13/97)" What is this NEJM, 2/13/97? Is that a company, a study, or what? They don't substantiate their claim with anything reputable or concrete.

? quote:

fact: hands FREE phones cause just as many accidents!



Which means... it's not the cell phone that's the problem, it's having a conversation. So why don't we outlaw drivers talking to passengers?
[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Who's at fault?
Posted by $loth on Fri Apr 29th at 1:03pm 2005

I say it's both their faults, if one was not drinking you would still have the guy on the phone, if the guy wasn't of the phone there would still be a drunk, and would probably still colide, if neither of them had not been distracted then there's a higher chance they wouldn't have collided.
[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Who's at fault?
Posted by Leperous on Fri Apr 29th at 1:40pm 2005

For the simple reason that passengers will probably be watching the road as well, unlike someone on the other end of the phone.

But having said that, you should also analyse your "facts" to check whether or not simple conversations in cars cause a similar number of accidents, and I doubt that you can get any figures for that (unlike having phone call logs). But I would guess not, due to the difference in nature between phone and real life conversations, and where your focus lies in both (I personally find that talking on the phone makes me 'unfocus' on things and become less aware of my surroundings, unlike talking to someone in real life).





Quote
 Re: Who's at fault?
Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Fri Apr 29th at 2:16pm 2005

Both your points are true. I'm going to drop the argument about cell phones and conversations because it's harder to substantiate.

However, I still believe being drunk impairs your ability to drive more than talking a cell phone, and drunk driving contributes to more deaths than cell phones.
[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Who's at fault?
Posted by Kage_Prototype on Fri Apr 29th at 4:47pm 2005

Both. [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Who's at fault?
Posted by Orpheus on Fri Apr 29th at 8:20pm 2005

for the moment, i am gonna let this ride because its rapidly turning into a "Me vs. All" thread again. My opinions of driving hazards are not any more popular than most of the rest of my opinions.. i genuinely wanted to have a topic we all could comment on without any fears of repercussions.. i do not feel we have any alcoholics nor chronic cell phone fanatics, so i was hoping no one would be as offended as our last..... topic.

you guys think i am anal about gays, you should see me in something i am really passionate about. :/

this topic, is not a passion, just an annoyance.

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Who's at fault?
Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Fri Apr 29th at 8:30pm 2005

I hope you don't think I disagree with you out of principle... its just seems we've fallen on opposite sides on both issues.

I'm not staunchly impassioned either way. It just seems that out of personal experience I'm more functional and aware on a cell phone than I am drunk. Besides, I was educated to firmly believe drunk driving was the stupidest thing in the world. Perhaps they'll amend driver's ed classes to focus on cell phones as well.
[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Who's at fault?
Posted by Orpheus on Fri Apr 29th at 10:18pm 2005

? quoting Addicted to Morphine
I hope you don't think I disagree with you out of principle...

I do not think you disagree because its me if thats what you are implying. I do however feel that i am not clearly conveying my ideals, cause you are actually using words that prove my point, but you do not seem to clinch on it somehow.

IE you admit that reaching into the glove box is hazardous, and you admit that cell phone use is no worse, but then you say cell phones are not a problem. 3 points of the same triangle, but you keep chopping the top off. it is so confusing talking to you sometimes.

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Who's at fault?
Posted by Pegs on Fri Apr 29th at 11:54pm 2005

Im not realy Old enough to understand half the stuff that goes on when it comes to cars and roads etc. But personaly i consider using a mobiles is more dangerous than drinking beforehand. I say this because when your "Drunk" so iv ebben told you still keep a relitave amount of Concerntration on what your doing at that time (and in this case its driving) unless he was completeley Wreked out of his head then im supprised he manadged to pull out of where the car started.

To the mobile, wile talking to somone over the phone you do cut out everything around you. TV, other people surrounding noises etc. So talking in a car wile driving is more dandgerous than being drunk (thats what i think)

About the Argument. It is impossable at this time to "realy know" who actualy cuased the accedent. the likleyness of them both driving exactly in the middle of the road or swerve into eachover at exactly the same time is extreemly unlikley. I would say that the person that makes the first error is the one responsable. As Orph was saying the person that stops in the middle of the moterway should be the one who gets the blame. it shouldnt be the person thats behind him that gets the blame, its not like the car infront slowled down to a stop. he just "Stops". Making the person behind ram intot the car infront wether he likes it or not.

I also discussed this with a friend at school yesterday, he also agreed with me, its the person that makes the first error, becasue the second person who colides doesnt have enough time to react. I also discusse dit with anoterh friend who disagrees. saying that wile using a phone you can see what your doing and you can switch from concerntrating on the phone to driving, as in being Drunk you just have no controll. a very fair comment and it keeps me thinking of how things like this will be delt with in the futre.

Personaly the person on the phone shouldnt be on the phone and the person Drinking should be driving. One thing gets me going though, what if the person Talking on the mobile could multi task?, might give a slightly more biased awnser to what were are "debating"

Well dont have ago with me if i say anything wrong , im just saying what i feel in the matter. not taking part in the last debate i tryed to stay away becasue it got to confusing. but i feel that i may have said something werth wile.
[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Who's at fault?
Posted by Orpheus on Sat Apr 30th at 12:06am 2005

I do believe thats the longest post you've ever made Pegs smiley

its a bit confusing, but you obviously put a vast amount of thought into it.

good job. smiley

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Who's at fault?
Posted by Cassius on Sat Apr 30th at 1:02am 2005

Both and neither.



Quote
 Re: Who's at fault?
Posted by Orpheus on Sat Apr 30th at 1:04am 2005

? quoting Cassius
Both and neither.

Cass, you need to make your avatar animated. add a Dracula hiss, or a Professor Snipe sneer. that would be coolness smiley

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Who's at fault?
Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Sat Apr 30th at 2:56am 2005

? quote:
IE you admit that reaching into the glove box is hazardous, and you admit that cell phone use is no worse, but then you say cell phones are not a problem. 3 points of the same triangle, but you keep chopping the top off. it is so confusing talking to you sometimes.



I guess I'm trying to say is that if you agree that reaching into the glove compartment and cell phones are equally hazardous, then why aren't you as outraged about people reaching into their glove compartments as you are about people using cell phones? I think they are both a problem. People should be sober and should give their undivided attention to driving. It's the most dangerous day to day activity that most people partake in. But that being said, drunk driving is still a deadlier problem (based on figures).
[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Who's at fault?
Posted by Nickelplate on Sat Apr 30th at 3:38am 2005

Providing that no one crossed into anyone else's lane and no one rear-ended anyone else, If it was a head-on, IN the very center of the median, then the drunk driver is at fault.

  1. Drunk Driving is Illegal in all 50 states
  2. He should've never got his drunk ass in the car to begin with
  3. Cell phones do not invariably cause impaired judgement
  4. cell phones do not invariably cause delayed reactions

Being drunk automatically causes the last two. And i know some smartass is gonna say "Well, I know ppl who've gotten s**tfaced and can still drive WAY better than most ppl i know" But scientifically, if you are ACTUALLY drunk your reactions and judgement are impaired no matter HOW lucky your s**tfaced freinds were at the time.

The reason ppl crash with cell phones is because they're already dumbasses with impaired brains who are trying to text message while driving, or they are some airheaded urban woman talking like "Like, omigawd! I totally told her to do her nails in the OTHER color." and they get all ditzy and run off the road. But alcohol effects even ppl who USED to ahve good judgement before drinking.

and PEGS: in US traffic law, when someone rear-ends someone else, the person in the BACK of the line is "at fault" for ALL the cars. so if there is a line of 20 cars that all have rear-ended eachother and you pull up and run into the last one in line, you are actually at fault and responsible ofr ALL the damages. Sucks, huh?

[addsig]




« previous page 1
2
3 next page »
Post Reply