accident with cyclist in Santa Cruz

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

There is always a possibility when driving that you can hurt someone and go to jail, even if you stay awake. It's a risk any driver takes. Riding a bike around cars is another risk that any cyclist takes.

Trying to ride through cars is even riskier

 

[Canuck]

There about 700 cyclist killed by automobiles each year.
There are approximately 51,000 injuries due to automobiles of cyclist.

Yes, but when it's a Tesla, "Tesla" is prominent in the headline and article... and when it's any other vehicle, the make of the vehicle is usually not in the headline and often not even in the article.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Yes, but when it's a Tesla, "Tesla" is prominent in the headline and article... and when it's any other vehicle, the make of the vehicle is usually not in the headline and often not even in the article.

+ 1

IMO main fact is that the Tesla, being a revolutionary automaker brand, makes people rise suspicion. So one thing that is considered "normal" for other automakers is not considered normal for Tesla.
That's why IMO active safety features should have implemented on all Tesla cars earlier in order to avoid as much as possible accidents like this.

 

[yobigd20]

That's why it's called an "accident". Nobody does this on purpose. Jail time is not warranted here nor is it a deterrent of any kind. Jail time should only be warranted for repeat offenders. You don't even go to jail for DUI until after your 3rd or 4th offense. To go to jail for this accident is absurd. He is not a criminal. It was a sad accident. That is it. He has to live with the fact that he killed somebody for the rest of his life which is enough of a penance.

 

[tezco]

Bonny Doon man sentenced to jail for fatal Santa Cruz Tesla versus bike collision - Santa Cruz Sentinel

I'm not sure what purpose jail time serves.
I don't think it's a deterrent to driving while drowsy (the risk of killing yourself is a much bigger deterrent than the risk of 200 days in jail).
I don't think jail is the best way to preventing him from repeating the behavior (revoking his license seems equally effective).

According to the artice his licence was also revoked for 3 years.

 

[jeff_adams]

That's why it's called an "accident". Nobody does this on purpose. Jail time is not warranted here nor is it a deterrent of any kind. Jail time should only be warranted for repeat offenders. You don't even go to jail for DUI until after your 3rd or 4th offense. To go to jail for this accident is absurd. He is not a criminal. It was a sad accident. That is it. He has to live with the fact that he killed somebody for the rest of his life which is enough of a penance.

I agree it was a sad accident, but there should be some deterrent from people refusing to take responsibility for their actions. First thing he did after the accident was "lawyer up" and claim the car smell caused the accident (instead of admiting he shouldn't have been driving when he was that tired). I'm sure he did that because he feared a civil lawsuit from the victim's family.

This accident happened about 4 miles from where I live.

http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_13156931

Guy not only pleaded guilty, but asked for the maximum sentence because of remorse for his actions.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2009/10/01/869509/san-luis-obispo-resident-dion.html

 

[brianman]

Because while staying in jail they will have time to reflect about their wrong behaviour and make better afterwards when they will get again their freedom.

They also might get a chance to catch up on sleep. Or maybe not...

 

[CHGolferJim]

Happens in Texas all the time, which is why I don't ride here. However, the problem with jail time is that there are 2.6M prisoners in the U.S. up from 200,000 in the 1970s. Since they made for-profit prisons, they created a demand for prisoners. I don't believe that we are less law abiding then we were in the 1970s.

Aren't most imprisonments due to drug-related crimes (which have sky-rocketed since the 70s)?

 

[jerry33]

Aren't most imprisonments due to drug-related crimes (which have sky-rocketed since the 70s)?

Perhaps, but I think it depends on what you consider a drug-related crime. Having a couple of ounces, or a trailer full.

Before the 1970s pay increased with productivity. After the 1970s pay remained flat while productivity went up--except for CEOs who's pay skyrocketed. I'd suggest that a lot of drug related crime is due to economic circumstances and people not being able to get a living wage.

 

[JRP3]

A trailer full just means planning ahead :wink: