TonyMax wrote:I guess it might satisfy some people's desires if the driver was charged, but it won't do anything for me. I feel for him or her, even if the driver is deemed to be "at fault" I doubt they left home that morning intending to run down a cyclist.
So let's say I'm driving my car and my phone beeps and I make the decision to pick up my phone and check the message. In that instant that my attention was elsewhere, your partner/mother/brother/sister (pick someone you love) steps out onto the road and I run into them. Will you still feel for me? Even though I was doing something illegal while 'in control' of a vehicle capable of killing people? And if I had left the phone where it was I could have stopped without incident?
I reckon you would be after my blood. And I reckon you would probably want to stop this from happening again.
Your comment is consistent with us still calling collisions 'accidents', and why cars are perceived as this creature that we are unable to control, absolving drivers of any blame. (Oopsies! My car ran off the road!)
Take the recent tragedy of a 4yo being killed in Berwick. First the heading: Four year old boy dies after being hit by out of control vehicle... Oh, I didn't realise cars could drive themselves. We have to get to the fifth paragraph before there is any mention of a driver; It is believed the driver stated he had undergone dialysis and had blood taken just before the incident. So I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest he probably shouldn't have been driving, yet there was plenty of sympathy for the driver.
We've really got to change this attitude that deaths involving motor vehicles is normal.
Please note; I'm not suggesting the driver who ran into Mike was on his phone or was even at fault; I'll let the investigators decide that.