QUOTE (russelldust @ May 30 2004, 11:17)

he was very very unlucky

why was he unlucky then?

 

surely that was more reason for him to have his wits about him & know not to speed?

unucky to get such a severe sentence given all the circumstances...

 

he was still in the wrong though

ahhhh, ok then

QUOTE (Louise @ May 30 2004, 11:50)

QUOTE (russelldust @ May 30 2004, 11:17) he was very very unlucky why was he unlucky then?   surely that was more reason for him to have his wits about him & know not to speed? There is no consistancy on speed limits in this country, two identical roads can have two very different speed limits. The reason?   Speed was not the cause of the accident (it only accounts for 1% of all crashes, accidents, etc..). The man would have died if both drivers were doing the speed limit. He may have survived had his air bag deployed though.   Justice does not exist (certainly not while juries exist).

I do understand where you're coming from Alex. It sounds as though nobody has asked themselves the key question, "would it have worked out the same way if he hadn't been speeding?"

 

Yes, the whole concept of juries seems crazy to me too. And the whole blame/compensation culture disgusts me. Somebody has to found guilty ... and we'll completely fuck them up (to a point which is neither beneficial to society, nor proportional to the crime).

 

For example it's mad that people can claim hundreds of pounds just because they say they got whiplash from a trivial bump in the car, or because they had a minor accident at work which was probably partly their own fault anyway. What the fuck does that achieve?