Decisions, decisions. Which bogeyman should get the blame here?

[Ixion]

From the Harold



..
Text message blamed for road accident

28.04.06 1.00pm

A message on a driver's cellphone has been blamed for an accident which left a 76-year-old woman with punctured lungs and a smashed pelvis on a pedestrian crossing after his van skidded into her.

Masterton farm worker Benjamin Riddiford's cellphone, which was lying on the passenger's seat as he drove along Chapel Street, beeped a message as he was driving, a court heard yesterday.

Riddiford, 18, was convicted by Judge Tom Broadmore of careless driving causing injury and fined $1000 and disqualified for six months. Half the fine was to be paid to the victim.

Police prosecutor Sergeant Garry Wilson said that about 8am on Sunday, January 15, this year, Riddiford was driving north on Chapel Street in his Mitsubishi van. As he approached the pedestrian crossing at the intersection Chapel and Jackson streets, his cellphone beeped on the passenger's seat.

He said the defendant looked over at the phone and when he looked back at the road, he saw an elderly woman on the crossing.

He braked heavily, which caused the wheels to lock and skid, but could not avoid the victim, who was struck with the left front of the van, sustaining multiple injuries.



So, the text message was to blame for this nasty accident. Convincing evidence of how wicked they are. We need a new law.

Am I the only one who see's something wrong with this?

Here was Mr Riddiford driving along, his phone beeped, and he glanced over at it. When he looked back (presumably only a second later), lo and behold, a pedestrian had appeared out a space warp in front of him. And he could not help hitting her.

Now it is possible that Mr Riddiford is lying ,and that he did not merely glance over at the phone on the seat. That he was actually texting. But I think the police would have followed that idea up fairly hard and his tale does have the ring of truth to it.

So, the text message was to blame for the crash. See, like every one says, cell phones should be banned in vehicles (not enough to ban USING them , cos he wasn't)

Um , and , uh, of course, it's nothing to do with the fact that he was not keeping a proper lookout BEFORE the messgae beep? Cos old ladies don't usually make an Olympic sprint from out-of-sight to the crossing . One can usually see them tottering up to it well before they get there.

And, nothing to do with the fact that he was , manifestly, goiing too fast. What's the speed on approaching a pedestrian crossing?

Or with the fact that he coudn't drive for shit ." He braked heavily, which caused the wheels to lock and skid, but could not avoid the victim". So how fast was he going , then? And did no-one teach him that locked wheels are not a good way to stop.

Nor the fact that , careless as he may have been, the old duck was foolish to step out in front of a speeding car that was showing no signs of stopping. Pedestrians do have responsibilitiues too.

So, I wonder how this gets entered into the statistics Chalk it up to the new bogeyman on the block, using a cellphone? Or to the good old bogeyman, "excessive speed"? Gotta keep it simple . That's the trouble with real life, it's never as simple as it sounds.

And , extrapolating from that, how much reliance may we place in the "speed is a factor in xxx% of accidents" .

[Qkkid]

kinda sucks. Old lady hurt and young fella probably hasnt learnt his lesson

[Hitcher]

Sigh. Mr Riddiford offered the text message defence as a mitigating factor. An excuse, if you will. The judge was unmoved by this and convicted him of the crime he was charged with: hitting and injuring a pedestrian on a marked crossing, not reading a text message while driving.

[madboy]

The only thing I am confident of in this case is that there will be three sides to the story.

His side
Her side
The truth

And none of those three sides will necessarily bear any resemblance to that news article quoted.

[Ixion]

Sigh. Mr Riddiford offered the text message defence as a mitigating factor. An excuse, if you will. The judge was unmoved by this and convicted him of the crime he was charged with: hitting and injuring a pedestrian on a marked crossing, not reading a text message while driving.


He was charged with careless driving, and thus convicted. There is no law specifically aginst hitting and injuring a pedestrian on a marked crossing. (Though such is certainly illegal) .

But the Harold has seen fit to assign blame to the text message. The bit I highlighted.

In the court of public opinion both Mr Riddiford and text messages ahve been convicted.

[Hitcher]

Sigh. Too tired to explain the obvious. Friday evening. Sense of humour nearly run dry.

[Motu]

I've noticed the last few years that pedsetrians are more pushy on their right to be on the crossing.Used to be you waited until the cars cleared a bit,then stepped out when someone stopped,or you gave suficient space for the car to stop in time.Now they will just step out forcing you to stop.I hate that when there are no cars behind me.Girls usualy.

So he glanced at his phone,he could of been looking in his mirror,down a side street,one of the countless things we do in control of a car.Similar to my other thread - there is possibly blame on both sides,one side may be totaly innocent....but the law will only find one party at fault.

[Winston001]

Ixion - that's just a media beatup. Journalists need a hook for each story to make it interesting. This leads to appalling reporting at times because a bias/slant is required in order to bring the "interesting" element to the top.

I hates it I hates it I hates it. :sick:

[Ixion]

Yes, I realise that. What I was getting at, is that such "beat ups" become the (unwarrented) expression of "public opinion"

The press publish a story "Sweet old lady horribly injured by motorist - text message to blame". Stan and Ethel and Krystal and all the rest of take their news and opinions in sound bites go "Ohh how horrible - text message to blame. Ohh another horrible accident caused by drivers using cell phones". Syd and Mabel (or was it Stan and Ethel? they're all interchangeable ) and Kylie then go off quite certain that there is incontrovertable evidence of cell phones causing accidents. Rinse , lather, repeat.

Then some politician looking for a barrow to push commssions a public survey

"Do you think cell phones cause accidents ?" - Oooohh yes, says Mabel, I remember one just the other day, poor old lady hurt

"Do you think there should be a new law to ban them"? Oh yes says Syd. (Bit hard to say no, given his previous answer - or was that Ethel's - oh well, they're all interchangeable)

And , poof, out of his magic bag the poiltician pulls yet more restrictions.

Now, maybe cell phones when driving ARE dangerous. Maybe not. What IS certain is that such media beatups make it much harder to establish an objective assessment.

You don't care, cos you ride a bike, and can't use a cellphone so they should be banned? Fairy muff. But what if the next press beat up is "Those noisy motorcycles" ? Complete with stories of how they caused a poor young mother to miscarry? And lots of stuff about how grief stricken she is. Tough new laws about exhausts required, eh?

Which is partly why the vaunted freedom of the press is a crock of shit, because 9 times out of 10 it is but freedom to mislead. And illustrates that the fourth estate is as corrupt as the other three.

Nationalise the lot of them!

[bobsmith]

Ixion has a point... Next story might be a motorist who looked away at an intersaction to marvel at a noisy bike behind him and ended up hitting a pedestrian. Is the bike to blame? (To be honest, I must confess that I occationally lose my attention while driving, looking at bikes on/off road).

Freedom of press is indeed a crock of shit, however supression of press would be a crime... Bloody problem with having complete idiots and scum sucking bastards with no intelligence or morals write the stories. (oh and having worse idiots run the country and bloody idiotic majority of population believing in this two groups of scum sucking bastards, if you follow)

[scumdog]

His 'glance' may have included reading a lengthy txt message...

[dawnrazor]

all drivers hands should be clamped to the wheel at all times, all entertainments should be removed and the windows left open at all times, that might focus them on the road rather then picking lint from their arseholes.

[Lou Girardin]

In days past, people were perceptive enough to read between the lines. Now, in the age of the sound bite, stuff like this forms public opinion. You see it time and again, a prime example being the boy racer laws.
Having said that, I too want cellphone use in cars banned, I've seen too much stupid driving while they're being used.

[Pixie]

Sigh. Too tired to explain the obvious. Friday evening. Sense of humour nearly run dry.
I'll do it for you.
He gave a feeble excuse and was rightly convicted of careless driving

[Lou Girardin]

The only thing I am confident of in this case is that there will be three sides to the story.

His side
Her side
The truth

And none of those three sides will necessarily bear any resemblance to that news article quoted.

What's her side? "I was on the crossing and was hit by a car"?

[Hitcher]

Ixion - that's just a media beatup. Journalists need a hook for each story to make it interesting. This leads to appalling reporting at times because a bias/slant is required in order to bring the "interesting" element to the top.
Except in this case it's not a "beat up". The reportage is perfectly fine. A text message was blamed for the accident. Hence all my sighing earlier.

[sunhuntin]

from what i think i read on the dom post....he sent her flowers and has also offered to do her lawns for "X" amount of time....so along with the conviction, hes also pulling finger to try and make up for it somewhat....a lot more than most people would do.

[Ixion]

Sigh (do you have patent rights on that Mr Hitcher).

The point here is that the text message did *not* cause the accident. It contributed to it.

The accident was caused by a concurrent combination of several things:


Driver not paying sufficient attention to his surroundings (didn't see tha lady approaching the crossing)
Driver going at speed inappropriate for the conditions(too fast approaching a crossing)
Driver didn't know how to stop quickly (locked wheels)
Pedestrian failing to take appropriate precautions (check the oncoming vehicle *is* slowing down before stepping out)
Driver distracted (the cellphone/text message)


At least 5 things to cause that accident. Take ANY ONE of the five away, and very likely the old lady would not have been hurt (there might be others , but those are the ones that can be identified from the article)

All of them are things we have all been guilty of some time or other. Taken together, they do constitute careless driving .The carelessness is allowing 4 of the 5 (driver only responsible for 4) to happen at the same time.

But, from the press report , Stan and Mabel would never deduce that there was anything involved other than " a text message to blame for accident" .

Drivers claim certain privileges and are held accountable for using them with care and good judgement. The media claim certain privileges, and should be
held accountable for using them with care and good judgement.

Careless driving? No doubt. Careless reporting? I'd reckon so.

[idb]

There are no mitigating factors here.
Allowing yourself to be distracted and so causing an accident is careless driving - simple.

Shouldn't people reading the article be able to deduce this for themselves?

[Ixion]

'Tis not a matter of mitigating factors. he was careless, as the court agreed.
He was careless because:

He should have seen a crossing ahead, and slowed down.
He should have seen the old lady approaching the crossing, and prepared for her to step out.
He should not have looked at his cell phone unless it was safe to do so (though if he had taken care with the first two points, he probably could have safely done so)
And, if he had had better driving skills he might still have been able to stop. Which latter is not a matter affecting the careless driving charge one way or other, but would doubtless have been of great benefit to the old lady.

And whilst you or I might deduce all the above from the article, we may be sure that Stan Mabel and Harold did not.

Simplistic reasons bring simplistic cures. But as the real worldis seldom simple , the simplistic cures seldm work.

Too many people being injured in accidents. Must be cos they're going to fast, The cure is to dish out more speeding tickets. That'll cure the problem, right?

[idb]

My point is that I agree with the court in rejecting the cell phone as a mitigating factor.
However I don't see that the paper should have withheld that piece of information because people should be able to work out for themselves that the cellphone did not cause the accident.

[bobsmith]

people should be able to work out for themselves that the cellphone did not cause the accident.

These idiotic majority of public these days can't work out anything for themselves these days.

For fuck's sake, now thinking logically is politically incorrect these days anyway. That's why we now have a new nationwide education system that's designed to dumb down the population, so that the dumb people wouldn't feel so bad since no one would be educated... Fucking retards.

[Winston001]

Except in this case it's not a "beat up". The reportage is perfectly fine. A text message was blamed for the accident. Hence all my sighing earlier.

Not quite. The driver/defendant tried to blame the text message. The police and the Judge instead placed the blame on him - he was prosecuted and convicted. The excuse is mitigation at most.

But the court reporter deliberately composed that piece with her first line - which gives the strongest message to the reader - saying "A message on a driver's cellphone has been blamed for an accident........."

Sounds like a decent guy if he's going to do her lawns etc. More than most would offer.

[Hitcher]

The point here is that the text message did *not* cause the accident. It contributed to it.
And that is EXACTLY what the Herald's story said. It said that the text message was BLAMED for the accident. It is a great angle to lead with. If I had been reporting this case it is exactly the angle I would have gone with.

[madboy]

What's her side? "I was on the crossing and was hit by a car"?"I walked up to the pedestrian crossing. I stopped and carefully looked to my right, and then carefully looked to my left, then I carefully looked right again. I saw a big heavy metallic projectile, that could kill me if it hit me, coming toward me but I knew that it could stop in time if the driver was not distracted by any one of a thousand things so I stepped out onto the crossing knowing that the good lord would smile on me."

I could be wrong.

I've blamed a cellphone ringing for an "accident" before. Was quite convenient, saved me a ticket. Cops who attended thought the camera car was parked in a stupid place anyway.

[Lou Girardin]

I could be wrong.



The court thought so.

[Cookie]

I understand your point Ixion and I cringe whenever a complex issue is simplied to identify a single bogey. "P" is another classic bogeyman example.

In the case of sending and receiving texts while driving though, I don't mind some bad press until the Gumbiment sorts this out.

Last Friday night I saw a courier (in heavy Queen Street traffic) on a "Street Tragic" (I mean Magic) who had one hand on the 'bar while texting with the other hand! :mad: FFS.

[slowpoke]

There are no mitigating factors here.
Allowing yourself to be distracted and so causing an accident is careless driving - simple.

Shouldn't people reading the article be able to deduce this for themselves?
Sure he's used "the cellphone distracted me" as an excuse but he could have just as easily said "I just glanced at the speedo, your honour" and all of a sudden it's NOT careless driving? Same action....
More to the point, if he had said the above, and blamed his actions on the "speed kills" advertising, the draconian enforcement of the "speed kills" policy, and the resulting understandable paranoia then who gets brought into the frame as indirectly responsible? (insert your choice of gubmint bureaucracies here).

[SwanTiger]

I agree with Mr. Ixion's emphasis on lack of media honesty or effective "abuse of freedom/rights".

And in regards to the little old lady and the young fella driving the van. I think the blame goes both ways. Though my opinion may be bias... I drive around Orewa a lot which is a living breathing retirement village full of, you guessed it, OLD PEOPLE. Not that it concerns me a great deal, however with crossings everywhere you begin to notice the "HAR HAR FUCKWITT, YOU HAVE TO STOP" attitude which results in people darting out in front of you or exerting some sort of imaginary authority.

Then again, my Cousin was struck by a 4X4 while crossing a surburban street. The driver was apparently on his cell phone at the time. He did brake however his vehicle was used for work purposes (builder) which mean that it was fully loaded with equipment and extra weight increasing the stopping distance. As far as I'm aware, he was effectively let off for that reason.

HOWEVER, it was proven that he was exceeding the speed limit by at least 15kmp/h in a 50kmp/h zone.

So I can see both sides.