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

[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! 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.