Page 3 of 59
Posted on April 28 at 1:27 p.m.
"My premise is that if it's the other driver's fault (or pedestrian), 100%, then no fault should be assessed to the DUI driver either.
Some commentors on here have insinuated that the DUI driver should not be on the road, so it doesn't matter whose fault the accident is. It can always be blamed on the DUI driver simply for existing at that place in that moment, even if they did not make any errors in judgement or break any traffic laws."
I said that your premise is false, because you're setting up the percentage-assignment aspect of your "what-if" scenario, by *pre-assigning* the fault to the other person. This excludes the secondary person from being assigned fault on the face. However, it's also a misleading construct, because--as I already addressed--there is no test for being DWT (Driving While Tired). You cannot use my explanation of excusing a "tired" driver and substitute a drunk one--they are not the same. [Note: If a driver actually say, fall asleep because of being "tired", and causes an accident, then I believe the violation would be assessed on the outcome (failure to maintain a lane, property damage, endangering others, related death/dismemberment) , and not the causation. In the case of a DUI, one could be charged with the outcome, and the DUI is not only (probably) causative, but it's ILLEGAL TO BEGIN WITH.]
Lastly, don't overlook that the driver of the Mazda--had s/he survived--could have also been charged with something, considering the loss of control. This would mean that both drivers bear some fault, but one is dead while the other is not (and happen to be the one that was DUI).
On Freeway Closed at Castillo Due to Triple-Fatality DUI Crash
Posted on April 28 at 12:45 p.m.
Anyone else have "Tsing Loh, Sweet Chariot", playing in their heads?
On A Woman Unglued
Posted on April 28 at 12:33 p.m.
On The Ghost of Ableism
Posted on April 23 at 2:50 p.m.
"equus_posteriori, what if somebody is tired, who shouldn't be on the road, gets into an accident and it is the other driver's fault, 100%? Do we blame the tired driver for that, too, since they shouldn't have been on the road? I'm a big fan of principles and consistency, so help me out here."
1) As far as I know, there is no legal limit to "tired".
2) You're premise is contradictory-- If the accident is "the other driver's fault, 100%", then no fault can be assesses to the tired "somebody".
However, a "what if" scenario might be possible to adversely affect "principles and consistency", as there is open room for speculation. For example, what about if a motorist with a suspended license still drives, and collides with a person DUI? How about if a DUI meet a DUI, comin' through the rye?
Posted on April 21 at 2:15 p.m.
ANY time driver is found to be DUI (in Morua's case his BAC was 0.17), s/he is considered at fault because THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DRIVING. This does not necessarily mean that alcohol was a *causative factor* of the actual event, but it is STILL ILLEGAL, and so the person may/will be charged.
The idea is that a person with an illegal BAC should not be on the road, and therefore would not be able to be involved in in any collision<--this term used, as "accident" implies that the event(s) is/are unavoidable, and happened by chance.
Posted on April 14 at 3:13 p.m.
The two comments that I think are closest to the truth:
"First Amendment does not protect her right to attack a minor with a poster." _JohnLocke (This is worded badly. The correct part here is that she attacked someone--according to the article, "scratched and pushed". Also, the First Amendment doesn't protect the "right to attack", nor is there really such a thing--unless the "attack" is a defensive response.)
"I was willing to give Prof. Miller-Young benefit of pregancy [sic] doubt; but soon after she should have at least apologized and admitted her mistake instead of doubling down like a Survivors of Abortion Holocaust kook." _Ken_Volok (Pregnancy hormones might be a factor in the professor's reaction. However, even if accepted as an absolute condition, an apology would be a fitting "punishment"--it's unlikely that she will think she wasn't right, but being forced to apologize might make make her realize that she did something wrong.)
This issue is really unworthy to be elevated to requiring a "First Amendment Defense", for either side.
On UCSB Professor Pleads Not Guilty to Theft and Battery
Posted on April 14 at 1:44 p.m.
While this guy is certainly no angel, and certainly overreacted, the old guy had no right to physically touch him ("While Stekkinger’s back was turned, McGrath put his hand on his shoulder...."). And, considering they had just had an argument, the older gentleman should have found security, or someone in administration.
On Man Sentenced to Eight Years for Punching Elderly Victim
Posted on April 14 at 12:49 p.m.
"Halfling", a la Tolkien (because "Hobbit", even intended well, is too similar to "midget".)
Or, perhaps "hauflin", which Wikipedia defines as a Scots word which pre-dates Tolkein. It's actually a description of a teenager, but I don't see why it couldn't be appropriated, and it seems inherently cool to me....
On Petty or Prejudice?
Posted on March 6 at 10:59 a.m.
"There are many, many people more deserving of our time and energy than Einstein."
And yet, "many, many" who are not.
On Dog Bite History Prompted Euthanasia
Posted on January 23 at 10:19 a.m.
Mohammed would be a problem, for sure...but I think that a Candy Christ would be somewhat acceptable--as long as it wasn't on a stick.
On My Life: A Chocolate Buddha