Car accidents and puniahment

[DanielBrown]

I'm not that aware of the punishments in Sweden, however the circumstances are quite important in judging. Based on your story he not only took a very risky chance that went wrong he also didn't show any remorse or care for you at all. Those guys are dangerous as fuck on the road and should have their licenses revoked indefinetly. Same goes for drunken drivers imo. If you get in a car drunk you've lost your right to drive.
When I was getting my license I met a guy who as I understood it had lost his license for drunken driving. Six months suspension and then he could just take the exam again. The tests here are hard as balls to pass, but he had been driving for at least 25 years so I'm sure he aced it and got his license back in no time.

Personally I've only had my license for three months(been driving for 1 ½ year) and I encounter assholes like that all the time when I'm driving in the city. A milder example, but equally dangerous, would be during a drive from Stockholm to the most southern tip of Sweden and back recently. Took around nine hours each way and most of the time it was pitch black(no lights or sun!) and the rain was pouring down. There wasn't that many cars so all my focus was trying to see the white lines so I wouldn't drive off the road. Was going at 110-130km/h.
Almost every fucking car that came along drove past me and went back into my lane straight ahead of me causing the water pushed up from their wheels to hit my windshield. Made me completely blind for a good two seconds or more and at that speed it's fucking horrifying. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but if I who haven't driven for that long knows better I don't know what their excuse is.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

I'm confused. I was under the impression that it would go to court anyway, and he could be done for dangerous driving, which means he would use his licence.

I thought this as well. If an accident is that extreme, then there's usually an investigation into it. Then the person can be charged with dangerous driving, and if found guilty they can face imprisonment, a fine, and they lose their licence. So in cases like the one described in the original post, the driver would lose their licence if they were found to have been driving dangerously.

Further to that, I think that having that law is very good, as it allows room for a full investigation and a trial. People make questionable judgements all the time when driving, and in some cases they can lead to very real and very serious consequences for themselves and others. There should definitely be a system in place where people can be punished for that.

Exactly.... The thing people seemt o get confused about is the different between that and insurance claims. Insurance will have to get into action straight away because they have to pay for road damages, and Road Agency owned instrastructure damages (I took out one of the orange phones on the motorway! Situated a mile apart each and I managed to hit it!) The final payment however is usually dependant on police findings. I remember having to send the police report to the insurance company.

You'd think so but in my case listed above there wasn't any criminal proceedings and as far as I'm aware the worst that happened was the bus driver lost his job and that's about it.

This is odd and shouldn't have happened. Police respond to all crash scenes, and the investigation is opened from that. Not only that, but the car will go to an impound where it will be investigated behind the scenes too. There would have to have been something, and if your family wanted to take it further they can. A lot of the time however it isn't due to dangerous driving. Accidents can and do happen, and missing something on a junction isn't dangerous driving.

In the OP's example it would have to be proved with witnesses that the chap who pulled out took an unessecary risk, and this would be collated with reports from the investigators from the crash scene (who can work out car speeds, reaction speeds and visibility just from marks on the road and the state of the cars.) Unfortunately, the way the law works, (and in reality, the fair way too) is that if this can't be proved then nothing will happen!

 

[spartan231490]

I can't agree. They're responsible for repairs and medical bills, one way or another, I think that's sufficient. They should get any tickets appropriate(such as reckless driving, in your example) and repeatedly getting tickets will lead to you losing your licence. Anyone can make a mistake, and many people rely on driving for their livelihoods so I can't call it justified to take someone's licence for one incident. If there's a pattern though, hell yes.

 

[Avaholic03]

Instead of treating the symptoms (i.e. punishing after an accident), I think we should treat the disease by making it MUCH harder to obtain a driver's license. There are so many people on the roads that have no right to be. You don't let felons own guns, and you shouldn't let incompetent drivers operate cars. They're both deadly weapons in the wrong hands.

 

[j0frenzy]

I think part of the problem is that we don't really do a whole lot to emphasize respect for what automobiles are, in that we treat them as just some form of travel convenience and do not emphasize that the driver is in control of a small metal box going very fast with a lot of force and can take a one to several people's lives with a collision. That said, I don't think accidents should remove licenses per se. Some times accidents are accidents. Let traffic courts decide when the driver is bad enough we need to suspend their license.

 

[Woiminkle]

I'd like to echo the sentiments of the poster above and say that prevention is better than cure. I think it should be harder to get a license and that drivers should have to be retested regularly, like say every 2 years or so, to make sure they're not getting into bad habits.

 

[lacktheknack]

The dude deserves a swift and powerful punch in the dick for yelling at your partner post-accident.

He also deserves immediate revocation of license and mandatory driving lessons again, as does everyone else who causes an accident worse than a fender-bender. Fender-benders should just be punished with the driver-at-fault paying for all the damage (or having their insurance company do so), as is the case now. Drunk drivers/initiators of a serious accident should have mandatory lessons, though, with longer and longer wait times for each repeat offense (in the case of drunk driving, third offense should put you on a fifteen year waitlist to qualify for driving lessons).

Clearly, radio ads and common sense aren't keeping people safe, so it's time to be more aggressive in removing bad drivers from the road.

If more people use the bus, then the routes will get better anyways, and it's greener and cheaper than using a car.

 

[xmbts]

Well I was hit by a car, I wasn't conscious to see what happened but the driver faced plenty of legal action from my family. I don't know if he got his license revoked but he sure paid for it. ~.~

 

[Robert Marrs]

I feel like if you are the cause of an accident due to negligence (like not paying attention) and somebody gets hurt you should be responsible for all damages. Hospital bills, mechanics etc. If you can't afford it you go to jail. If someone dies you go to jail period. If we had stricter laws on driving and actual punishments for accidents caused by idiots you would see less people taking stupid chances on the road that get people killed. Just taking away someones right to drive (which won't really stop them if they want to drive) or giving them a fine is not nearly enough when you are talking about metal machines that weigh thousands of pounds. If someone in a factory died as a result of negligence from someone operating machinery unsafely there would be hell to pay. Should be no different with cars.

 

[skywolfblue]

It depends on how reckless the driver is.
Their license should not be revoked if it was an accident, nor for a simple mistake.
For Willful Reckless driving, it should absolutely be revoked.
For Drunk driving, their license should be revoked the first time. They should be Jailed for life the second time. I find it shameful that people who have already killed people several times before Drunk driving, are still able to get behind the wheel.

Instead of treating the symptoms (i.e. punishing after an accident), I think we should treat the disease by making it MUCH harder to obtain a driver's license. There are so many people on the roads that have no right to be. You don't let felons own guns, and you shouldn't let incompetent drivers operate cars. They're both deadly weapons in the wrong hands.

Except it's not really a flaw with the driver's license exam. Sure it's a bit simple, but if you watch teenagers learning to drive or shortly after they've taken their test, nearly all of them paid attention and are observing the stuff they should. As time goes on, those people start to ignore more and more of what was in that exam, and drive recklessly.

Even if we required the Defensive Driving course to be taught to everyone, we'd still get just as many people who ignore what they've learned. It's a moral problem, rather then an educational one. We need to stop drivers from being angry, from being in a rush, from thinking that the "rules do not apply to them".

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Depending on where you are, he might already lose his license.

If it's blatantly his fault and he doesn't think he did anything wrong, he could be charged with reckless driving, and obviously if he was drinking there'd be a DUI on top of that, and any Judge could easily revoke the person's license for that. A judge could revoke his license just based on the fact that he thinks he is too bad of a driver to have a license. Remember what they always said in driver's ed? "Driving is a privilege, not a right"?. Because of that, a judge can technically take your license for no other reason than they think you're a danger to the public behind the wheel.

Even if he just made a mistake and doesn't necessarily get charged with anything, his insurance rates are likely going to skyrocket, since the insurance companies now recognize him as a liability.

 

[saoirse13]

I can't agree. They're responsible for repairs and medical bills, one way or another, I think that's sufficient. They should get any tickets appropriate(such as reckless driving, in your example) and repeatedly getting tickets will lead to you losing your licence. Anyone can make a mistake, and many people rely on driving for their livelihoods so I can't call it justified to take someone's licence for one incident. If there's a pattern though, hell yes.

Though, what about when that person has been found to have been driving with no insurance? So not only did he make a mistake by driving out into the side of us, he also did not have permission to take the car nor was he legally permitted to drive the car as he was not insured. Not only that but my partner is still 6 months on suffering from the serious injury that was caused by the other driver. it is unclear whether or not my partner will regain his sight in one of his eyes. I personally don't think one ticket for causing blindness in one eye is really justice. do you?

 

[spartan231490]

I can't agree. They're responsible for repairs and medical bills, one way or another, I think that's sufficient. They should get any tickets appropriate(such as reckless driving, in your example) and repeatedly getting tickets will lead to you losing your licence. Anyone can make a mistake, and many people rely on driving for their livelihoods so I can't call it justified to take someone's licence for one incident. If there's a pattern though, hell yes.

Though, what about when that person has been found to have been driving with no insurance? So not only did he make a mistake by driving out into the side of us, he also did not have permission to take the car nor was he legally permitted to drive the car as he was not insured. Not only that but my partner is still 6 months on suffering from the serious injury that was caused by the other driver. it is unclear whether or not my partner will regain his sight in one of his eyes. I personally don't think one ticket for causing blindness in one eye is really justice. do you?

sounds like more than one ticket. Hell, that's GTA.

 

[Lilani]

Probably not the most comical or uplifting topic, I know, but I'm curious to find out what your opinions and experiences are.

So a little background to why I'm talking about this.
At weekend I was involved in a serious car accident. I was the passenger of a pretty big car. Long story short my partner and I were driving along a main road at about 55-60mph minding our own business when some guy (about 30-40 years old) took a chance and drove right out from a side road infront of us ploughing straight into my side of the car. It was a major accident, (ambulance, paramedics and police involved) me and my partner were rushed to hospital, and were pretty much lucky to be alive and fit to tell the tale even with some serious injuries. The guy that drove into us was fine not even a scratch (luckily) however, he jumped out of his car to shout and scream at my partner while my partner tried to get to me to see how seriously injured I was. He had no concern for the possibility that he may have just killed someone but for the damage done to his car. Both cars were complete wreckage. The authorities that attended the scene made it clear that if it weren't for my partners driving and quick reactions, not only would we be dead but so would the driver of the other car.

Now here's were I'm curious, as many of you I'm sure are road users, what is your views on the actions of the other driver? Do you think he should not be alowd to drive if the driver causes the accident like that, as in drives out infront of someone. Or in any kind of accident when someone is clearly in the wrong and it's not a 50/50 fault.

To be honest, my view has been the same since before the accident if someone causes an accident In such a way like Iwhat happened to me, then they should lose their licence completely for a period of time, and then retake lessons and retake their test.
Do you guys agree or have any other opinions?
Also if you think I'm being harsh then tell me why too.

Also I should say I have never been so grateful for a second chance at life.

I've been in a few minor accidents, and single every time my first reaction (and the first reaction of the other driver) was, "Are you okay?" Even when I caused a tiny fender bender (that didn't even bend the fender and was so minor neither of us filed an insurance claim) the people in the other car first asked if I was okay and I asked them the same, then we went about seeing what the damage was. I cannot fathom getting into an accident that both parties were lucky to survive and somebody reacting like that, without first showing an ounce of concern. Well, I suppose I CAN, it just doesn't sit well with me.

Unfortunately, since nothing but your car was hurt, the only legal thing that can really be done is filing a police report to make sure he's found to be the cause of the accident so his insurance covers it. And perhaps look into a reckless driving charge. I'm not sure if it's fair to take away the license, because while things may be clear to you, unfortunately it's not so clear from a legal perspective unless there is a video of it happening. And even then that's not the most reasonable course of action--he could argue it was some kind of mechanical fault in the car or some driving condition he didn't have control of. And, to be quite frank, if he's that determined to not learn a lesson and be more careful, there isn't really any length of time he could lose his license that would make him change his ways. The only thing that will make him drive differently is either actually killing or injuring someone, or killing or injuring himself. People like that never change until something extremely drastic happens.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Well, without full information I won't posit on deserved punishment for the accident itself.

But the behavior afterwards should've earned him a good hard punch in the mouth.