this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
149 points (96.3% liked)

Fuck Cars

9596 readers
750 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ConfidentLonely@lemmy.world
Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
toaster@slrpnk.net
149
London driver, 79, won't go to jail over deadly Girl Guides crash (lfpress.com)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by toaster@slrpnk.net to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

She was driving 120km/h in a 50km/h school zone.

all 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 76 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

“It’s clear that Ronnie (McNorgan’s nickname) doesn’t see herself as a criminal,” Millar said after the sentencing. “I think the punishment to someone who is non-criminal, a conviction in itself carries a huge weight.”

What’s also clear is that McNorgan still refuses to believe the crash was her fault and caused by her confusing the gas pedal with the brake pedal. She continues to maintain, despite the overwhelming evidence presented at the trial last spring, that what caused the crash was mechanical failure.

Yeah she shouldn't drive again, if she's not even capable of admitting her mistake and still thinks she should be allowed to drive...

I mean even if it was a mechanical failure what kind of person would like to ever drive again after killing a child?

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 2 months ago

I mean even if it was a mechanical failure what kind of person would like to ever drive again after killing a child?

I agree, but the article says that they couldn't find any evidence of mechanical failure, none, zero, so thankfully we don't even have to consider that scenario because it doesn't apply to her.

[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 months ago

If her car was not wrecked completely, a mechanical failure should be detectable?

[–] lemann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 53 points 2 months ago (1 children)

London, Ontario (Canada)

Extremely disappointing outcome. IMO the driver should have faced the full force of the law, especially considering how this incident resulted in a loss of life and such severe trauma and injury to the poor kids involved.

A 5 year driving prohibition is just a slap on the wrist, for literal manslaughter - involuntary or not

[–] whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 48 points 2 months ago (1 children)

is it involuntary if you drive at 120kmh in a 50kmh zone ?

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 2 months ago

Exactly. That’s like saying firing a gun into crowded theater and killing people is “involuntary manslaughter.”

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 39 points 2 months ago

If she won’t even acknowledge responsibility, she can’t be trusted not to drive. I’m thinking lifetime house arrest, including an ankle monitor, MINIMUM.

[–] madcat@lemm.ee 31 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Seniors should not be allowed to drive.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 36 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I’d say periodic testing is warranted for all drivers. A lot of people shouldn’t be driving.

[–] aniki@lemmings.world 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Your license is valid for 10 years and to renew it you have to re-test. Most states could double the dmv budget and barely blink and if it was federal it would be even easier... but we can't have nice things, and more idiots on the roads crashing means more cars, more sales, more insurance, more collisions, more chaos, more more more!

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I’ve lived in countries where test validity decreases with age. So a senior would be tested more frequently.

The nature of the test is important too. If your test can’t capture risky behavior, it’s not doing much.

[–] aniki@lemmings.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Can you explain a bit? How does that work? We don't re-test at all.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 6 points 2 months ago

Sure! I’ll talk in generic terms here because these regulations tend to change with time and each country will have their own particularities.

You have your license validity and test validity, they are not coupled. Your license is never valid for longer than your test, and it expires so the government can update your picture, check documents, make sure you pay your fines, etc.

There are also follow-up tests that you must pass after getting your license. They are not a full test, so it’s cheaper to run, but intended to check you still know your basics, are up to date in major regulations, still maintain minimal aptitude for driving, etc.

I’ll come up with an example, bear in mind I didn’t research actual numbers because that would depend on where in the world you’re looking at. So perhaps you need to retest one year after first getting your license, then 5 years, then every 10. But then, if you’re over 55, you need to retest every 5 years. Then every 3 years if you’re over 65. Then finally every year if you’re over 75.

Brazil and Germany had some rules like that but not all, in some shape. I don’t know what their current regulations are.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 months ago

Yeah but letting old people drive is like letting blind people drive. Sometimes literally.

[–] hydration9806@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

That's just more theatre. Testing is waaaay too easy. Since Canada (in this case) is such a car centric society without suitable alternatives, the testing is barely a check box. The government knows it is too challenging to live without a license for the average person.

Still probably a good idea though, at least it gets the really sketchy people off the roads.

Edit: grammar

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 months ago

If your testing is useless, that’s another problem. A test that doesn’t test what you want to test doesn’t pass the test.

[–] toaster@slrpnk.net 19 points 2 months ago

Seniors should have quality public transport options to use and bike/walking infrastructure for short trips or mobility scooters.

[–] TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They should, but they should have to undergo regular evaluations from both their doctor and licensing agency. To counter this, they should also be offered free lifetime public transit passes and significant discounts for taxis, ride-hailing apps, etc.

[–] toaster@slrpnk.net 7 points 2 months ago

They do in Canada, but it's an easy written test. No driving test. And only once you hit 80.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Every driver should be regularly retested. People can develop bad habits, vision can change, reaction times can change, the rules of the road change, yet we trust people to drive safely forever after just a handful of tests while they are teenagers.

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 2 months ago

But that would be too expensive! /s

I say too bad. Don't do something if you can't do it correctly so we shouldn't allow cars into cities if we aren't going to make it as safe as possible.

[–] shani66@ani.social 10 points 2 months ago

As long as our infrastructure is the way it is driving is a fundamental necessity, unfortunately.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago

Humans should not be allowed to drive at greater than a running speed anyplace they might encounter another human.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How do you even reach 120km/h in an urban area? It shouldn't be even physically possible due to the curves' radius and such.

[–] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 months ago

Especially in London, ON traffic. I've been there, it's nuts for a city of its size.

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 2 months ago

I thought the headline alone was frustrating but giving the article a read was absolutely infuriating

[–] hellothere@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 months ago

Fake London strikes again.

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Yeah, too bad the punishment for driving without a license isn't that severe, so she probably will do it. Unfortunately, driving is a necessity for many people, just to get by.

[–] TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

In London, a city with a great public transportation system. Many old people in the US drive because they have to.

[–] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 months ago

This is London, Ontario. It does not have a great public transportation system and is a stroad-filled, parking lot paved-over urban hellhole.

[–] Albbi@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 months ago

Wrong London.