Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Originally posted by eyelikeart
My god...I don't know who I feel worse for...

the guy driving or the victims...

:(

Compensation for victims should be the primary goal of any system of justice. Compassion for perpetrators must be a far less important consideration.

It's true that teenagers cause more accidents than old people - but there are a lot more of them. Drivers over 80 should be rigorously tested every year.
 
I can't believe he hasnt apologized yet, publicly or privately. That's too bad. Maybe he's under the direction of his lawer- apologies imply admission of guilt. Still, regardless of whether or not he is "guilty" he still killed those people.

Elderly driving accidents will reach epidemic proportions when the baby boomers hit 70-80. Not too far away. I'd rather be on the road with a teenager than an 80+ anyday.
 
Thanks for the updates, Doctor Q. For a bit there I was going to give you the "resurrector of threads" award, but you've truly added new information.

I wholeheartedly agree that the elderly ought to face more stringent license renewals, scream though AARP may. I recognize that taking away an elderly person's car puts a huge dent in their independence, and I would worry very much about my own elderly parents if Dad could no longer drive. But at the same time, I see his reaction time increasing and his reflexes decreasing, and I worry about him driving, too. And I remember my grandfather, and how many accidents he was starting to have before he died. Independence for the elderly can't come at the cost of their lives and others'.

That said, I don't quite believe that driving over two city blocks with people ricocheting off one's hood is entirely explainable by age-related incompetence. I think this guy ought never to be allowed behind the wheel of a car ever again, either way.
 
Originally posted by agreenster
I'd rather be on the road with a teenager than an 80+ anyday.

Amen to that. Sure, I'm only 22, but I used to live in Central Florida, which anyone who lives there knows is a horrible place to drive in for the simple fact that you've got a high concentration of the two worst groups of drivers: the elderly (65+) and teenagers (16-20). One time I was at a red light and some car was barreling down behind me, only to turn at the last second and slam into a pole 20 feet away from me. It ended up being some really old guy...
 
Originally posted by agreenster
I can't believe he hasnt apologized yet, publicly or privately. That's too bad. Maybe he's under the direction of his lawer- apologies imply admission of guilt. Still, regardless of whether or not he is "guilty" he still killed those people.
I'm sure there will be civil suits, and that a good lawyer would not want him to say "I was at fault". But he could have called a news conference or contacted the victims as a group and said "I'm sorry that people were killed and injured or had loved ones killed or injured" or "My sympathies to everyone involved" without admitting guilt.

Originally posted by rueyeet
I wholeheartedly agree that the elderly ought to face more stringent license renewals, scream though AARP may. I recognize that taking away an elderly person's car puts a huge dent in their independence, and I would worry very much about my own elderly parents if Dad could no longer drive. But at the same time, I see his reaction time increasing and his reflexes decreasing, and I worry about him driving, too. And I remember my grandfather, and how many accidents he was starting to have before he died. Independence for the elderly can't come at the cost of their lives and others'.
Well said. It's too bad when seniors lose any form of independence, because it can increase their solitude, prevent their continued contributions to society, and hasten their decline. On the other side, the younger they are when they learn to use public transporation, the easier it will be to make that transition.

Of course, ask me if I agree with this when it's MY turn, and I'll probably hit you with my walking stick or take out my hearing aid and ignore you!
 
I think Paul has it pretty much right; house arrest would be appropriate. Locking him up would be a death sentence - probably within days or weeks. But at this point, I don't think taking away his license is sufficient because a lot of times people with revoked licenses drive anyway, and it's not fair to put the community at that risk.
 
The precise charges were "vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence". Manslaughter (a word I've never liked - ick ick ick) is a lesser charge than murder, which would involve intent, but "negligence" implies that he was at fault for operating his car with knowledge that it could likely result in accidents. We all know that we COULD be in an accident when we drive, so this has to do with the DEGREE of danger of which he should have been aware.
 
The Los Angeles City Council is considering a ban on hands-on cell phones while driving in the city. Hands-free cell phones would still be permitted. But if they banned cell phones completely in Los Angeles, citizens would have to stay home and never drive, since I'm the only citizen in L.A. who seems to be able to drive without one hand on a cell phone at all times.
 
Originally posted by QCassidy352
Locking him up would be a death sentence - probably within days or weeks.

Which brings up a different subject, probably more appropriate for another thread, but the prison system in this country is a mess. People getting beaten and raped in there everyday. Its rediculous. Something needs to change.
 
Followup news story in today's Los Angeles Times (italics mine):
The calamity was probably caused by driver George Russell Weller ... the National Transportation Safety Board said at a hearing in Washington.
Is the NTSB living in another dimension??? How could they not know? Whether he was conscious or not, aware or not, confused or not, he drove through the marketplace with his foot on the accelerator, and nothing wrong was found with the car itself. That seems pretty clear to me. Or is their conclusion legally required until Mr. Weller's court case is settled?

The NTSB also said
The existence of a black box, like those used in airplanes, in Weller's Buick could have given investigators a much clearer picture of the accident.
and the NTSB urged that such event data recorders be required in all new cars.

I'm surprised that there is no mention of the tradeoffs in cost vs. the odds that black boxes would improve safety for all of us sufficiently to justify those costs. If anybody should know that you have to weigh the costs and other disadvantages of a safety measure against the marginal safety increase, it's the NTSB. I wonder if serious studies have been made before about putting black boxes in cars. And even if their advice was followed, it would be a long time before they would be found in old cars, like Mr. Weller's. I didn't see the whole report, but my impression is that it's a case of locking the proverbial barn door (and adding 100 padlocks!) after the horse has escaped.

The city of Santa Monica has beefed up the barricades, but hasn't gone as far as some have suggested, putting up the kinds of barricades that are around important office buildings. It's nice to imagine that we can be made safe from freak accidents, but it's not true without barriers that would interfere with the enjoyment of an open air market or that would be very expensive to provide every time any street was closed. This street closure in Santa Monica is a regular temporary closure, and the barricades have to be installed and removed every week, which limits the practical choices. Gee, should we put concrete slabs above the market too, to avoid airplane crashes?

Mr. Weller is still subject to numerous law suits, and so is the city, but I don't think the city needs to go much further in protecting the market area from this type of one-of-a-kind accident. It's sad that it happened, and sad that we can't guarantee that it won't ever happen again, somewhere, sometime.
 
Doctor Q said:
The NTSB also said

and the NTSB urged that such event data recorders be required in all new cars.

I'm surprised that there is no mention of the tradeoffs in cost vs. the odds that black boxes would improve safety for all of us sufficiently to justify those costs. If anybody should know that you have to weigh the costs and other disadvantages of a safety measure against the marginal safety increase, it's the NTSB. I wonder if serious studies have been made before about putting black boxes in cars. And even if their advice was followed, it would be a long time before they would be found in old cars, like Mr. Weller's. I didn't see the whole report, but my impression is that it's a case of locking the proverbial barn door (and adding 100 padlocks!) after the horse has escaped.
As long as the black boxes are used for designing safer cars and NOT for linchpin-style litigation purposes (ie, big brother) then they should be welcomed by the public.

As far as an automotive area where black boxes lead to rapid safety changes, one only needs to look at the IRL (Indy Racing League.)

They've been running black boxes from the beginning, in fact the first ones were data/impact capture units from the produce shipping companies -- used to record a fruit/vegtables farm to store trip.

Every time there is an accident that results in injury the IRL is able to mock-up the crash in the lab and find out why safety equipment/car designs failed.
 
Given that most new cars today already have computers in them, I can't see that the cost would be all that much for a black box. And insurance might end up being lower for cars installed with one - they'd benefit from it as well. Who knows...

D
 
QCassidy352 said:
I think Paul has it pretty much right; house arrest would be appropriate. Locking him up would be a death sentence - probably within days or weeks.

And that would be bad because... ???

I understand the whole thing about intent.. to a point.. but I think once your body count gets to double digits, intent doesn't matter so much anymore. And for those that think his age makes it WORSE that he be punished, get real. You aren't going to change (rehabilitate) an 87 year old, and quite frankly, he can do as much contributing to society from inside a prison as he can from anywhere at this point.

If the guy was 37 instead of 87 we would not be having this discussion. And THAT is the heart of age discrimination... he's being given preferential treatment because of his age, and that is just wrong.
 
IndyGopher said:
And that would be bad because... ???

I understand the whole thing about intent.. to a point.. but I think once your body count gets to double digits, intent doesn't matter so much anymore. And for those that think his age makes it WORSE that he be punished, get real. You aren't going to change (rehabilitate) an 87 year old, and quite frankly, he can do as much contributing to society from inside a prison as he can from anywhere at this point.

If the guy was 37 instead of 87 we would not be having this discussion. And THAT is the heart of age discrimination... he's being given preferential treatment because of his age, and that is just wrong.

I disagree with you in every aspect of your post.

Intent is very much the point. If there was no intent, what purpose does killing him serve? It won't dissuade others, because it was unexpected and unintentional. It won't bring anyone back to life. It's nothing but adding to the tragedy by killing one more person.

We WOULD be having this discussion if he were 37, at least I would. The point of the justice system should be to rectify matters as much as possible - not bloodlust. How does destroying additional lives serve any purpose? If some good could come out of punishing him, fine, but I don't see that as the case. House arrest would be sufficient specific deterrence, and further punishment wouldn't act as general deterrence because things like this are unexpected and unintentional. No good comes out of punishing him except some sort of sick sense of revenge - and I'll never accept that as justice.
 
Doctor Q said:
I'm surprised that there is no mention of the tradeoffs in cost vs. the odds that black boxes would improve safety for all of us sufficiently to justify those costs.

I'm not sure that a black box contributes to safety - I believe they are solely used to identify what happened with the car's systems during some specified period of time, as in airplanes (the boxes don't prevent crashes, they report the circumstances surrounding them).

To provide additional safety they'd either have to be some sort of monitoring/reporting device (not sure I like the Orwellian aspect of that), or they would need to be able to determine if an accident like this was occurring and subsequently apply breaks or cut off the gas.
 
I was assuming something less clever, that the black box would simply record parameters such as speed, wheel turns, pedal positions, engine performance, etc. to help investigators after an accident. And that somehow that information would guide the design of future cars. Those would be the safety improvements. I was discounting the importance of this because I can't imagine anything major that car manufacturers could do to prevent a case like this.

With a little A.I., perhaps a black box could indeed recognize problem patterns and issue warnings, but I hadn't assumed so.
 
Many cars already track most of this stuff (which is where traction control, AMS, Vehicle Stability Control, etc. come from), so I would think recording it would be fairly simple and inexpensive.

Manufacturers such as Saab and Volvo always talk about how they research accident reports in order to make cars safer - anyone know if those vehicles already have something like this?

Not that I want anyone knowing how fast I drive...
 
what if that was your 3-year old who got hit? i would have killed him as soon as he stopped... i wouldn't want to live after a 'mistake' like that.

how many people need to die before we stop designing our lives so we are easily killed by a stray machine (that we ultimately control)? we don't have to live this way you know... this our choice. war... road rage... rape... car accidents... these are only a minor fraction of the costs of our greed, vein, and pride.

im tired of reading societies headlines. when does it stop?


peace?


how did we ever make it this far?
 
Greed? Vanity? Pride?

Do YOU drive a car?

Look, I'm not saying that this guy doesnt deserve a punishment, and I also know that the victim's families are tremendously hurt by this, but you cant actually believe that this guy deserves the death penalty, do you?

He is a tired old man, with hardly any sense to drive his car. If this is anyones fault, its HIS family or the CA DMV.

Accidents are a tragedy, but they're still just accidents. The thing is, had you killed that man after he stopped the car, YOU'D be serving life in prison, deservedly.
 
A few important facts have been left out>>>

Doctor Q said:
Followup news story in today's Los Angeles...

I'm not sure exactly what the reason is, but shortly after the accident the LA Times reported that Weller had ploughed into a Mercedes Benz before he took that fateful turn onto Arizona Avenue. In other words, the LA Times implied that he was attempting to speed away from a fender bender. Hence his high speed (estimated at 70ph +) and the fact that it took him so long to stop. In fact he dragged an unfortunate pedestrian under his car for almost the entire two blocks.

I worked in that area for many years - and trust me, when they have that farmers market, there are sooo many pedestrians, that cars in that immediate area rarely get to do 20mph. So when I first heard of the accident, I was flabbergasted at the carnage he caused.

But once I read story in the LA Times about the fender bender shortly before he caused all that carnage, and the fact that the police impounded both Weller's car and the Mercedes, I understood how come Weller was speeding and took so long to stop.

I also recall the LA Times quoting witnesses in that article who had seen the first accident and said that they saw him step on the gas and speed away.

I don't understand how come none of that was reported in the NTSB report.

Maybe someone has a little more info on that.
 
We probably shouldn't call it "the wheels of justice" in this case, so let's just say the legal system is gradually dealing with the aftermath of this case. This week the judge will hear statements about whether George Weller should be charged with vehicular manslaughter for causing the deaths in last year's Santa Monica marketplace accident.
 
agreenster said:
Greed? Vanity? Pride?

Do YOU drive a car?

yes. i'd rather not, but i do anyway. it makes my daily life that much easier. im not happy about it, but it's really nice that i don't have to worry about a ride all the time or if it rains or snows or whatever. i have a daughter that lives 40min (driving time) away and it's nice to be able to drive to pick her up. if i had a electric vehicle i would gladly use that. :) If i really had a choice i wouldn't live so far away, but money and my 'girlfriend' tell me different.

of course we all are guilty for our actions. no one else is to blame but us. of course that wouldn't stop me from murdering this man for killing and injurying many people. nor would the thought of a prison sentence (when has that ever stopped someone from commiting a 'crime'?). people like this should not be driving. a lot of people alive shouldn't even be walking around. there used to be a thing called natural selection, but we have found ways to out run that (drugs, government, money, surgery, laws). im just doing my part to keep the earth in balance.

:) i will try not to kill anyone today.


absolut_mac said:
he was attempting to speed away from a fender bender.
anyone want to defend this man now?
 
neut said:
anyone want to defend this man now?

Nope. Not anymore. That changes everything. Killing innocent people because you're afraid of a little accident is outrageous. This implies that he had his wits and knew what he was doing.

before I gave him the benefit because I thought he was old and clueless. Now it looks more like he was scared and running and careless.
 
agreenster said:
Nope. Not anymore. <snip> before I gave him the benefit because I thought he was old and clueless.

old and clueless people kill people. old and clueless people become scared and careless. scared and careless people make our laws. scared and careless are running our country.

will we become old and clueless; scared and careless?


peace.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.