"Distracted" drivers

[lizmcg]

After reading about the unfortunate recent accident and others, I've decided to ask a question that's been bothering me.

When these so-called "distracted" drivers cause an "accident" that hurts or even kills a motorcycle rider and they say they simply "didn't see" the motorcycle, do they get away with it, or are they suitably punished? Do they get at least as much punishment as they would if they did the same to another car? Actually, they should get more, because the harm to a rider is far worse than it would be to a car driver.
Does anyone know? What actually happens after these incidents?

 

[Bob Denman]

Saying that they didn't see the motorcyclist; is just about like admitting their negligence. Their insurance company will be on the hook. :gaah:
However: there's nothing in our criminal law that can punish them. :banghead:
If you say that in Japan: you go directly to jail! nojoke

 

[Chupaca]

No...

It does not exuse them. It's the same exuse they give when they hit a pedestrian....:yikes:

 

[Peter Aawen]

They don't just 'get away with it' here in Aust - a driver saying that you didn't see a rider almost always adds to the raft of charges/fines that can be & usually are levied. Altho with that said, there can be circumstances when not being able to see another road user is not necessarily your fault or avoidable; & there are also circumstances where the 'not seen' rider may have not only contributed to the prang, but sometimes may have even caused it!!

Accidents are hard things to work out, & sometimes the 'obvious' interpretation of what happened can be completely incorrect!! That's why most Police Forces have pretty skilled & well trained Accident Investigators who try very hard to do their difficult job well! :thumbup:

 

[lizmcg]

All very true; the blame can be on either or both sides. I'm just curious whether someone can say "I didn't see the motorcycle" and walk away with nothing more than possibly a higher insurance premium. It just bothers me if they can (assuming they're in the wrong). But then, I'm an idealist, so I'm bothered by a lot of things.:banghead:

 

[BoilerAnimal]

I said it before in another thread on SL's regarding so called "accidents". By calling them "accidents" we infer that there was nothing that could be done to prevent their occurrence, we is not the case. We need to start calling them what they actually are.........crashes or wrecks...........take your pick.

Calling them crashes or wrecks takes away that aura of inevitability, that nothing can be done to prevent them. In reality, ALL "accidents" ARE preventable.

 

[vided]

graphic graphic warning

In reality, ALL "accidents" ARE preventable.

 

[Bob Denman]

:shocked: Well THAT video clip was a real "eye-opener"! nojoke
(And spleen, skull, leg, and guts too!)