Comment 98445

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted March 14, 2014 at 18:15:13 in reply to Comment 98444

I accept that in certain extreme circumstances it is impossible to avoid a collision (e.g. a child darting out from between parked cars just in front of the vehicle). This is not at all the case we have here: a testifying police officer said that the pedestrian would have been easy to see and that the driver should have had at least 6 seconds to stop. Drivers are supposed to be alert and in control of their vehicles at all times.

I never claimed that it is always the driver's fault, but the statistics show that drivers are almost never convicted of a serious offence even when commonsense would indicate that they are obviously at fault (e.g. running down a pedestrian crossing legally in a crosswalk). And in this case the driver claims that he did not notice the pedestrian until he heard her hit the car. Surely that shows an insufficient level of attention for someone engaged in an activity as potentially lethal as driving!

And, in any case, dismissing the death of an 87 year old as "an unfortunate accident" is just not good enough. It is not acceptable in other spheres of life, and it shouldn't be acceptable here.

In workplace safety, e.g. WSIB, the slogan is "there is no such thing as an accident" ("all accidents are preventable"). The goal in traffic safety should be zero deaths and injuries, and indeed that is the official goal in Sweden. Sweden managed to reduce traffic deaths by 35% in 12 years.

And don't forget that Hamilton is bad even by Ontario standards: we are the second worst in the province!

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-03-14 18:31:59

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools