If you were a father , could you accept this decision?

KenSwee

Lasse Burholt, 39, who was driving at 125km/h in an 80km/h zone, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Danish court but he received a fine of €1,340 and put on probation for three years.

I wouldn't be able to accept that if I was their father. Not a chance.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1025/482683-denmark-crash/

Iwasfrozen

KenSwee wrote: »

I wouldn't be able to accept that if I was their father. Not a chance.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1025/482683-denmark-crash/

You might not accept it but there's nothing you could do.

errlloyd

She was also to blame.

Cody Pomeray

errlloyd wrote: »

She was also to blame.

To a different order of magnitude. He made a conscious decision to drive at 125 km/hr. in an 80km/hr. zone. All drivers making such decisions must be aware that unexpected hazards can arise.

The woman unconsciously made an error that turned her car into the hazard. Slightly different situation.

Really cruel to have brought charges against a mother who has lost her children in this way. At least some common sense has prevailed, now they are dropped.

token101

She was arguably more to blame than he was. It seems fair to be honest.

The_Pretender

It would be interesting to see how people reacted if it was the other way around, and it had been the mother who was speeding along and the man who had taken the wrong left turn.

They were most definitely both to blame.

errlloyd

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The woman unconsciously made an error that turned her car into the hazard. Slightly different situation.

Remember they drive on the right over there. So an illegal left turn is our equivalent of an illegal right turn.

YbFocus

He must accept it, he must also accept that she made a bad decision to pull across the path of the car which ultimately caused the problem.

She should have been able to read the speed of the car and it's closing speed regardless of how fast it was going.

He may have been wrong to be doing that speed but it was her who caused the crash ultimately.

Cody Pomeray

errlloyd wrote: »

Remember they drive on the right over there. So an illegal left turn is our equivalent of an illegal right turn.

That'snot really relevant.

I was distinguishing between an error, and a conscious decision to drive considerably faster than the speed limit.

Part of the reason the speed limit exists is because other road users will inevitably make errors, and we all need time to respond, beep hard, and drive away safely.

boomkatalog

They were both to blame, but its easy to make a wrong turn accidentally. How does one accidentally speed that much over the limit?

Having said that, I wasn't there, the turn could be well signposted and obviously a stupid thing to do.

Pretty irrelevant anyway, unfortunately it can't be undone and everyone has to live with their decisions.

errlloyd

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That'snot really relevant.

It could not be more relevant... A right turn over there is a very simple maneuver that is almost impossible to screw up, a left turn over there requires crossing an oncoming Lane of traffic.

She turned in front of him without looking properly. We don't know why, but we know she was also to blame. I think it'd be pretty unjust to send him to jail and let her off completely.

Cody Pomeray

errlloyd wrote: »

It could not be more relevant...

That's not relevant to what I am saying. You clearly read the first line and then stopped.

I am distinguishing between an unconscious error, and a deliberate decision to do a particular thing, knowing it is wrong, being alive to the inherent danger of carrying on.

tritium

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Really cruel to have brought charges against a mother who has lost her children in this way. At least some common sense has prevailed, now they are dropped.

Why is it cruel to hold her accountable for her actions? Common sense didn't prevail here, someone just bottled the decision

YbFocus

tritium wrote: »

Why is it cruel to hold her accountable for her actions? Common sense didn't prevail here, someone just bottled the decision

+1

She made a silly mistake and should be held equally responsible for pulling across the path of the oncoming car. If not solely responsible!

Yes she lost her kids, but because of her mistake.

Pawwed Rig

It was a terrible tragedy. Putting the guy in jail would serve no purpose other than revenge as he is not exactly a menace to society. I am sure living with himself is sentence enough.

errlloyd

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's not relevant to what I am saying. You clearly read the first line and then stopped.

I am distinguishing between an unconscious error, and a deliberate decision to do a particular thing, knowing it is wrong, big ng alive to the inherent danger of carrying on.

So you think all that is relevant is intent? That's fair enough, I think Japan is like that. But if all that matters is intent then you have to treat the male driver like anyone else speeding - you can't treat him worse just because his speeding happened to end in death.

Frosty McSnowballs

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's not relevant to what I am saying. You clearly read the first line and then stopped.

I am distinguishing between an unconscious error, and a deliberate decision to do a particular thing, knowing it is wrong, being alive to the inherent danger of carrying on.

Well now. I would say crossing an oncoming lane of traffic to be a conscious decision. I would also argue that most drivers have been victim to unconsciously speeding.

Horrid situation but both parties were at fault. Both should have obeyed the rules of the road. Clear cut 50/50 here.

Grayson

boomkatalog wrote: »

They were both to blame, but its easy to make a wrong turn accidentally. How does one accidentally speed that much over the limit?

Having said that, I wasn't there, the turn could be well signposted and obviously a stupid thing to do.

Pretty irrelevant anyway, unfortunately it can't be undone and everyone has to live with their decisions.

True. Unless I had a scale model showing me what happened i couldn't make a decision with any accuracy. It could be a tiny road or a huge wide straight one.

having said that the basics are that she pulled out in front of him and he was going too fast.
Both people were to blame for the accident. Both drove recklessly. I don't think either bear the majority of the responsability from the little I know. Fine him and I think the woman herself has been punished more than enough through the loss of her children.

Guy:Incognito

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That'snot really relevant.

I was distinguishing between an error, and a conscious decision to drive considerably faster than the speed limit.

Part of the reason the speed limit exists is because other road users will inevitably make errors, and we all need time to respond, beep hard, and drive away safely.

Was it just an error though? Or did she contiously take a turn she wasnt supposed to take to get her somewhere quicker? ( I dont know the details btw)

Cody Pomeray

YbFocus wrote: »

She made a silly mistake and should be held equally responsible for pulling across the path of the oncoming car. If not solely responsible!

Yes she lost her kids, but because of her mistake.

Solely responsible?

She erroneously believed she could make a left turn. The guy who crashed into her was travelling at 156% the speed limit.

A speed limit exists so that other road users can have regard to one another, without doing irreversible damage.

The driver deprived this mother of having proper regard that by speeding well in excess of the limit. Whilst the mother contributed by crossing a lane she shouldn't have crossed, this was not a conscious act, and even where wrongdoing exists, her moral culpability is lower than the driver's.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It was a terrible tragedy. Putting the guy in jail would serve no purpose other than revenge as he is not exactly a menace to society. I am sure living with himself is sentence enough.

Exacting revenge is a legitimate function of sentencing. One reason the criminal justice system exists is so that private human beings do not take the law into their own hands, where justice might be cruel and arbitrary. The justice system says "OK guys, we'll do the revenge for you, and we will see revenge is applied evenly".

Another function can be to denounce, and discourage, a particularly harmful, conscious act.

errlloyd wrote: »

So you think all that is relevant is intent?

No, I have not said that. There is some blame on the part of the mother, through carelessness, but it is of a different order to that of the man who knowingly speeds, knowing he will not be able to react to hazards.

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Well now. I would say crossing an oncoming lane of traffic to be a conscious decision.

But we all cross lanes of traffic. How could you possibly use the roads and not cross a lane of traffic at some point? She made an error, which was not a conscious decision. She has failed in her duty to take proper care, but her lack of intention is a factor. The other driver intended to speed.

Frosty McSnowballs

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The other driver intended to speed.

How do you know it was intentional? Do you drive? Have you never broken the speed limit unintentionally?

Maximus Alexander

boomkatalog wrote: »

They were both to blame, but its easy to make a wrong turn accidentally. How does one accidentally speed that much over the limit?

It's not that hard to believe, but it depends on the circumstances. If you're on a long straight road, in a powerful car, without much traffic to keep the flow it would be quite possible to do 125 kph without realising it. Particularly if you had been driving for a while.

I feel sorry for all involved. Both drivers made mistakes and will have to live with the consequences. You'd never get over that.

Wabbit Ears

I really dont think the 125 kmph in an 80 has much to do with anything tbh, she caused the crash.

Maximus Alexander

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

I really dont think the 125 kmph in an 80 has much to do with anything tbh, she caused the crash.

Well it does, in that if he had been doing 80 the three kids might not have died. Tremendous difference in energy and stopping distances between collisions at those two speeds.

token101

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

I really dont think the 125 kmph in an 80 has much to do with anything tbh, she caused the crash.

Exactly. She was the one going the wrong way. She's far more culpable than he is. I don't think putting her in jail is the answer, but a judgement that she's accountable would be fair.

Oryx

His offence is speeding, and that is all. He should have and probably was penalised in the same way as every other person who speeds. The same potential outcome is there for all of those too. So if you want heavier sentencing, it needs to be on all who commit the same offence. It was a trick of fate that gave this incident such a tragic outcome.

Guy:Incognito

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Solely responsible?

She erroneously believed she could make a left turn. The guy who crashed into her was travelling at 156% the speed limit.

A speed limit exists so that other road users can have regard to one another, without doing irreversible damage.

The driver deprived this mother of having proper regard that by speeding well in excess of the limit. Whilst the mother contributed by crossing a lane she shouldn't have crossed, this was not a conscious act, and even where wrongdoing exists, her moral culpability is lower than the driver's.

Exacting revenge is a legitimate function of sentencing. One reason the criminal justice system exists is so that private human beings do not take the law into their own hands, where justice might be cruel and arbitrary. The justice system says "OK guys, we'll do the revenge for you, and we will see revenge is applied evenly".

Another function can be to denounce, and discourage, a particularly harmful, conscious act.

No, I have not said that. There is some blame on the part of the mother, through carelessness, but it is of a different order to that of the man who knowingly speeds, knowing he will not be able to react to hazards.

But we all cross lanes of traffic. How could you possibly use the roads and not cross a lane of traffic at some point? She made an error, which was not a conscious decision. She has failed in her duty to take proper care, but her lack of intention is a factor. The other driver intended to speed.

And what if she deliberately chose to take the illegal turn to get somewhere quicker?

Either way, illegal turn or not, its your responsibility to make sure you can clear the path of any traffic whos lane your crossing.

WindSock

The_Pretender wrote: »

It would be interesting to see how people reacted if it was the other way around, and it had been the mother who was speeding along and the man who had taken the wrong left turn.

They were most definitely both to blame.

You'd get more people blaming her for speeding and saying she was a terrible mother, etc.
I reckon.

Maximus Alexander

Oryx wrote: »

His offence is speeding, and that is all. He should have and probably was penalised in the same way as every other person who speeds. The same potential outcome is there for all of those too. So if you want heavier sentencing, it needs to be on all who commit the same offence. It was a trick of fate that gave this incident such a tragic outcome.

Interesting point, do you reckon the charge of involuntary manslaughter should not exists at all then?

sonny jim bob jones

Imagine being the father of the three dead children, knowing that your wife contributed to their death.

I'm not sure I could wake up each morning beside the wife after that.

hansfrei

Poor kids. What a waste. Hope the husband can find some consolation. His life must be wrecked.

RIP kids

The_Pretender

I think the mother is getting far more of the blame here compared to the man.

People are saying that it's incredibly easy to go over the speed limit, especially with a powerful car and when you've been driving a long time etc. but seriously, 45km/h over the limit? You can't not know you're doing that speed. If you intended on sticking to 110km then maybe it could slip up to 125km without realising. But no way in hell can you unintentionally get up to 125km/h in an 80km zone without knowing, and if your ability to tell what speed you're doing is that weak then you should be paying more attention to your speedo.

As for the mother, we really really need to know the layout of the road in order to be able to properly judge. I've seen some very poorly marked 'No right turns'.

There's no doubting that she shouldn't have gone unless safe to do so, but it could have been a case that if the guy was doing the speed limit he would have had plenty of time to see her moving out and slow down in time. They were both very much at fault.

hansfrei

Story is carried in lots of Aussie papers. Pictures too.

wandatowell

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It was a terrible tragedy. Putting the guy in jail would serve no purpose other than revenge as he is not exactly a menace to society. I am sure living with himself is sentence enough.

Its not often that I would agree with the argument of "living with himself is sentence enough" but in this case its a fair call.

UCDVet

I think a Father in that situation would have a difficult time accepting any decision. Having said that; I think the decision is pretty fair.

Wabbit Ears

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Well it does, in that if he had been doing 80 the three kids might not have died. Tremendous difference in energy and stopping distances between collisions at those two speeds.

Every single day am in traffic on major roads where practically everyone is doing similar speeds. Its not outrageous, its not uncommon and its not reasonable to say that the woman should not reasonably have expected the drivers on that road to be doing that sort of speed.

The_Pretender

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Every single day am in traffic on major roads where practically everyone is doing similar speeds. Its not outrageous, its not uncommon and its not reasonable to say that the woman should not reasonably have expected the drivers on that road to be doing that sort of speed.

I have no doubt you're telling the truth, but it that's the case then it's absolutely crazy. Even if she was turning in the direction she was supposed to, it'd be like coming on to a motorway in 1st/2nd gear.

They are both to blame. Her making a wrong turn and his speeding caused the deaths of those children and the mother. He involuntarily killed those people, they involuntarily got themselves killed.

The_Pretender

Deleted User wrote: »

They are both to blame. Her making a wrong turn and his speeding caused the deaths of those children and the mother. He involuntarily killed those people, she involuntarily got them killed.

Corrected that for you.

Cody Pomeray

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

And what if she deliberately chose to take the illegal turn to get somewhere quicker?

What if she was drunk at the time?
What if she was pouring her third glass of vodka as she turned left?
What if she did it deliberately?

What if, what if, what if.

The media have reported it as an error, presumably based on the official testimony, and unless it is contested I see no reason to doubt it.

LionelNashe

errlloyd wrote: »

So you think all that is relevant is intent? That's fair enough, I think Japan is like that. But if all that matters is intent then you have to treat the male driver like anyone else speeding - you can't treat him worse just because his speeding happened to end in death.

Oryx wrote: »

His offence is speeding, and that is all. He should have and probably was penalised in the same way as every other person who speeds. The same potential outcome is there for all of those too. So if you want heavier sentencing, it needs to be on all who commit the same offence. It was a trick of fate that gave this incident such a tragic outcome.

I'd agree. Imagine that guns are legal for the sake of argument. If I go out into my back garden and fire a gun in the air, I could get done for for shooting a gun within city limits. But if the bullet happens to hit somebody a quarter of a mile away, then I can get charged with manslaughter. This never made sense to me; I've done the exact same thing with the exact same risks in both cases but in one case there was somebody standing in the path of the falling bullet so the punishment is different.

I think that the fine for speeding in this country is way too low; €80 and 2 penalty points is very little deterrant.

The chances of getting caught are way too low. There is even an iPhone app which will tell you when you're approaching a speed camera.

Cody Pomeray

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

How do you know it was intentional? Do you drive? Have you never broken the speed limit unintentionally?

Yes I drive, and yes I have accidentally broken the speed limit, and I have knowingly made illegal turns, which I only realized after other drivers made their anger known.

I have never "accidentally" gone 45km/hr over the speed limit. Do people understand how much faster that feels, in a car? I do not see it reported anywhere that the driver claims to have made an error.

Maximus Alexander

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

YDo people understand how much faster that feels, in a car?

It completely depends on the car. I don't know what he was driving, but there are plenty of cars where you wouldn't feel any difference.

SV

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I have never "accidentally" gone 45km/hr over the speed limit. Do people understand how much faster that feels, in a car? I do not see it reported anywhere that the driver claims to have made an error.

It honestly doesn't feel that much faster once you get to around the 70/80 mark.

The_Pretender

SV wrote: »

It honestly doesn't feel that much faster once you get to around the 70/80 mark.

Even still, if you were concentrating on the road you would usually be able to by how fast you go by sign posts etc.

Anyway, if he accidentally went 45km/h over the speed limit, he obviously wasn't concentrating on what he should be concentrating on, the road in front of him.

SV

The_Pretender wrote: »

Even still, if you were concentrating on the road you would usually be able to by how fast you go by sign posts etc.

Anyway, if he accidentally went 45km/h over the speed limit, he obviously wasn't concentrating on what he should be concentrating on, the road in front of him.

You've never drove a powerful car, have you? It can be very deceiving, mo matter how hard you're concentrating

Cody Pomeray

SV wrote: »

It honestly doesn't feel that much faster once you get to around the 70/80 mark.

It honestly does.

SV wrote: »

You've never drove a powerful car, have you?

oh gawd. what makes you think the other driver wasn't driving an austin metro?

SV

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It honestly does.


oh gawd. what makes you think the other driver wasn't driving an austin metro?

Nothing, simply stating a fact. And no it doesn't. If it does I can only assume you drive an underpowered car.

Cody Pomeray

SV wrote: »

I can only assume you drive an underpowered car.

Good one. I only assume you're hung like a church mouse.

see how that works?

Maximus Alexander

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Good one. I only assume you're hung like a church mouse.

see how that works?

nobody cares what car you drive on the internet.

That only works if he made an incorrect claim about what it is like to have big balls. He didn't though.

SV

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Good one. I only assume you're hung like a church mouse.

see how that works?

If I'd said anything relevant to sex then uh..maybe that'd make sense.