Maybe, maybe not. It happens when you put the car in the wrong gear, like putting the car in drive by mistake when you want to back out of a spot. Press the gas and the car moves in the wrong direction, and you become disoriented/confused, tromp on the gas thinking it is the brake or press the gas harder to go in the direction you want to go. Have had the disoriented feeling, but luckily was able to recognize and correct the problem.She is an incompetent driver and/or she was wearing inappropriate footwear that came loose, like flip-flops, and got caught. Either way, she should be banned from driving, for life.
What would you suggest as a limit for cars? Actually I think there is enough tech out there that the city could be controlled by zones and cars could just have their speeds limited by traffic control station depending on the conditions. Then we could reduce the police force by about 20% because no speed enforcement would be necessary. Once there are 20% or so of these cars on the roads all cars will be slowed because they are in the same lane, so it will only take a year or 2 to become effective.The hell with how fast cars can go in reverse, they need to be speed limited in forward motion. It would sure slow these assholes down and make things somewhat safer. Then again, maybe not.
Me to, and heaven forbid it is a child, I think I would rather be killed in an accident then have to live with that.Cars only have 1 reverse gear.
You can't go that fast before the engine will top out.
Well, I just read that link and I'm amazed that she managed 46 km/hr in reverse.
One of my worst fears is hitting a pedestrian because I simply lost awareness of my surroundings.
I don't know how she could make the argument that she is making. There is no way her foot could have been stuck under the brake. If her foot was off the gas, the car slows.
I almost had someone walk right into me while I was on my motorcycle going past him at 50 kph, while he was looking at his phone. No way either of us woulda walked home that night, but I think my helmet smashing into his head would be fatal for sure, but I might have broken my neck. Still scares me thinking about it.More reason to back into a parking spot. Also more reason for pedestrians to be extra careful in large parking lots. Can't tell you how many times I've seen people nonchalantly walk in front of a car backing or driving out with their eyes on the phone and not on their surroundings.
I think another problem is the design of these parking lots. There's basically no walkways where people can safely avoid cars.
I think at 15 kph you have a lot more time to get out of the way.Correction. Misread the article. Amazed to that the car could go that fast in reverse. Still results would probably be the same at 15 k especially if she caught them against the building. Still sounds like driver inattention, see people back up without looking all the time at the mall.
Once watched an idiot jump into his car and gun the engine backing out without even glancing around. He crashed into a parked backhoe which he then tried to tell the cop drove out behind him with no warning.
The degree to which one is driving dangerously is quite broad, so how are you gonna deal with that. Going 80 in a 50 in dangerous, going 150 in a 50 is more dangerous, and going 200 in a 50 is insanity. So what is to be done. In Singapore you are subject to the death penalty if you shoot at someone, because of the same logic you espouse. Driving dangerously in the middle of no where is not the same as driving dangerously in a school zone are 330 pm. So on the whole I can't agree with your logic.I don't suppose others share this opinion, but it's not unique to me.
I think there should be no such offence as dangerous driving causing death, and dangerous driving causing bodily harm. The crime lies in the dangerous driving -- subjecting the public to undue risk of harm.
The fact that you did actually harm a member of the public changes the outcome (obviously) but it doesn't change the crime. Whether I do or don't kill a child makes not the slightest difference to the degree of my negligent and dangerous behaviour, nor to my mental state that led to it, nor to my actual performance of it.
The difference between dangerous driving, and dangerous driving causing death, is a matter of inches, or a matter of luck, or the differnce between a hit or a near miss.
I do not subscribe to the "no harm - no foul" school of thought. My opinion is that the penalty for dangerous driving should be the same as the penalty for dangerous driving causing death -- very heavy, in both cases.
Smith drives dangerously and goes blandly on his merry way. Jones drives dangerously, and kills three people. The difference is pure happenstance. There should be no difference as to how seriously we regard their two crimes.
Lets limit revers to 2km/h and forward to 20km/h. Until ofcourse the next accident where people are killed cause they walk between slow moving vehicles. At that point we can slow them down more or maybe put on skirts or bumpers to that the pedestrians can't actually get run over.
if it just saves one life its worth it! isnt that the bullshit line we're fed every time to justify stupid rules?Well the problem I have with your logic is, how is limiting reverse to 15 kph going to impact the utility of the vehicle,(pretty much zero) vs limiting cars to 20 kph in forward renders them pretty useless.
