Car Collides Head-on with C-Train on 7 Ave

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Well according to these stats, Canadians are actually not bad drivers at all compared to a lot of the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

Seems to me all the "Canadians/Calgarians" are such horribe drivers, is on the same level of truth as "The last country I visited has the hottest women ever!"

I've heard the argument from a bunch of people that have gone to a crazy driving country like Thailand and conclude that everyone there is a better driver than people here. I guess because they were there for 3 weeks and didn't see an accident that means everyone is the Stig. Except you are almost 10 times more likely to die there.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by valo403

The thing is that there are lots of cities with tram systems that run alongside car traffic, so that might not tip everyone off. I like the arrow lights idea, and increased signage couldn't hurt, but I imagine there will always be the occasional person who can't figure it out.

You're right. Houston, Phoenix, and Newark come to mind. Calgarians wouldn't be able to handle that. It'd be like Crowchild with no Jersey barriers between the left lane and the tracks.

[TRIX]

Originally Posted by Acey

Do we need better signage indicating that 7 Ave is not for vehicular traffic? I mean, the trains stations and the darn tracks you're driving on are a pretty good clue, but if this is something that happens quite often...

Originally Posted by valo403

The thing is that there are lots of cities with tram systems that run alongside car traffic, so that might not tip everyone off. I like the arrow lights idea, and increased signage couldn't hurt, but I imagine there will always be the occasional person who can't figure it out.

People looked at me like wtf dude? when I freaked while in San Fran when a car turned onto a street with train tracks on it.

I was born and grew up here so for me it's just always been known, even as a kid, stay off 7th, always!

I do like the idea of the straight ahead green arrows in place of a solid green light though, couldn't hurt anything.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Nope, she clearly broke the law, she seriously injured the passenger because of her driving, she probably scared the train driver for life.

Its not about being angry, its about the fact that she broke the law, and letting her go because she feels guilty is not how the law works.

The aww he or she has been punished enough is an invalid legal argument.

You sure about that? I can't recall one specifically, but I'm pretty sure I've read stories in the past of people not being charged, directly because of the result. Aka, family member being killed, and the person "already being punished by the result".

Can anyone else recall stories like these, or know of anything like this happen? I don't want to get up on my soapbox in true Calgarypuck style and condescendly tell CC he's wrong, but I'm 99% sure he's wrong and that courts do sometimes let people off due to the result scaring/punishing them enough.

EDIT: What has me second guessing myself is the fact that Valo43 thanked CC's post, and he seems to be very smart when it comes to law. So his "thanks" has intimidated me into doing some more digging instead of confidentally calling CC out.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by flameswin

You sure about that? I can't recall one specifically, but I'm pretty sure I've read stories in the past of people not being charged, directly because of the result. Aka, family member being killed, and the person "already being punished by the result".

Can anyone else recall stories like these, or know of anything like this happen? I don't want to get up on my soapbox in true Calgarypuck style and condescendly tell CC he's wrong, but I'm 99% sure he's wrong and that courts do sometimes let people off due to the result scaring/punishing them enough.

Not really.

http://www.justice.gov.sk.ca/justice...ppendixTen.pdf

That provides a summary of what judges are allowed to consider when sentencing someone found guilty of a criminal offense. If someone who would otherwise be charged is not because of suffering already experienced, that's not supposed to happen. I'm sure it DOES, but it isn't really supposed to.