Investigations continue into a crash in the regional Victorian town of Daylesford that left five people dead after a car drove into the beer garden of a busy pub.
I think if you choose to do something that puts people at a higher risk than necessary, you should be responsible for the consequences.
If you drink drive and kill someone, you can’t say it was an accident. If you’re doing burnouts in a crowded street and kill someone, you can’t say you didn’t mean it. Same with speeding.
Driving a death machine puts us all at a heightened risk, and when things go wrong, there should be consequences.
The people who died in Daylesford definitely had consequences of this drivers choice. Why shouldn’t the driver have consequences?
I think if you choose to do something that puts people at a higher risk than necessary, you should be responsible for the consequences.
If you drink drive and kill someone, you can’t say it was an accident. If you’re doing burnouts in a crowded street and kill someone, you can’t say you didn’t mean it. Same with speeding. Driving a death machine puts us all at a heightened risk, and when things go wrong, there should be consequences.
The people who died in Daylesford definitely had consequences of this drivers choice. Why shouldn’t the driver have consequences?
Generally you don’t prosecute someone who had a medical issue while driving regardless of how large their vehicle is.
What an utterly insane take you got here.
So your argument is that it’s not generally done? I know that it’s not generally done. I was talking about what I want to happen.
Why don’t you try giving a counter argument instead of resorting to hyperbole.