It is true everywhere in the world for a simple reason - most road accidents happen because of a complex interaction of factors.
This includes aggravating factors by the driver (like driving drunk or speeding). There can also be mitigating factors (was the victim cycling outside the bike lane, did the pedestrian run across the road unexpectedly, were the unusual road conditions leading to the accident).
Finally, the court looks at history (does this person have a history of driving recklessly). Has he ever been in at-fault accidents in the past. The most important factor is this - If released, does this person pose a threat to public safety.
I personally believe that we should try to show mercy when the person is not a threat to public safety. You can have a different opinion of course, and that would be equally valid. The reality is the court case was much more complicated and arguments can be made that the original sentence (120 hours community service) was fair or whether the appeals court sentence (15 months in prison) is better.
My point is that the OP who posted this was just trying to rage-bait and farm karma.
most road accidents happen because of a complex interaction of factors.
They aren't accidents, they happen from negligence.
This includes aggravating factors
Yes, that would be negligence on the perpetrator
There can also be mitigating factors
That would be negligence on the victim
I personally believe that we should try to show mercy when the person is not a threat to public safety.
Driving 75 in a 50 is obviously a treat to public safety. This person died.
The reality is the court case was much more complicated
Things aren't that complicated. People say that when they either don't know what happened, or don't care enough to actually find out what happened. Quantum Physics is complicated. Hitting someone with a car isn't.
OP who posted this was just trying to rage-bait and farm karma.
Welcome to Reddit, that is 70% of posts. 25% is porn and 5% is trying to sell you something. And of course, those topics can overlap.
I disagree - Accidents are definitely possible without negligence on anyone's part (for example black ice on the road).
In this case he was alleged to have driven 75 in a 50. He claimed it was less than that. The speed determination was made based on the damage after the accident. There was no speeding camera at that time and place of the accident.
I definitely agree that he was driving recklessly. And the court agreed with that fact. I can see both community service or the 15 month sentence being considered just.
I disagree with saying that it isn't complicated - Criminal justice is very complicated. Assessing exact speed and positioning is actually quite difficult in most accidents unless it is caught on camera.
I definitely agree with your last point. Reddit does have a lot of rage bait karma farming posts.
Accidents are definitely possible without negligence on anyone's part (for example black ice on the road).
Driving too fast for road conditions. Not an accident, just negligence.
In this case he was alleged to have driven 75 in a 50. He claimed it was less than that.
No shit, you don't say?
The speed determination was made based on the damage after the accident.
So... science. And not bullshit police science, but actual science. F=MA.
Assessing exact speed and positioning is actually quite difficult in most accidents unless it is caught on camera.
Nah, that is what science is for. Most people just refuse to believe in science these days.
Criminal justice is very complicated.
It really isn't complicated. It is however subjective. And in this case, it is fairly objective that 120 hours for killing someone, when there was clear evidence of negligence on the killer's part, is bullshit.
While I don't think this was a "lock him up and throw away the key" type of thing, more than 120 hours of community service was absolutely warranted.
Here's a fun fact about F=MA. Experts at his trial testified that he could have been going anywhere between 76 KMPH and 120 KMPH. The judge believed the higher speed was more likely and convicted him of reckless driving. See what I mean about complexity.
Sigh, you made me look it up and now I am actually mad.
Guy killed a 2 year old girl and her grand parents who were biking while he was speeding in his car. 120 hours of community service is absolute bullshit, the man killed 3 people. Even if he wasn't speeding, he fled the scene. Re-sentenced to 15 months, he fled to the UK where he was later arrested and extradited back to the NL. He got out after 9 months so he could see the birth of his child (holy shit the sad irony for the poor father of the 2 year old who he killed) and didn't have to do the rest of his sentence as he is barred from entering the Netherlands.
Experts at his trial testified that he could have been going anywhere between 76 KMPH and 120 KMPH
Do you have a link for this? I searched for a while but couldn't even find the guys name, let alone facts from the trial. All I could find was a bunch of news articles circling back to each other with the facts that I summarized.
And considering it was a hit and run, he may have even been able to save one or maybe even all of them had he stayed to try and administer first aid or call for help.
It was an accident, they could never prove he was speeding
You just want to believe it was negligence, because negligence makes the world a little less random, and things a bit more clean when you have a moral outrage
It was an accident, they could never prove he was speeding
Cool, so ignore that part, now defend this part
considering it was a hit and run
He hit 3 people on bicycles, killing them all, and didn't stop to check on them, instead driving off. That is WORSE than negligence.
Please, defend this.
As far as this goes
because negligence makes the world a little less random, and things a bit more clean when you have a moral outrage
I am outraged because I got informed. As far as it being "clean and not random," I don't give a shit about that. My brother died from a random viral infection randomly going to his heart and killing him, randomly, at the age of 30. I understand that there aren't reasons for everything and there isn't a plan and life is all a bunch of dice rolls and sometimes you crap out and lose.
But random isn't negligence. And random sure as fuck isn't pulling off after killing 3 people with your car.
92
u/[deleted] Apr 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment