[JonnyNova]

I can't find the source right now, but drivers have been privileged versus pedestrians since around 1900 when vehicles were given the right of way instead of the pedestrian who had it before. Legislation was also introduced to change committing homicide with a vehicle to be vehicular manslaughter to reduce the severity of the penalty to increase adoption of automobiles.

[noir_lord]

In the UK it's the other way around, heaviest defers to lightest,

In order of right of way, On Foot, On Bike, On Horseback, In Car.

It makes sense, the consequences to me as a cyclist to a car hitting me are far more severe than to the driver so the onus should be on the driver as the operator of the two tonne metal box.

[jessaustin]

On many trails in western USA, horseback comes first because you can't really trust another person's horse not to do something harmful.

[noir_lord]

Same here practically but the order of precedence I described applies to on the highway.

[dominotw]

> Legislation was also introduced to change committing homicide with a vehicle to be vehicular manslaughter to reduce the severity of the penalty to increase adoption of automobiles.

And that applies only if you are not poor?

Also that seems wrong ( see United states vs other countries) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide

[bdamm]

The poor can't afford good lawyers. Much is then left to the district prosecutor to file correct charges - a practice with a long history of abuse.

[dominotw]

> The poor can't afford good lawyers.

No one is disputing that well known fact.

I am asking why this applied to "because USA". Do other countries not let rich people choose better lawyers?

[JonnyNova]

Not that directly, but the US legal process definitely favors the wealthier because they have access to more resources, namely better lawyers.

[dominotw]

> US legal process definitely favors the wealthier because they have access to more resources, namely better lawyers.

In which country does this not apply? What makes this apply only to US?

> Of course that is to be expected in USA, since drivers are constantly so protected, unless they are poor.

I am referring to this @jessaustin. How is rich getting lenient sentences across the board relevant here? What does that have to do with driving.

[jessaustin]

You seem to have edited this after my reply. The time to edit that reply has now elapsed so I will reply again.

In USA, while crime in general is punished harshly, killing people with a car is a good way not to do any prison time and pay minimal fines. It's an issue of fairness, especially when poor people routinely see e.g. "taillight out" citations they can't afford to pay turn into years-long struggles with the criminal persecution system. If this topic interests you, look into the various reports about Ferguson MO.

Your questions in this thread, while aggressive, never hit upon exactly what troubled you about my initial short parenthetical comment that I only wrote to qualify the overall short post. Was it "USA", "drivers", "poor", "protected", or "negligence"? Was there any one word you would have removed?

[jessaustin]

Did someone say this applied only to US?