A high-hooded truck or SUV is far more dangerous to the public than a small car, and a small car is more dangerous than a motorcycle, so a speeding ticket/liscense points/jail time for an SUV should be >4x more severe than a motorcycle doing the same violation, and bicycles should basically only recieve token fines.
Vespa but that’s irrelevant. The point of the punishment is to not have people text and drive - not to punish them for having a larger vehicle. The Vespa driver is not less morally culpable for ending up in the accident in the first place - just luckier that the consequences were less severe.
Would you make the same argument for gun violence? If a person commits armed robbery then should someone who used a .22 get a lesser sentence than someone who used a .45 ACP and if not, why? Larger caliber is more dangerous exactly the same way a larger vehicle is.
Many laws exist to reduce risk and harm. The difference in risk and harm of a speeding car vs. a speeding scooter should not require elaboration, as shown also by you choosing the Vespa.
If we accept that the risk and harm involved in a Vespa crash are less severe than a car crash, there is absolutely a difference in moral culpability. If you knowingly perform an action where the potential outcome is the death of some random person, you should be held responsible to a higher degree than if you knowingly perform an action where the potential outcome is a handful of bruises on a random person (I’m talking about general rules, not saying Vespa crashes don’t involve more serious risks).
Same reason why breaking traffic laws on a bicycle generally carries less severe punishment than doing the same on a motorcycle or in a car.
No, because the person carrying the firearm made a decision to put other people’s lives on the line. A .22 can kill a person, and the person carrying it knows this, yet chooses to use it to threaten someone.
Sadly the law often doesn’t distinguish; dui on a bicycle in most states in America can carry the same penalties. In Japan, it can be 3 years in prison. The judge and cops often realize how absurd this is and apply leniency, but even that gets limited by minimum sentences designed to stop repeat DUI offenders from endangering the public in a car.
I have sympathy for an addict who makes the responsible decision to stop driving a car after getting a DUI, but then gets punished just as if they had kept endangering the public for riding a bicycle.
The reason texting and driving has a less severe punishment than DUI is because it represents a greater risk to the public and thus there is greater incentive to stop it.
If there was meaningful data that one was more deadly, but I seriously doubt a 22 is meaningfully less lethal when you’re within arms reach of the victim.
I didn’t say anything about DUI. I don’t feel like you’re engaging in good faith here but rather just avoiding addressing the obvious holes in your reasoning. This all reads more like anti-SUV post than a genuine attempt at finding the truth.