[blueraven316]

Originally Posted by esteem_lover

I think you did not understand mayavi's tone. that is why he is a mayavi.

He He, then sarcasm is the word, got it wrong indeed,
then I think the people mayavi was pointing at can read my post.

[BaCkSeAtDrIVeR]

For all you taking the high moral ground in support of the punishment, here is a question:-

X, drunk, loses control of his SUV, runs on to a footpath where people are sleeping and killing few and injuring several.

Y, drunk, loses control of his SUV, runs on to a footpath where no people are sleeping and obviously, nobody is killed and nobody is injured. (probably his SRS deploys, burning his own hands .... but that does not count).

X is handed down a big fine and asked to spend some time counting the bars.

Why should Y be treated differently?

After all, it was not X's fault that people choose to sleep on the footpath. And it was not Y's fault that people were not sleeping on the footpath where he ran onto.

Does it make any difference if X was NOT drunk, while Y was? And what if both were not drunk?

[BaCkSeAtDrIVeR]

Originally Posted by adman77

IMHO that's no excuse to come down here and populate the city. If they were facing poverty back there, they're facing the same thing here too. The only difference they're making is causing inconvenience to others.

If what you are saying is that punishment for drunken driving should be divorced from the harm it causes, you are giving a wrong reason in support of the argument. I disagree with you here.
Poverty and people sleeping on the pavements are a reality; they are inexcusable in a "welfare state", but they exist nonetheless.

[tsk1979]

Punishment is always given out from the results not an act.
Thats why "Attempt to murder" and "murder" have different sections in the Penal code everywhere in the world.
Its like
X drives at 40kmph kills 5 people crossing the road at a zebra crossing
Y drives at 40kmph at the same zebra crossing but does not kill anybody because nobody was there.
This is unfair right
"Footpath."
Foot is where our legs end. Foot path is meant for "people" not vehicles.
If those people were just walking on the footpath, and not sleeping even then it would be same.
Footpaths are for pedestrians, no vehicle should be on a footpath.

[amit]

A truck ran over 3 pavement dwellers killing them today in Mumbai. A few months back a taxi ran over pavement dwellers killing them. None of these news got any prominanace in the media. None of them even speculated (media's favorite activity) over whether the drivers were drunk or not. Why was the Alistar case highlighted so much? Was it because he was drunk? or because he was a "rich spoilt brat" or because he was driving a swanky car (never understood what the media found swanky about that crappy old Toyota) or because he was a rich man mercilessly mowing down poor people? (The 1980's bollywood effect)

So does this mean it's okay for poor people (truck/taxi drivers drunk or sober) to run over other poor pavement dwellers but the same incident becomes huge if it's a private vehicle invovled? (hence the assumption of a rich person). Don't you people see more then a hint of hypocrisy here? And yes, when will Indians stop believing that everyone owning a car is rich. Mentally, many Indians and even the private media are still living in the Indira Gandhi licence raj.

As for the Mumbai police, I wish they realised that there are more traffic violations then just drunk driving. I counted 15 trucks with non working tail lamps at 10pm on the Sion-Panvel highway within a distance of 10 kms!