Woman gets probation, fine in cyclist’s death

[bigflax925]

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2011/mar/29/woman-gets-probation-fine-cyclists-death-20110329/

LITTLE ROCK — A woman who fatally struck a bicyclist while driving a Jeep through a red light in Little Rock last year was sentenced Monday to a year of probation and fined $500.

Pat Booth, 64, of Little Rock was sentenced by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Leon Johnson after pleading guilty under an agreement with prosecutors to a misdemeanor count of negligent homicide in the death of Marilyn Fulper.

Fulper, 56, of Little Rock was crossing Cantrell Road at North Rodney Parham Road at 9:02 a.m. June 20 when she was struck by Booth, who was driving a 2000 Jeep Wrangler. Fulper was thrown from the bicycle and died from her injuries.

Booth’s attorney, Jeff Rosenzweig of Little Rock,said after the hearing that Booth has “great feelings of agony about what happened and felt this was an appropriate resolution.”

He added that Booth, who was taking her grandchildren home from church at the time of the accident, was not talking on a cell phone or otherwise distracted when she ran the red light. A test of Booth’s blood by the Arkansas Crime Laboratory found no sign ofalcohol or drugs use.

“Sometimes you just don’t perceive things,” Rosenzweig said. “She just didn’t perceive” the light.

Booth, who had already completed a defensive driving course before the hearing, faced a maximum sentence of up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $2,500.

In addition to the fine and probation, Johnson ordered her to complete 40 hours of community service and to complete a bicyclist association’s course on motorist safety.

One of Fulper’s sisters, Rebecca Marvin of Little Rock, who attended Monday’s hearing along with other family members, said she didn’t know all of details of the agreement before it was struck.

She said she was “not exactly” satisfied with the sentence and would have preferred a punishment “that would be directed specifically toward the behavior,” such as a driver’s license suspension or a period of home confinement.

She said she also would have liked a requirement that Booth’s community service include a specific project, such as educating others about driving safety.

“Marilyn is one who would have strongly wanted the process to have a positive impact,” Marvin said. “While it did have a positive impact in a sense, it was not as impactful as we felt like she would have wanted to have been.”

A brother, Pete Fulper of Gretna, Va., said he didn’t have a problem with the sentence.

“I expect [Booth] suffered more just from going through the deal” than she would from any sentence the judge could impose, he said.

A divorcee with two children, Marilyn Fulper designed educational modules for medical students at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and was working on her doctoral degree in education, Marvin said.

She said her sister took up cycling several years ago, after gasoline prices began to rise, and it “grew into a passion.”

Eight days before her death, Marilyn Fulper completed the 100-mile Tour de Rock, a fundraiser for the Central Arkansas Radiation Therapy Institute, Marvin said. When she was killed, she was training for the Hotter’N Hell Hundred, a bicycle event in Witchita Falls, Texas.

Fulper was also a devoted mother, daughter and friend, Marvin said.

“Anything she did, she did it 100 percent,” Marvin said.

This article was published today at 5:45 a.m.

[tuxbailey]

***?

$500 fine and no jail time? I know she probably would still feel guilty for the rest of her life, but....

[Aaron O]

I'll be the voice of dissent here...she made a mistake. Mistakes happen. I;ve run red lights I didn't see, and stop signs, and thank God didn't kill anyone. It's tragic, and I'm sorry a cyclist was killed, but it was a mistake and a traffic error. It's an appropriate result. Do we really want to pay money to incarcerate a woman for a driving error? Is this woman a danger to society?

She had a bad day and it sucks it ended up like that, but the penalty is appropriate.

[Ahneida Ride]

We could put her on a chain gang ... work her for 10 years
So that we, the tax payers, don't pay for her.
She pays for her own incarceration by her own work.

Sounds brutal ?

How many people will die because Dr. David Ryan was executed.
He was developing next generation medical imaging.

http://www.davidtryan.com/intro.htm

Yes ..... This woman is a danger to society.
How many free executions does one get.

[toaster]

No way is $500 appropriate.

Even in the case of a complete accident, meaning motorist runs red light by inattention or by something unforseen causing momentary distraction leading to running red light then one must bear a financial hardship that is worthy of the taking of a life.

If someone were basically low income and living paycheck to paycheck a fine of at least one year's worth of rent or mortgage is severe. A fine based on a real life financial burden has to be considered.

If that were to happen to any of us where we accidently hurt or killed someone on a bike in our car there would be the awesome guilt and that would be much more to bear than a several thousand dollar fine.

[Lifelover]

I'll be the voice of dissent here...she made a mistake. Mistakes happen. I;ve run red lights I didn't see, and stop signs, and thank God didn't kill anyone. It's tragic, and I'm sorry a cyclist was killed, but it was a mistake and a traffic error. It's an appropriate result. Do we really want to pay money to incarcerate a woman for a driving error? Is this woman a danger to society?

She had a bad day and it sucks it ended up like that, but the penalty is appropriate.

+1 Your voice of reason it sure to be drowned out by the mob!

If her brother can accept the outcome who the hell are we to feel otherwise.

[Aaron O]

We could put her on a chain gang ... work her for 10 years
So that we, the tax payers, don't pay for her.
She pays for her own incarceration by her own work.

Sounds brutal ?

How many people will die because Dr. David Ryan was executed.
He was developing next generation medical imaging.

http://www.davidtryan.com/intro.htm

Yes ..... This woman is a danger to society.
How many free executions does one get.

A touch dramatic don't you think? She ran a light. She made a traffic error. There isn't a single person on this site that hasn't done something stupid that COULD have killed someone else if circumstances were different. I wouldn;t want to have my entire life deraillled over an honest, albeit tragic, mistake either. ????e happens. I'm sorry it happened to this person, but it did and I don't see any need to destroy someone who made an honest error.

Had she been drunk, I'd feel differently.

[Aaron O]

No way is $500 appropriate.

Even in the case of a complete accident, meaning motorist runs red light by inattention or by something unforseen causing momentary distraction leading to running red light then one must bear a financial hardship that is worthy of the taking of a life.

If someone were basically low income and living paycheck to paycheck a fine of at least one year's worth of rent or mortgage is severe. A fine based on a real life financial burden has to be considered.

If that were to happen to any of us where we accidently hurt or killed someone on a bike in our car there would be the awesome guilt and that would be much more to bear than a several thousand dollar fine.

Did you miss the year of probation and the community service? I'd consider both meaningful and substantial penalties.

[sc53]

I'll be the voice of dissent here...she made a mistake. Mistakes happen. I;ve run red lights I didn't see, and stop signs, and thank God didn't kill anyone. It's tragic, and I'm sorry a cyclist was killed, but it was a mistake and a traffic error. It's an appropriate result. Do we really want to pay money to incarcerate a woman for a driving error? Is this woman a danger to society?

She had a bad day and it sucks it ended up like that, but the penalty is appropriate.

Well, yes, she is a danger to society. She should surrender her driver's license at the least. "She made a mistake....She had a bad day....It was a mistake and a traffic error..." All true, but there should be consequences commensurate with the gravity of her mistake, error, bad day and inattention that cost someone her life.

[Aaron O]

Well, yes, she is a danger to society. She should surrender her driver's license at the least. "She made a mistake....She had a bad day....It was a mistake and a traffic error..." All true, but there should be consequences commensurate with the gravity of her mistake, error, bad day and inattention that cost someone her life.

So you think taking away her ability to drive, which for many areas of this country and our lack of public transit infrastructure is essential, is fair? She ran a red light and can never drive again? What's a fair length of time to make her helpless for making an error?

Sorry, but if she hadn't killed a cyclist I seriously doubt any of us would be yelling for her head or even interested. Would you feel the same way if she hit a roller blader?

If the standard of being a danger to society is "capable of making a dangerous error", EVERYONE is a danger to society.

[Black Dog]

A touch dramatic don't you think? She ran a light. She made a traffic error. There isn't a single person on this site that hasn't done something stupid that COULD have killed someone else if circumstances were different. I wouldn;t want to have my entire life deraillled over an honest, albeit tragic, mistake either. ????e happens. I'm sorry it happened to this person, but it did and I don't see any need to destroy someone who made an honest error.

Had she been drunk, I'd feel differently.

She was not paying attention, regardless of the reason she was negligent. Driving a car means that you have to pay attention. It is not optional. People die when you don't. It is a choice to not focus. You are deciding that focusing on something other than driving is OK and there are potential consequences of that choice. People need to be held accountable for their actions. Seriously, we all know that driving can kill us or others if we loss attention for a second. Everyone knows this and should keep it in mind behind the wheel. The dead lady does not get to make any more good or bad choices, that was taken from her by the choice of another. This was not an accident, accidents can not be prevented, this could have.

It is amazing that when behind the wheel, you can do almost anything that in any other setting would get you sent away for a long time.

[sc53]

So you think taking away her ability to drive, which for many areas of this country and our lack of public transit infrastructure is essential, is fair? She ran a red light and can never drive again? What's a fair length of time to make her helpless for making an error?

Sorry, but if she hadn't killed a cyclist I seriously doubt any of us would be yelling for her head or even interested. Would you feel the same way if she hit a roller blader?

If the standard of being a danger to society is "capable of making a dangerous error", EVERYONE is a danger to society.

Aaron, you're really missing the point. She DID kill someone. Doesn't matter if it's a cyclist, roller blader, old man in a wheelchair, child in a stroller. And the standard is not "capable of making a dangerous error;" this is not a potential possibility, IT HAPPENED. Consequences follow from actions. Had she not killed someone, but merely ran a red light, sure, who would be arguing she should lose her license or go to jail?

[toaster]

Did you miss the year of probation and the community service? I'd consider both meaningful and substantial penalties.

Maybe.

I'm not the judge in this case so it's possible this is an appropriate amount of probation and community service. The money still could be more IMHO.

[Aaron O]

She was not paying attention, regardless of the reason she was negligent. Driving a car means that you have to pay attention. It is not optional. People die when you don't. It is a choice to not focus. You are deciding that focusing on something other than driving is OK and there are potential consequences of that choice. People need to be held accountable for their actions. Seriously, we all know that driving can kill us or others if we loss attention for a second. Everyone knows this and should keep it in mind behind the wheel. The dead lady does not get to make any more good or bad choices, that was taken from her by the choice of another. This was not an accident, accidents can not be prevented, this could have.

It is amazing that when behind the wheel, you can do almost anything that in any other setting would get you sent away for a long time.

She made a mistake and there isn't a single driver alive who hasn't been negligent at some point. Not one. Not you, not me and not anyone. It's a dangerous world and things happen. We're not always perfect. I have no interest in seeing this woman's life derailled further for a mistake. Driving a 2000 pound machine means a certain number of people are going to be hurt, killed, etc. It's just part of the system...and that's why they call crashes accidents.

[Ahneida Ride]

Hey ... we all get a few free executions! :beer:

[firerescuefin]

Sorry, but if she hadn't killed a cyclist I seriously doubt any of us would be yelling for her head or even interested. Would you feel the same way if she hit a roller blader?

Aaron, but she did kill someone. Regardless of it being a cyclist, rollerblader, pedestrian, etc. If it was your child, wife, friend, do you honestly think you would be her advocate. What does this verdict tell us. Consequences aren't applicable if it's a mistake. Let me have a mistake on my property with a gun and see what happens.

Back to you comment on cyclist...it does make a difference to me...and it should to you also, if your out on the roads on a daily basis....when society tells motorists it's no big deal if you hit one. Call me a member of a special interest group..one that's not interested in being hit by negligent/distracted/incompetent drivers.

[Aaron O]

Aaron, you're really missing the point. She DID kill someone. Doesn't matter if it's a cyclist, roller blader, old man in a wheelchair, child in a stroller. And the standard is not "capable of making a dangerous error;" this is not a potential possibility, IT HAPPENED. Consequences follow from actions. Had she not killed someone, but merely ran a red light, sure, who would be arguing she should lose her license or go to jail?

You're missing the point...all of us make errors that can kill someone. You can do it too, and you have done it. You got lucky that nothing worse happened.

[FlashUNC]

She killed someone, but let's look at the mitigating circumstances before we all string her up from the yardarm.

1) The family of the victim would like to see some tweaks to the sentence, but they appear to agree with the overall sentence.

2) This is a grandmother taking her grandchildren from church who made a catastrophic mistake. Were the results tragic? Yes, but it wasn't as if she were drunk, fled the scene, attempted to cover up the crime, etc etc.

So if this isn't the appropriate punishment, what do others suggest? Throwing grandma in jail for the rest of her natural life? Send her to the chair?

I wonder if folks would be calling for such an aggressive penalty if they were sitting in her shoes. "Please judge, I killed, even if it was just a tragic accident throw the book at me!"

[firerescuefin]

Flash...liked the community service hours put towards education in this matter....bicycling/motorist safety.

You've got to lose your license for awhile....


No....she shouldn't be rotting in prison.

[rugbysecondrow]

+1 Your voice of reason it sure to be drowned out by the mob!

If her brother can accept the outcome who the hell are we to fell otherwise.


Agreed. None of us know what conversations might have been had between the prosecutors office and the victims family. If they feel good with how justice is being delivered, then I agree as well.

If this was my sister who was killed, my view might change. If my mother was the driver, my view might change. I suspect that is true for us all as most do not take a strict black and white view of the world.

[Aaron O]

Thank God it wasn't me or mine, but if it had, I would want mercy shown for an honest mistake.

Had the driver been drunk, fleeing police, etc. etc. etc. I'd want blood. I'm sorry, but I can't find a whole lot of vengeance or righteous indignation for a woman who screwed up. We all screw up.

[Black Dog]

She made a mistake and there isn't a single driver alive who hasn't been negligent at some point. Not one. Not you, not me and not anyone. It's a dangerous world and things happen. We're not always perfect. I have no interest in seeing this woman's life derailled further for a mistake. Driving a 2000 pound machine means a certain number of people are going to be hurt, killed, etc. It's just part of the system...and that's why they call crashes accidents.

I mean you no offence at all, but killing someone should derail a life. Yes we all make mistakes, I do. Would you be so forgiving if her "mistake" was to get behind the wheel after drinking. Would that be an accident too? I still maintain that if she was focused driving the 5000 pound car she was driving then they cyclist would be alive.

[Aaron O]

I mean you no offence at all, but killing someone should derail a life. Yes we all make mistakes, I do. Would you be so forgiving if her "mistake" was to get behind the wheel after drinking. Would that be an accident too? I still maintain that if she was focused driving the 5000 pound car she was driving then they cyclist would be alive.

And I still maintain your standard of being totally and completely correct 100% of the time is unreasonable.

No, if she drank i wouldn't be forgiving, because she would have behaved in a way a sensible person would not have. She'd have intentionally put someone at risk with wreckless behavior. That isn't what happened here. She made an error.This wasn't intentional, wreckless and could happen to EVERY driver out there. All of us. We're humans, sometimes we mess up and sometimes people get hurt. I want you to ponder what you drove like as teens. Think about stupid things you've done where someone COULD have been hurt.

I wonder how you would feel if you made an error that killed someone. Would you want to be strung up, or would you want mercy for an honest mistake?

Cars are big and dangerous, mistakes are going to happen. We have to accept that to a point as a consequence for our mobile society.

PS...I'm not even remotely offended or annoyed. We're having a discussion about morality and consequences. We're all friends here :)

[Black Dog]

Glad I was not sounding offensive and I do see your point and think it has merit and it seems to come down to what she was or was not doing during the collision.

[firerescuefin]

PS...I'm not even remotely offended or annoyed. We're having a discussion about morality and consequences. We're all friends here :)

As it should be... :beer:

[sc53]

You're missing the point...all of us make errors that can kill someone. You can do it too, and you have done it. You got lucky that nothing worse happened.
But that's just the point! Had she NOT KILLED SOMEONE her inattention/mistake/lapse would not have had any consequences! You seemingly believe there should not be serious consequences for a SERIOUS mistake that had SERIOUS (deadly, in this case) results. Of course I, like you, have made mistakes, and some of them COULD have been deadly. But here it wasn't just an unrealized risk, it actually happened. Big difference, that you don't seem to understand.

[sc53]

She killed someone, but let's look at the mitigating circumstances before we all string her up from the yardarm.
...

So if this isn't the appropriate punishment, what do others suggest? Throwing grandma in jail for the rest of her natural life? Send her to the chair?

...

I don't think Grandma should be driving anymore. I believe her inattention has cost her that privilege (it's not a RIGHT, it's a PRIVILEGE). Grandma may be only 55, or she may be 85, story doesn't say. Either way, she should not be on the roads behind the wheel of a 2000 lb machine, with small children in her care. This accident could have been even worse.

[Aaron O]

But that's just the point! Had she NOT KILLED SOMEONE her inattention/mistake/lapse would not have had any consequences! You seemingly believe there should not be serious consequences for a SERIOUS mistake that had SERIOUS (deadly, in this case) results. Of course I, like you, have made mistakes, and some of them COULD have been deadly. But here it wasn't just an unrealized risk, it actually happened. Big difference, that you don't seem to understand.

There were consequences, you just think they should have been greater. Perhaps the fine should be bigger, but the fine, probation, driving lessons and community service is a consequence.

What is the difference, in terms of your actions, if it resulted in death or not? LUCK...that's the only difference. I disagree that the consequences should be more severe than they were, or at least not much more.

Let's hear from you what you think a fair result is.

PS...I also think it's a mistake to have charges for attempted murder and murder...the person should be penalized less for being a bad shot?

[Aaron O]

I don't think Grandma should be driving anymore. I believe her inattention has cost her that privilege (it's not a RIGHT, it's a PRIVILEGE). Grandma may be only 55, or she may be 85, story doesn't say. Either way, she should not be on the roads behind the wheel of a 2000 lb machine, with small children in her car in said vehicle.

It's a privilidge that in many areas is a neccessity, which is why most license suspensions have exceptions made possible for things like work.

If you accidentally killed someone I doubt you'd think permanent license suspension was fair. Bottom line is she didn't do anything all of haven't done.

[1centaur]

"Sometimes you don't perceive things and she did not perceive the light."

There are only so many ways that one can fail to perceive a red light. Distraction, sun blindness, inattention, incapacity (alcohol/drugs/seizure). We are not hearing the whole story here so it's difficult to make judgments. But, if she had not been a grandma (age-related??) coming from church, and whom she hit had not been a cyclist, if instead a migrant farm worker, age 26, had plowed over a baby carriage and killed a toddler, would the prosecutor have pursued such a limp maximum sentence, and would the "sometimes you don't perceive things" defense lead anyone to say, oh, well, okay then?

When I was in driver's ed in high school we were taught that sunblindness is not an acceptable legal excuse for having an accident. If you can't see you must stop. I doubt if I was on a jury I would feel that the inability to perceive a red light was something that merited a light punishment. What if she was not visibly upset because her brain was wired differently, should the sadness of the offender really have much to do with the punishment? Sentences have to do not just with what they do to the criminal but with what they say to society. Just not perceiving a red light and killing somebody is an act that a prosecutor should hold up as an example for all the inattentive, distracted, old and well-lawyered people out there: every time you turn that key you have a critical duty not to kill somebody; that's #1.

The right sentence? More money (not ridiculous amounts), loss of license for 6 months, more community service (in high schools and old folks homes), and 60 days in jail (make sure the TV news gets the "Killer Grandma Behind Bars" interview), which is still scant compensation for killing someone but enough to signal the ninnies to make sure they perceive the important stuff, including to watch out for cyclists.

[rugbysecondrow]

I mean you no offence at all, but killing someone should derail a life. Yes we all make mistakes, I do. Would you be so forgiving if her "mistake" was to get behind the wheel after drinking. Would that be an accident too? I still maintain that if she was focused driving the 5000 pound car she was driving then they cyclist would be alive.


I agree that there is a high standard for drivers, but the truth is that even a focused person will miss things on the road. There are so many variables, so many distractions and any one of those could turn catastrophic when such a vehicle is involved.

I will also say, the mind can perceive things in the moment differently than hindsight.

About 20 years ago, while on our way home from a camping vacation, we pulled off for gas at about 10PM at night. While leaving the gas station, my Mom, while towing a boat, pull into the road right into the path of two motorcyclists. One laid the bike down, slid under the boat trailer and the other took to the ditch. Luckily, nobody was seriously hurt. From the internet, one would say "she lacked focus". From her perspective, she looked, saw two headlights side by side and with the smaller motorcycle headlights, she thought it was a car further away and not two motorcycles.

My point is that while driving we process so much info so quickly, we are remarkably successful, but when we are not, there is potential for really bad things to happen. To what degree do we want to begin applying a strict standard across the board?

[1centaur]

I would regard the two headlights story as MUCH more ameliorating than not perceiving a red light.

Did grandma not know there was a light there at all (really bad)? Was it a road she traveled frequently on the way home from church so she DID know there was a light? If you know there's a traffic light, what thought is more important than its color? If you are looking to ascertain its color (you'd better be), how can you mistake its color?

There's a story behind her lack of perception of that light. We'd need to know it to be sure of our attitude here.

[Aaron O]

"Sometimes you don't perceive things and she did not perceive the light."

There are only so many ways that one can fail to perceive a red light. Distraction, sun blindness, inattention, incapacity (alcohol/drugs/seizure). We are not hearing the whole story here so it's difficult to make judgments. But, if she had not been a grandma (age-related??) coming from church, and whom she hit had not been a cyclist, if instead a migrant farm worker, age 26, had plowed over a baby carriage and killed a toddler, would the prosecutor have pursued such a limp maximum sentence, and would the "sometimes you don't perceive things" defense lead anyone to say, oh, well, okay then?

When I was in driver's ed in high school we were taught that sunblindness is not an acceptable legal excuse for having an accident. If you can't see you must stop. I doubt if I was on a jury I would feel that the inability to perceive a red light was something that merited a light punishment. What if she was not visibly upset because her brain was wired differently, should the sadness of the offender really have much to do with the punishment? Sentences have to do not just with what they do to the criminal but with what they say to society. Just not perceiving a red light and killing somebody is an act that a prosecutor should hold up as an example for all the inattentive, distracted, old and well-lawyered people out there: every time you turn that key you have a critical duty not to kill somebody; that's #1.

The right sentence? More money (not ridiculous amounts), loss of license for 6 months, more community service (in high schools and old folks homes), and 60 days in jail (make sure the TV news gets the "Killer Grandma Behind Bars" interview), which is still scant compensation for killing someone but enough to signal the ninnies to make sure they perceive the important stuff, including to watch out for cyclists.

1. I don't care a lick about the Church aspect. In fact i trust religious people less than fellow agnostics and the first thing I do when someone mentions God is cover my wallet.

2. I don't care a lick about the grandma part. She's a person, plain and simple. I'd feel exactly the same way if it was a migrant who killed Bob Dylan.

3. On the flip side, I think you'd be interested less, and this would never have been posted, had she run over a skateboarder.

4. You're making assumptions on why she didn't see the light. Sometimes we mess up. Period.

You're entitled to your view, but I completely disagree with your definition of fair and I don't want tax dollars incarcerating a woman who made a mistake.

[rugbysecondrow]

There's a story behind her lack of perception of that light. We'd need to know it to be sure of our attitude here.


Sure, there is likely some additional nuance, but I will assume that the details were talked through with the victims family. I guess that is why I differ to their reported opinions on the matter.

These are hard stories to interpret, at least for me they are.

[FlashUNC]

I don't think Grandma should be driving anymore. I believe her inattention has cost her that privilege (it's not a RIGHT, it's a PRIVILEGE). Grandma may be only 55, or she may be 85, story doesn't say. Either way, she should not be on the roads behind the wheel of a 2000 lb machine, with small children in her care. This accident could have been even worse.


Story does say. She's 64.

And I think its completely fair to ask about a license suspension.
But this whole "Let's break out the tar and feathers and get the rail ready" routine is a little over the top.

I'm reminded of a situation that happened just outside my former workplace. A gentleman in an electric wheelchair was crossing the street, outside of a crosswalk at the busy intersection where our building stood. Between the building, the trees/signage, its very difficult to see anyone who isn't in the defined crosswalk. Well, driver one day had a right hand green arrow, turned, and ran over the gentleman, killing him instantly.

Should we now throw the driver in jail for being careless? There was no way he could have seen the wheelchair until it was too late, but he's got a green arrow and a line of cars behind him just an anxious to turn. Should the building/property manager be at fault? Or the architect for designing a building that partially obstructs the view of the curving street a half-block down?

I appreciate everyone's outrage over a life that was lost, but these situations are fairly nuanced, case-by-case situations, and we simply don't have all the facts on this one.

[DogpawSlim]

I'll be the voice of dissent here...she made a mistake. Mistakes happen. I;ve run red lights I didn't see, and stop signs, and thank God didn't kill anyone. It's tragic, and I'm sorry a cyclist was killed, but it was a mistake and a traffic error. It's an appropriate result. Do we really want to pay money to incarcerate a woman for a driving error? Is this woman a danger to society?

She had a bad day and it sucks it ended up like that, but the penalty is appropriate.

I agree with this statement. It was a lapse of concentration that ended tragically. There was (apparently) no recklessness or purposeful conduct re: running down the cyclist. The driver will have to live with the fact that she killed someone as a result of her thoughtlessness.

This has probably been covered, but the $500 is a criminal penalty. If/when a civil judgment comes down against the driver (which it most assuredly will), she will probably lose everything she has and will be paying the cyclist's family for the rest of her life.

[Aaron O]

Which I'm ok with. In terms of an appropriate criminal penalty, yes...I think $500 was about right. Also, taking more would just reduce what she can give the victim's family.

[Vientomas]

The State wherein I reside requires the Court to consider the following factors when imposing a sentence: Primarily the protection of society and secondarily, retribution, deterrence of others and rehabilitation.

Does this sentence protect society? I don't think so. At minimum the driver should be required to complete additional safe driving driving courses, and perhaps suffer a period of suspend license followed by a period of restricted privileges for limited driving purposes. Does the sentence adequately punish the driver? In my opinion no. She took a life and does not have to spend on day in jail. I find that to be unacceptable. Does the sentence deter others from driving negligently? I would think not. Run a red light and kill a cyclist = fine and probation. No big deal. Right? Does the sentence promote rehabilitation? I don't know. How does one rehabilitate bad driving other than the safe driving courses and drivers license restrictions described above.

Contrary to popular opinion, it is not the victim's family who gets to decide if the sentence is appropriate. The sentence has an effect on each and every person who resides in the state. In my opinion, the sentence does not fit the crime. Even though the loss of life was due to negligence, the fact is that a life was lost. Requiring the driver to sit in jail for a time and reflect upon her actions might make her drive more attentively when she gets behind the wheel.

[BobbyJones]

There are very few "accidents" - there are collisions resulting from carelessness.

Although the family may be ok with the penalty it's now proven that this person is a lethal threat behind the wheel of an auto. I'd hate to be the next one in line when this person is careless again and "doesn't see" the next light, or stop sign, other car, pedestrian, cyclist, etc.

I'm a big fan of mandatory license suspension coupled with more rigorous driver instruction (the kind of class I don't even think is available right now) upon reinstatement when a life is taken - by "accident" or not.


She made a mistake and there isn't a single driver alive who hasn't been negligent at some point. Not one. Not you, not me and not anyone. It's a dangerous world and things happen. We're not always perfect. I have no interest in seeing this woman's life derailled further for a mistake. Driving a 2000 pound machine means a certain number of people are going to be hurt, killed, etc. It's just part of the system...and that's why they call crashes accidents.

[Aaron O]

The State wherein I reside requires the Court to consider the following factors when imposing a sentence: Primarily the protection of society and secondarily, retribution, deterrence of others and rehabilitation.

Does this sentence protect society? I don't think so. At minimum the driver should be required to complete additional safe driving driving courses, and perhaps suffer a period of suspend license followed by a period of restricted privileges for limited driving purposes. Does the sentence adequately punish the driver? In my opinion no. She took a life and does not have to spend on day in jail. I find that to be unacceptable. Does the sentence deter others from driving negligently? I would think not. Run a red light and kill a cyclist = fine and probation. No big deal. Right? Does the sentence promote rehabilitation? I don't know. How does one rehabilitate bad driving other than the safe driving courses and drivers license restrictions described above.

Contrary to popular opinion, it is not the victim's family who gets to decide if the sentence is appropriate. The sentence has an effect on each and every person who resides in the state. In my opinion, the sentence does not fit the crime. Even though the loss of life was due to negligence, the fact is that a life was lost. Requiring the driver to sit in jail for a time and reflect upon her actions might make her drive more attentively when she gets behind the wheel.

By your definition every single person is a bad driver since everyone has made mistakes like this. How do you know she's a bad driver? My definition of a bad driver is someone who repeatedly makes mistakes. Good drivers can make a mistake. How do you know this happens regularly? Her age? 64 isn't that old and plenty of people that age drive well. The repeated grandma comments are insulting towards her and her age is not neccassarily a factor here.

She already received additional driving instruction.

I disagree with what you consider justice, but that's a personal value issue. I hope you never getyou on a jury if you do something stupid.

[Aaron O]

There are very few "accidents" - there are collisions resulting from carelessness.

Although the family may be ok with the penalty it's now proven that this person is a lethal threat behind the wheel of an auto. I'd hate to be the next one in line when this person is careless again and "doesn't see" the next light, or stop sign, other car, pedestrian, cyclist, etc.

I'm a big fan of mandatory license suspension coupled with more rigorous driver instruction (the kind of class I don't even think is available right now) upon reinstatement when a life is taken - by "accident" or not.

Great...the mandatory sentence arguments. Yes, it's a great idea to take away all human judgement in considering justice and instead rely on a beauracratic guideline that lumps many behaviors together. I definitely want to be judged by a faceless beuracrat who has never met me or heard the case's merits.

[schneiderrd]

I think that the light sentence does reflect on a lack of repect for cyclists. We see so many cases where a cyclist is killed and the sentence is a joke. All this does is send the message that it is no big deal if you hit and kill a cyclist. The money should have been more, the license should have been revoked and a more lenghty probation at the minimum.

[Vientomas]

By your definition every single person is a bad driver since everyone has made mistakes like this.

Actually, I did not attempt to define "good driver" or "bad driver". However, I can assure you that I drive a vehicle and I have never made a mistake that resulted in the death of another human being. I have no problem stating that my definition of a bad driver includes a driver whose negligence results in the death of another human being.

[SamIAm]

License should go bye bye for a long time. I would expect the same for myself or any family member that took someones life, albeit accidentally.

[Aaron O]

Actually, I did not attempt to define "good driver" or "bad driver". However, I can assure you that I drive a vehicle and I have never made a mistake that resulted in the death of another human being. I have no problem stating that my definition of a bad driver includes a driver whose negligence results in the death of another human being.

Let me be clear since people are having a hard time with this. The only difference between you and this woman is luck. You may not have killed someone, but if you can look me in the eye and say you've never made a mistake that was potentially fatal, you're a better man than I (and I'll think you're a liar).

You called her a bad driver...what you described is an unlucky driver...someone who made a mistake that all of us have made, except here it was fatal. If you saw her driving record and are aware of a pattern of bad driving, please let us know. The only evidence we have (which is incomplete) leads to unlucky driver who made a mistake. Not a bad driver.

All of have been "negligent" at times and usually we're lucky and get to go...wooosh, that was stupid!

[nm87710]

let me be clear since people are having a hard time with this. The only difference between you and this woman is luck. You may not have killed someone, but if you can look me in the eye and say you've never made a mistake that was potentially fatal, you're a better man than i (and i'll think you're a liar).

You called her a bad driver...what you described is an unlucky driver...someone who made a mistake that all of us have made, except here it was fatal. If you saw her driving record and are aware of a pattern of bad driving, please let us know. The only evidence we have (which is incomplete) leads to unlucky driver who made a mistake. Not a bad driver.

All of have been "negligent" at times and usually we're lucky and get to go...wooosh, that was stupid!

+1

[BobbyJones]

Ya know, as I'm about to head out for an easy cruise through Central Park I can't help but think- "It's cheaper for me to run someone over and kill someone while driving a car than going through two red lights on a closed roadway on a bicycle"

Ain't that something!

[rugbysecondrow]

Ya know, as I'm about to head out for an easy cruise through Central Park I can't help but think- "It's cheaper for me to run someone over and kill someone while driving a car than going through two red lights on a closed roadway on a bicycle"

Ain't that something!

Now this is a bull???? post if I have ever seen one.

[DogpawSlim]

Does the sentence adequately punish the driver? In my opinion no. She took a life and does not have to spend on day in jail. I find that to be unacceptable.

The question is: what is the driver being punished for? The negligent act, or the resulting death? Suppose "A" is on their 3rd story patio facing the street, barbequeing with friends. A leaves his beer sitting on the rail. "B" is a little drunk, and knocks the beer over. The beer lands on "C's" head on the street below, killing him instantly. Should B face jail time for his careless act? Any number of equally stupid and implausible hypotheticals can be imagined. Society needs to punish the wrongful act, not punish for the result.

Here, the wrongful act is negligently running a stop light. It's not even clear whether this would qualify as criminal negligence, which "involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation. Model Penal Code section 2.02(d). Is absent-mindedly running a light a "gross deviation" from what most of us do every day? Probably not, it's just one of those things that happens sometimes.

Does the sentence deter others from driving negligently? I would think not. Run a red light and kill a cyclist = fine and probation. No big deal. Right? Does the sentence promote rehabilitation? I don't know. How does one rehabilitate bad driving other than the safe driving courses and drivers license restrictions described above.

I agree with you here. 40 hours of community service and $500 is no deterrence. However, it is difficult for society to deter negligence; which by definition lacks purpose, knowledge, or recklessness toward the act. Negligence isn't a state of mind, it is the absence of care. But probation, license suspension, big fines, etc. would probably serve to show society that they need to pay more attention when driving.

Contrary to popular opinion, it is not the victim's family who gets to decide if the sentence is appropriate. The sentence has an effect on each and every person who resides in the state. In my opinion, the sentence does not fit the crime. Even though the loss of life was due to negligence, the fact is that a life was lost. Requiring the driver to sit in jail for a time and reflect upon her actions might make her drive more attentively when she gets behind the wheel.

Your sig, profile, whatever it is in the top right corner says you live in ID. The statutory maximum sentence in that state for involuntary vehicular manslaughter is 1 year in jail and/or a $2000 fine (don't quote me, it was a quick look, but it's probably similar everywhere). ID Statutes, 18-4007(3)(c). The judge has discretion to lower these to no jail time and no fine. Legislators passed the statute, who were chosen by voters. The judges were chosen by voters as well, most likely. In a way, it is the victim's family (and all victim's families) who decides that the sentence is appropriate. If the good people of ID, or any state, want to impose minimum sentencing requirements for involuntary manslaughter, our government gives them the power to do that through the democratic process.

I'm sure many people won't agree with me, these are my opinions. I think the driver's punishment is adequate when combined with the availability for the family to exact some vigilante justice in the civil courts. If the family thinks it is necessary that the driver never drives again because she can't afford a car and the one she had has been sold to pay down the judgment, they can do that.

[DogpawSlim]

Ya know, as I'm about to head out for an easy cruise through Central Park I can't help but think- "It's cheaper for me to run someone over and kill someone while driving a car than going through two red lights on a closed roadway on a bicycle"

Ain't that something!

It wouldn't be cheaper, it would be premeditated murder. There is a big difference between negligence and having a purpose to kill.

[Dlevy05]

In all European countries, and some middle eastern/asian countries, having your license suspended is very common place.

As 'firerescuefin' mentioned, and I concur:

This woman deserves whatever sentence the judge feels was appropriate, but she needs to take a breather from driving. As does anyone who kills a cyclist under similar circumstances.

[noflysonme]

If this was your mother, would you still let her drive the grandkids around? She did run a red light and lucky for her, the vehicle involved was a bicycle and not a large truck.

[Lifelover]

...Society needs to punish the wrongful act, not punish for the result.

....

Generally and fortunately it does. That is what happened in this case and it is why we have a judicail system that is the best in the world. However, you will always get a bunch of self righteous, holier than thou folks screaming to burn the witch.

Aaron O., you are P'n into the wind. If any of these folks make a fetal mistake you can be sure that we will never hear about it and they will not voluntarily throw themselves on the sword.

[JMerring]

It wouldn't be cheaper, it would be premeditated murder. There is a big difference between negligence and having a purpose to kill.

it's only premeditated if it is, in fact, premeditated. if just an accident, then bobbyjones' point is a good one. funny, too.

[zap]

snip

To what degree do we want to begin applying a strict standard across the board?

The USA is not blessed with good motorists.

Reasons why have been cited here a few times-education and cost and penalties-better and higher and more severe in countries with much lower pedestrian and cycling fatalities per mile than the USA.

[rice rocket]

Blessed? Because good motorists just "happen" in other countries?

It's training, and then it's retraining. We just have a very careless attitude towards driving here, and it shows.

[Aaron O]

I admittedly have limited experience, but Italian drivers were far more insane in Rome and Florence. They were more agressive for sure and I saw more rule violations that on average in Philadelphia.

The things I've read and heard seem to indicate we have it very good with traffic and drivers compared to most countries. One reason they might have lower fatalities isn't that they're better drivers, but that they usually drive smaller cars.

I'd want to see evidence or statistics that support the US having bad drivers.

BTW...I know as fact that we're among the lower levels of drunk driving.

[slowgoing]

Agreed.

Not perceiving a red light is a pretty serious lapse in perception. I don't recall ever doing that (sorry, officer, I didn't see the traffic light???). Plus the odds are pretty high that something bad is going to happen if you're not perceiving traffic lights. I'd actually be less worried about her driving ability if she had been texting or otherwise distracted, so I'd punish her for that dangerous behavior and require that she take a driving safety course before she could drive again. However, with no excuse for her lapse in perception, I'd suspend her license until she got behind the wheel with a professional for a few hours and proved that she was congizant of what was going on and could drive safely. If there is a potential underlying perception problem, better to err on the side of keeping her off the road than jeopardizing the safety of others.

I would regard the two headlights story as MUCH more ameliorating than not perceiving a red light.

Did grandma not know there was a light there at all (really bad)? Was it a road she traveled frequently on the way home from church so she DID know there was a light? If you know there's a traffic light, what thought is more important than its color? If you are looking to ascertain its color (you'd better be), how can you mistake its color?

There's a story behind her lack of perception of that light. We'd need to know it to be sure of our attitude here.

[ultraman6970]

What needs to be done now, is grab all those nasty bad guys, murders, rapers, killers, and all the nasty scum that is moving around and make them ride a bike over a cross w/o any signals and make a an 18 trailer to cross at the same time. Things are so weird that probably the driver will get life sentence instead of a palm in the back for the community service.


This is a just nutz, poor woman her life worth 500 bucks! :/

[rugbysecondrow]

Agreed.

Not perceiving a red light is a pretty serious lapse in perception. I don't recall ever doing that (sorry, officer, I didn't see the traffic light???). Plus the odds are pretty high that something bad is going to happen if you're not perceiving traffic lights. I'd actually be less worried about her driving ability if she had been texting or otherwise distracted, so I'd punish her but let her drive after taking a safety course. With no other excuse for her lapse in perception, I'd suspend her license until she got behind the wheel with a professional for a few hours and proved that she was congizant of what was going on and could drive safely. If there is a potential underlying perception problem, better to err on the side of keeping her off the road than jeopardizing the safety of others.


I must say that I almost missed a light completely while driving in Little Rock. Some streets have the overhead lights, and some only on the sides. I was looking for an over head light and almost missed a side one, it was an abrupt stop.

[Rada]

I'll be the voice of dissent here...she made a mistake. Mistakes happen. I;ve run red lights I didn't see, and stop signs, and thank God didn't kill anyone. It's tragic, and I'm sorry a cyclist was killed, but it was a mistake and a traffic error. It's an appropriate result. Do we really want to pay money to incarcerate a woman for a driving error? Is this woman a danger to society?

She had a bad day and it sucks it ended up like that, but the penalty is appropriate.

The woman she killed had a real bad day. Hope she never kills anyone you care about.

[Aaron O]

The woman she killed had a real bad day. Hope she never kills anyone you care about.

I hope you never make a mistake that ends in tragedy and have that standard used in your trial.

[rugbysecondrow]

I hope you never make a mistake that leads in tragedy and have that standard used in your trial.

Aaron, the problem is that you are trying to have a discussion, most others are monologuing or taking pot shots.

[Kirk007]

If I made a mistake that killed someone I would expect a heck of a lot more than that. Sorry but one of the primary reasons for the penal code, at least as it was taught to me in law school is deterrence of conduct that falls below society's accepted standard. Inattention when operating a dangerous instrument should be deterred; it is clearly negligent and a standard of behaivor that cannot be tolerated in any community for the very reason illustrated here. The message to the community should be sent: inattention plus bodily harm is going to cost you something more than a slap on the wrist and your own wrestling with your conscious.

Of course we all make mistakes. I make them all the time. But in 38 years of driving my mistakes have never once harmed a single person. There are mistakes and then there are mistakes.

[Rada]

What if instead of just striking a cyclist she hit a bus full of kids and killed thirty? Just an accident, oh well!

[Rada]

I hope you never make a mistake that ends in tragedy and have that standard used in your trial.

If I made that kind of mistake I would expect it.

[Lifelover]

...The message to the community should be sent: inattention plus bodily harm is going to cost you something more than a slap on the wrist and your own wrestling with your conscious.

.....


So if a person falls asleep behind the wheel and kills one of their 3 children riding in the car, what is the appropriate government appointed sentence?

Suspend their driving privilege for a week, month, year, forever?
Send them to jail?

Based on some of this discussion it would seem reasonable to declare them unfit parents and take the other 2 children from them.

I'm just thankful that I'm not the one making these decisions. Once the tragedy occurs there can be no good outcome.

[Aaron O]

If I made a mistake that killed someone I would expect a heck of a lot more than that. Sorry but one of the primary reasons for the penal code, at least as it was taught to me in law school is deterrence of conduct that falls below society's accepted standard. Inattention when operating a dangerous instrument should be deterred; it is clearly negligent and a standard of behaivor that cannot be tolerated in any community for the very reason illustrated here. The message to the community should be sent: inattention plus bodily harm is going to cost you something more than a slap on the wrist and your own wrestling with your conscious.

Of course we all make mistakes. I make them all the time. But in 38 years of driving my mistakes have never once harmed a single person. There are mistakes and then there are mistakes.

Which means you've been lucky.

The problem with what you're saying is that you're assuming will or intent. Deterrence isn't going to prevent a careless moment. The person isn't going to be in the middle of an error and say, wait...I might get into trouble. That's what made it an error. If there was choice involved, yes.

A mistake/accident is exactly that, a mistake

The other principles of punishment are protecting society, punishment and rehabilitation.

Do we have a vested interest in punishing her further? That's a values call, I don't think so, some do.

Rehabilitation - she was given driving instruction.

Protection - we're giving driving lessons. I haven't seen enough evidence that she's a horrible driver, I just see a mistake.

[Aaron O]

Aaron, the problem is that you are trying to have a discussion, most others are monologuing or taking pot shots.

Sighhhh, true.

[Vientomas]

If I made a mistake that killed someone I would expect a heck of a lot more than that. Sorry but one of the primary reasons for the penal code, at least as it was taught to me in law school is deterrence of conduct that falls below society's accepted standard. Inattention when operating a dangerous instrument should be deterred; it is clearly negligent and a standard of behaivor that cannot be tolerated in any community for the very reason illustrated here. The message to the community should be sent: inattention plus bodily harm is going to cost you something more than a slap on the wrist and your own wrestling with your conscious.

Of course we all make mistakes. I make them all the time. But in 38 years of driving my mistakes have never once harmed a single person. There are mistakes and then there are mistakes.

Well said. Completely agree. My "mistake" of bumping into your car in the parking lot is not the same as my "mistake" as running a red light and killing someone. If I killed someone due to my negligence, I would expect to spend time in jail.

[Vientomas]

The other principles of [sentencing] punishment are protecting society, punishment and rehabilitation. You mean sentencing.

[Aaron O]

What if instead of just striking a cyclist she hit a bus full of kids and killed thirty? Just an accident, oh well!

That's what makes it an accident. It's a dangerous world, little kids in buses get killed and people make mistakes. Would you like to shut down the national highway system? That's the only way to protect every child from drivers that make an error.

[Aaron O]

You mean sentencing.

You got me! Congrats! I used the wrong word!

PS...your parking lot fender bender could lead to injury or fatality if you're unlucky. Life happens.

In the words of Warren Zevon - Life'll kill ya.

[Kirk007]

Which means you've been lucky.

The problem with what you're saying is that you're assuming will or intent. Deterrence isn't going to prevent a careless moment. The person isn't going to be in the middle of an error and say, wait...I might get into trouble. That's what made it an error. If there was choice involved, yes.

A mistake/accident is exactly that, a mistake

The other principles of punishment are protecting society, punishment and rehabilitation.

Do we have a vested interest in punishing her further? That's a values call, I don't think so, some do.

Rehabilitation - she was given driving instruction.

Protection - we're giving driving lessons. I haven't seen enough evidence that she's a horrible driver, I just see a mistake.

Absolutely I've been lucky. So what?

Negligence is not blameless. Not paying attention is not blameless. It is a conscious act - we always have a choice. Do I sometimes day dream about bikes while driving - yep. And if that was the cause of someone dying then I should be punished. I chose to daydream rather than remain alert. A lack of attention while driving is dangerous and is not conduct that should be without consequence when someone who apparently was completely blameless loses their life.

[DogpawSlim]

You got me! Congrats! I used the wrong word!

I think you used the right word. Punishment incorporates a lot more than sentencing.

[Lifelover]

Absolutely I've been lucky. So what?

.... I chose to daydream rather than remain alert. A lack of attention while driving is dangerous and is not conduct that should be without consequence when someone who apparently was completely blameless loses their life.

I think Aaron point is that the "wrong" was committed when you chose to daydream. The outcome of that daydream is a matter of chance. If you knowingly choose to daydream while driving, why would I want you on the road any more than grandma?

Truth is, we all drive so damn much that we can't help but daydream. It is shear good luck (or divine intervention) that keeps us all from killing someone.

[Idris Icabod]

I'll put my hand up and say that I have run a red light. I was new to the US, passed the driving test in the UK and in the US but was not used to the over head traffic lights here. Completely missed it and noticed it only as I sailed right through. Didn't even get close to hitting another car but was so shaken I parked the car and walked a little over 5 miles back to my apartment. This was about 15 years ago and was a mistake and I wouldn't have forgiven myself for if I had killed someone, probably would have happily accepted prison for it. I've never had a accident whilst driving (touch wood).

I've also been hit whilst riding. I was a grad student in Manchester, UK and rode a lot which meant navigating my way out of the city before I hit quiet roads. Guy entering a roundabout didn't see me and hit me fairly hard, I watched him all the way. I didn't feel any animosity towards him at the time, perhaps my family would if I had come off even worse, but he did the right thing, got me the ambulance and paid for my bike. Roundabouts are pretty usual accident hotspots, merging at speed sometimes allows only a cursory glance.

Anyway, not really sure what my point is. It is a terrible tragedy that the lady died but I can see 2 sides. I guess I agree with Aaron.

[Rada]

That's what makes it an accident. It's a dangerous world, little kids in buses get killed and people make mistakes. Would you like to shut down the national highway system? That's the only way to protect every child from drivers that make an error.

So in other words she walks from this with a slap on the wrist as well. It must be nice to be able to put such little value on life. Am I advocating that she spend the rest of her life in prison no, but the sentence she received is absurd.

[DogpawSlim]

A lack of attention while driving is dangerous and is not conduct that should be without consequence when someone who apparently was completely blameless loses their life.

There are a few consequences; 1) $500 fine, 2) safety classes, whatever they are, 3) 40 hours community service, 4) the fact that she has to live with what she has done, 5) a slam dunk wrongful death suit by her children with damages potentially running into the millions of dollars.

People here might not believe that these are adequate consequences, but are 1 year in jail and a $200 fine? (The likely maximums for involuntary vehicular manslaughter, which I think we can all agree was the crime here.) The DA who worked that plea bargain thought it was okay, and they also thought it jibed with the interests of the community who voted for them.

The driver is probably not some callous ass who doesn't care that she took a life (like the investment banker who ran down the cyclist then fled in CO...) She will likely regret her negligence every day for the rest of her life. That's not going to bring the cyclist back, but nothing will.

[Kirk007]

Truth is, we all drive so damn much that we can't help but daydream. It is shear good luck (or divine intervention) that keeps us all from killing someone.

I don't disagree, we all have lapses and most of us are lucky to never have to pay the price of such inattention. But I think that accepting such conduct as a mistake, when it has such tragic consequences, with such a minimal sentence is also a "mistake."

If I am not paying attention, and my mistake costs an innocent person their life, what message does it send when the consequence of such a mistake is roughly the cost of Campy record cranks? A $500 fine and probation/community service is trivial to me and I suspect to most folks who can afford a car.

Perhaps, just perhaps, more severe consequences would get folks attention and perhaps (probably not) a few folks would be more attentive. Maybe someone else's life or health would be spared because a driver was inclined to be more attentive because they heard of granny being thrown in the slammer for awhile for her inattention. I mean, she not only failed to perceive the red light; she also failed to perceive a human being directly in front of her.

[zap]

Blessed? Because good motorists just "happen" in other countries?

It's training, and then it's retraining. We just have a very careless attitude towards driving here, and it shows.

I was being sarcastic about the blessed part.

Some of the posts here .........shessh never mind.

[Lifelover]

I don't disagree, we all have lapses and most of us are lucky to never have to pay the price of such inattention. But I think that accepting such conduct as a mistake, when it has such tragic consequences, with such a minimal sentence is also a "mistake."

If I am not paying attention, and my mistake costs an innocent person their life, what message does it send when the consequence of such a mistake is roughly the cost of Campy record cranks? A $500 fine and probation/community service is trivial to me and I suspect to most folks who can afford a car.

Perhaps, just perhaps, more severe consequences would get folks attention and perhaps (probably not) a few folks would be more attentive. Maybe someone else's life or health would be spared because a driver was inclined to be more attentive because they heard of granny being thrown in the slammer for awhile for her inattention. I mean, she not only failed to perceive the red light; she also failed to perceive a human being directly in front of her.

Would are more strict punishment for her change your actions over the long haul? Give it some good hard thought next time you are driving along. :crap:

Would not change mine in the least.

[Aaron O]

So in other words she walks from this with a slap on the wrist as well. It must be nice to be able to put such little value on life. Am I advocating that she spend the rest of her life in prison no, but the sentence she received is absurd.

You got me, I'm a calous, life devalueing, terrorist and dupe for the KGB. I also clearly hate America.

[Kirk007]

You got me, I'm a calous, life devalueing, terrorist and dupe for the KGB. I also clearly hate America.

oh come on, you live in the City of brotherly love right :)

Lifelover, events do impact my behavior, although I freely admit there is also clearly a temporal aspect to it. Think about an announcement by state troopers that they will be more aggressively patrolling and ticketing on a weekend, and then when on the highway you see one or more giving tickets. Maybe this doesn't influence your behavior but it does mine.

Some here are saying well, if she was drinking or texting then things would be different and more punishment would be appropriate. Yet it wouldn't surprise me to learn that more accidents occur due to vague descriptions of "inattentiveness" than say texting. Have we simply come to accept random inattentiveness as acceptable because we all do it? If we all do it then perhaps that is the standard of care in our society today. For me that's not a comfortable thought as I get on my bike.

[tuxbailey]

From original news report on the accident, she was distracted by the kids in the car and missed the light and the cyclist.

Is it less worse than being distracted by a phone call?

[Ahneida Ride]

Suppose the cyclist had a motor on the frame and belonged to
a MC club with a "certain name".

[rugbysecondrow]

oh come on, you live in the City of brotherly love right :)

Lifelover, events do impact my behavior, although I freely admit there is also clearly a temporal aspect to it. Think about an announcement by state troopers that they will be more aggressively patrolling and ticketing on a weekend, and then when on the highway you see one or more giving tickets. Maybe this doesn't influence your behavior but it does mine.

Some here are saying well, if she was drinking or texting then things would be different and more punishment would be appropriate. Yet it wouldn't surprise me to learn that more accidents occur due to vague descriptions of "inattentiveness" than say texting. Have we simply come to accept random inattentiveness as acceptable because we all do it? If we all do it then perhaps that is the standard of care in our society today. For me that's not a comfortable thought as I get on my bike.

I think we come to accept that people make mistakes. Some are accidental and some are purposeful. For those arguing 100% attentiveness, what do you ever do at 100% pure concentration? I don't even know if it is possible to maintain concentration of that intensity.

In addition, can't one be focused while driving but just focused on the wrong things? I could be driving, focused on the car next to me, the car behind me, the dog loose to the right and miss the pedestrian walking off the curb. At what point, when processing inputs from the road and environment, do we recognize that some things might not be processed properly or processed equally? How do you punish that out of people? That is not necessarily inattentiveness or lack of focus, is it? I would also say that we are ALL guilty of it.

[Rada]

You got me, I'm a calous, life devalueing, terrorist and dupe for the KGB. I also clearly hate America.

You forgot that you also can not spell words you can not pronounce.

[Aaron O]

I definitely bow to your superior intellect and feel humbled having had the chance to meet such a keen minded logical and legal mental heavy weight. I think your compassion and skills of logic make you a definite candidate for Congress and I'm sure you're at the top of your field, likely one which required extensive education and superior reasoning skills. I am in awe.

I thank you for having had the chance to be corrected by such an intellectual titan. Truly your mental acumen surpasses that of mere mortals like me and I stand, or sit, flabbergasted by the disparity of our wits. You, sir, are the mensa other mensas emulate when they send in their SAT scores. I am flagellating myself for having the audacity to mock such a figure.


:rolleyes:

[FlashUNC]

The sense I'm getting is that everyone seems to agree this woman did what any of us do, had a moment of distraction and, unfortunately, had the awful luck of it happening at about the worst time possible.

And for probably the worst luck of her life, she should have the book thrown at her?

I'm struggling to understand this idea -- and maybe its an extension of the immediate argument -- that if we just punished people more firmly, bad stuff wouldn't happen in the world. Like somehow all murders would stop if we just made them illegal. Oh wait...

What happened was horrible and awful, but there's nothing we can do outside shutting down the roads and giving everyone bumper cars, from this kind of thing happening again. Even then, I'm sure someone would get their foot run over in the process.

[Ahneida Ride]

A African tribe had an interesting responsive to an event like this

The offender would have the corpse tied to them.

So the offender would not only have to live with the memory of the event,
(we always immediate assume that the offender is repentant)
but with the event.

[Aaron O]

A African tribe had an interesting responsive to an event like this

The offender would have the corpse tied to them.

So the offender would not only have to live with the memory of the event,
(we always immediate assume that the offender is repentant)
but with the event.

Definitely a good idea. When I look at most African Governments, I'm thinking there's a justice system to emulate.

It's absolutely amazing to me that we've become the preeminent country on the planet, and the wealthiest country on the planet, with such a terrible Government and justice system. I mean, we're doing so well as is, imagine how well we'd do if we brought back the feudal system, torture and the stocks!

[1centaur]

It's not even clear whether this would qualify as criminal negligence, which "involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation. Model Penal Code section 2.02(d). Is absent-mindedly running a light a "gross deviation" from what most of us do every day? Probably not, it's just one of those things that happens sometimes.

While precedent may define gross deviation, I would also look to statistics. What % of the cars going through an intersection drive through a red without being aware it was red? .00001%? How much deviation does one need?

I think everybody suggesting a harsher sentence in this thread understands the intellectual point made by Aaron O, but they disagree with it. There's no need for hostility about a simple human judgment of enough/not enough. Can't we state our views without demonizing the other POV or personalizing it at all?

[Kirk007]

In addition, can't one be focused while driving but just focused on the wrong things? I could be driving, focused on the car next to me, the car behind me, the dog loose to the right and miss the pedestrian walking off the curb. At what point, when processing inputs from the road and environment, do we recognize that some things might not be processed properly or processed equally? How do you punish that out of people? That is not necessarily inattentiveness or lack of focus, is it? I would also say that we are ALL guilty of it.

Which is a good argument for the jury system. What does a jury of ones peers conclude regarding what's a deviation from the standard of care and what is not? I understand the needs for plea deals but perhaps folks sense of what just punishment is for this incident would be different if it wasn't a plea deal.

[Ahneida Ride]

It's absolutely amazing to me that we've become the preeminent country on the planet, and the wealthiest country on the planet, with such a terrible Government and justice system. I mean, we're doing so well as is, imagine how well we'd do if we brought back the feudal system, torture and the stocks!

Never said anything anything about feudal system etc.
Actually I could argue that we have a feudal system right now.
and just because it's a 3rd world custom does not immediately imply it is
bad. Where did coffee, rubber and Chocolate originate from?

Wealthiest country? Perhaps at one time.
Now we are in insane massive debt. Are we doing so well? Don't think so.
3 wars. Massive welfare, 20% unemployment, failing educational system,
and the list goes on.

Bottom line .... auto execution has no consequences.
Seen it over 9 years here. time after time after time.
over and out.

[Ahneida Ride]

Which is a good argument for the jury system. What does a jury of ones peers conclude regarding what's a deviation from the standard of care and what is not? I understand the needs for plea deals but perhaps folks sense of what just punishment is for this incident would be different if it wasn't a plea deal.

In Dr. David Ryan's Case, The DA would NOT take it to the Jury.
Claimed the Jury could be too flaky and let his killer off. :crap:

[Aaron O]

Never said anything anything about feudal system etc.
Actually I could argue that we have a feudal system right now.
and just because it's a 3rd world custom does not immediately imply it is
bad. Where did coffee, rubber and Chocolate originate from?

Wealthiest country? Perhaps at one time.
Now we are in insane massive debt. Are we doing so well? Don't think so.
3 wars. Massive welfare, 20% unemployment, failing educational system,
and the list goes on.

Bottom line .... auto execution has no consequences.
Seen it over 9 years here. time after time after time.
over and out.

You can tell how badly we're doing from all the people emigrating from here and how the immigration has dried up. Yep, we've definitely had it. I'll be giving away my citizenship at my earliest convenience.

Some of you folks really have absolutely no realistic idea of what other countries are like. I hear every day how China is beating us in every area...etc. etc. etc. (like we heard about Japan 20 years ago). China is massively poor. Still. The vast majority is still agrarian peasant culture. They have massive challenges ahead, not the least of which is that their government is fundamentally incompatible with market capitalism and will collapse. They have environmental issues, resource issues, space issues, you name it.

The majority of Europe is going through more severe austerity measures than we are, far more severe. Japan has had nearly 20 years of a down economy, and that was before the recent disaster. There is SOME progress in poorer countries, like China, Brazil and India, but if you think their life style approaches what we have here, you're sadly mistaken.

Yes...times are tougher here than they've been for a long time. Yes, we're having problems. The world isn't ending, we'll recover and life will go on. We are still, by FAR, the wealthiest country on the planet. There are certainly many changes I'd like to see made, but the sky isn't falling. Unemployment is not at 20% and contrary to popular belief, manufacturing has actually been increasing for the past few quarters. Are there problems? Yes. Find me a country without them.

[firerescuefin]

You can tell how badly we're doing from all the people emigrating from here and how the immigration has dried up. Yep, we've definitely had it. I'll be giving away my citizenship at my earliest convenience.

Some of you folks really have absolutely no realistic idea of what other countries are like. I hear every day how China is beating us in every area...etc. etc. etc. (like we heard about Japan 20 years ago). China is massively poor. Still. The vast majority is still agrarian peasant culture. They have massive challenges ahead, not the least of which is that their government is fundamentally incompatible with market capitalism and will collapse. They have environmental issues, resource issues, space issues, you name it.

The majority of Europe is going through more severe austerity measures than we are, far more severe. Japan has had nearly 20 years of a down economy, and that was before the recent disaster. There is SOME progress in poorer countries, like China, Brazil and India, but if you think their life style approaches what we have here, you're sadly mistaken.

Yes...times are tougher here than they've been for a long time. Yes, we're having problems. The world isn't ending, we'll recover and life will go on. We are still, by FAR, the wealthiest country on the planet. There are certainly many changes I'd like to see made, but the sky isn't falling. Unemployment is not at 20% and contrary to popular belief, manufacturing has actually been increasing for the past few quarters. Are there problems? Yes. Find me a country without them.


Well said.

[Aaron O]

Well said.

Gratzie. I get tired of hearing dogmatic non-sense with no basis in reality. Our system works. It's worked for several hundred years and the genius of our system is its ability to adapt and adjust in times of real challenge and disaster while it is remarkably stable and slow to change during the other periods. It can lead to frustration for reformers (I often feel it myself), but it's worked and it's worked for a long time. When the fit hits the shan, we're adapatable.

Every system and country has endemic flaws. I'll take our system, warts and all, over any other. I also happen to like our justice system and access to trials, it's what makes us different from Iran. I like our obsession with justice and mercy. I like living in a nation that doesn't hang people by their feet, poke out eyes and behave in a generally unpleasant manner.

As for the hang em' high gang lamenting lax American morality, we're actually among the most severe countries on the planet when it comes to meting out justice. Not many other countries, and almost no developed western nations, have life in prison. Very few have the death penalty. I am not suggesting change, all countries have different needs and challenges, but I am saying this concept of America as soft and tolerant towards crime is inaccurate.

[Johnny P]

I think there is more to this story that we don't know about. The intersection of Cantrell and Rodney Parham is really busy. I'm surprised someone would be cycling there. Also, I'm would except one to hit a car if one ran a red light there. The devil is in the details and these are not presented in the news article.
JP

[zap]

In addition, can't one be focused while driving but just focused on the wrong things? I could be driving, focused on the car next to me, the car behind me, the dog loose to the right and miss the pedestrian walking off the curb. At what point, when processing inputs from the road and environment, do we recognize that some things might not be processed properly or processed equally? How do you punish that out of people? That is not necessarily inattentiveness or lack of focus, is it? I would also say that we are ALL guilty of it.

To take this further, education, extensive on the road training and the willingness to be a good driver would have one assign priorities. It's like riding in a pack (of cyclists). Pay attention to what's in front off you.

Listen, you are right that people make mistakes. The question is how does one lessen these motoring mistakes.

[Kirk007]

Listen, you are right that people make mistakes. The question is how does one lessen these motoring mistakes.

+1

And while I haven't lived there I've been lead to believe that some European countries, like Germany, have much more extensive driver training than we engage in here. (on the other hand I've had German nationals describe the autobahn as a form of natural selection so there 'ya go). Anyone who has taken professional performance driving classes quickly realizes just how much the average person doesn't know about safe driving.


Driving is serious business; more serious than most Americans take it; much more serious than most jurisdictions require training for; and more serious than the punishment meted out in most tragic cases would seem to warrant.

And I lament the fact that we tolerate car-ped/cyclist accidents as a cost of our all American car loving/dependent lifestyle. I've been left in the road unconscious by a hit and run driver. Members of our local cycling community have been run over and killed by a logging truck trying to get a few seconds ahead by risking a pass on a blind curve. As a cyclist I don't understand rationalizing the status quo of accepting such accidents with minimal penalty as an act of compassion and understanding of our human tendencies? Why should our elders, like my father-in-law with dementia, still be allowed to drive? He is an accident waiting to happen as is his 84 year old wife yet suggesting that they have their licenses pulled practically elicits cries of treason from some of my in-laws.

This isn't about waving the flag that we are better or worse than some other country; it is about what we should do to protect our own citizens from accidents that are usually avoidable.

[BobbyJones]

Is it?

Now this is a bull???? post if I have ever seen one.

[rugbysecondrow]

It is not the we only accept cycle/ped accidents, but we accept all auto accidents. When was the last time a driver was arrested for assault for rear ending somebody? We accept, right or wrong, that the roads are dangerous and there is inherent risk in participating. The result due to it being a cycle or ped is catastrophic, but people get injured in auto on auto accidents everyday and it is not criminal.

I guess my point is that we should not expect a greater level of action because it is a cyclist rather than an auto. As cyclists, bike riders, we all know the increased level of danger for us and we ride anyway. Auto riders accept risk as well, but a differen level of risk.

When motorcyclists are killed on the road, the sentiment is that they knew the risks. When cyclists die, it is the autos fault. I guess i see our bias as being an unfair standard.

+1

And while I haven't lived there I've been lead to believe that some European countries, like Germany, have much more extensive der training than we engage in here. (on the other hand I've had German nationals describe the autobahn as a form of natural selection so there 'ya go). Anyone who has taken professional performance driving classes quickly realizes just how much the average person doesn't know about safe driving.


Driving is serious business; more serious than most Americans take it; much more serious than most jurisdictions require training for; and more serious than the punishment meted out in most tragic cases would seem to warrant.

And I lament the fact that we tolerate car-ped/cyclist accidents as a cost of our all American car loving/dependent lifestyle. I've been left in the road unconscious by a hit and run driver. Members of our local cycling community have been run over and killed by a logging truck trying to get a few seconds ahead by risking a pass on a blind curve. As a cyclist I don't understand rationalizing the status quo of accepting such accidents with minimal penalty as an act of compassion and understanding of our human tendencies? Why should our elders, like my father-in-law with dementia, still be allowed to drive? He is an accident waiting to happen as is his 84 year old wife yet suggesting that they have their licenses pulled practically elicits cries of treason from some of my in-laws.

This isn't about waving the flag that we are better or worse than some other country; it is about what we should do to protect our own citizens from accidents that are usually avoidable.

[soulspinner]

How about a sentence that deals with her taking driving lessons, tests vision and reflexes etc. Maybe you can prevent the next one? If its been mentioned, I apologize, too many posts to wade thru all of em. My sympathies to the womans children and family.............

[Aaron O]

It is not the we only accept cycle/ped accidents, but we accept all auto accidents. When was the last time a driver was arrested for assault for rear ending somebody? We accept, right or wrong, that the roads are dangerous and there is inherent risk in participating. The result due to it being a cycle or ped is catastrophic, but people get injured in auto on auto accidents everyday and it is not criminal.

I guess my point is that we should not expect a greater level of action because it is a cyclist rather than an auto. As cyclists, bike riders, we all know the increased level of danger for us and we ride anyway. Auto riders accept risk as well, but a differen level of risk.

When motorcyclists are killed on the road, the sentiment is that they knew the risks. When cyclists die, it is the autos fault. I guess i see our bias as being an unfair standard.

Exactly right. Life isn't perfect, people aren't perfect, mistakes and accidents happen and sometimes people get killed. If we're going to have 2000 lbs machines being driven around by imperfect people, we're going to have some accidents and errors. The notion that we can prevent errors by punishing someone to promote vigilance seems far fetched to me. The idea that she deserves to carry around a body, or see jail time, or even a permanent license suspension seems knee gut reactionary to me. Barring more evidence, she had a bad day.

Every single one of us can be killed doing what we love. We all know it and part of our anger about this incident is because our vulnerability scares us. Most of us are pretty experienced, and safe, riders and that mitigates some of our risks, but we're all one bad day away from serious injury. What are you going to do? Sit at home in your room terrified of ever being hurt? Your room can catch fire and you can die.

Life'll kill ya...enjoy what's there and appreciate how good most of us have it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxt_GHYmolI

[Vientomas]

I have been a practicing attorney for 20 years. My experience is litigation oriented as opposed to transactional. I have represented individuals charged with crimes ranging from murder to speeding, as well as personal injuries as the result of automobile accidents and crime victims within the criminal justice system. I appear in court for various motions and trials at least couple of times a week on average. I have friends that I went to law school with and former co-workers who are judges and who are prosecuting attorneys. I provide this background as context for my statements herein.

In addition, I have represented at least two individuals charged with misdemeanor manslaughter wherein it was alleged that the defendant's operated their motor vehicle in a negligent manner which resulted in the death of another person. One had a "bad day" or "made a mistake" because he fell asleep at the wheel, the other because she was eating some food behind the wheel.

In my experience, in the locale in which I practice, the "bad day" defense or "made a mistake" defense would not be well taken. Initially, it is not a true defense to the crime. The only time it would come up is at sentencing, after pleading guilty or being found guilty of the crime. Secondarily, I suspect the judge would inquire as to whose day was worse, the defendant or the deceased victim. Quite frankly, I think I would lose credibility with the Court if I asserted the "bad day" defense.

Clearly, if a death has resulted from the operation of a motor vehicle, a "mistake" has been made. What is the appropriate sanction for such a mistake? What my 20 years of legal experience has taught me is that where I practice, the taking of a life due to the negligent operation of a motor vehicle will result in a jail sentence of some sort. Where I practice the prevailing theory is that the negligent taking of the life of another is a serious act which will result in serious consequences, including jail. I have actually heard prosecutors and judges state that anything less would demean the value of the life taken. That is the standard in my community. Your standard may differ.

As an attorney I have taken an oath to represent my clients to the best of my ability. Like the ACLU attorney who represents the skin head's right to free speech or the Christian attorney who represents a person's right to gay marriage, the position of the client is not necessarily the personal position of the attorney. In all criminal cases, I do my best to mitigate sentencing once guilt has been determined. However, the fact that I am an attorney does not mean that I give up my right as a citizen to have a personal opinion that differs from my client. Such is the case here. I have, and will in the future, argue on behalf of my clients that a jail sentence is not appropriate in vehicular manslaughter cases.

That being said, I stand by my previous personal opinion as a cyclist sharing the road with drivers subject to having a "bad day" or making "mistakes" that the sentence described in the original post was too lenient. You are, of course, free to disagree. If you do, I suggest that you make sure you don't kill someone while driving through my neck of the woods because you had a "bad day" or "made a mistake". If you do, and are found guilty or plead guilty, my experience leads me to believe that it is very likely that the judge will send you to jail, no matter what your attorney may argue.

Please ride, and drive, safely.

[Aaron O]

I have been a practicing attorney for 20 years. My experience is litigation oriented as opposed to transactional. I have represented individuals charged with crimes ranging from murder to speeding, as well as personal injuries as the result of automobile accidents and crime victims within the criminal justice system. I appear in court for various motions and trials at least couple of times a week on average. I have friends that I went to law school with and former co-workers who are judges and who are prosecuting attorneys. I provide this background as context for my statements herein.

In addition, I have represented at least two individuals charged with misdemeanor manslaughter wherein it was alleged that the defendant's operated their motor vehicle in a negligent manner which resulted in the death of another person. One had a "bad day" or "made a mistake" because he fell asleep at the wheel, the other because she was eating some food behind the wheel.

In my experience, in the locale in which I practice, the "bad day" defense or "made a mistake" defense would not be well taken. Initially, it is not a true defense to the crime. The only time it would come up is at sentencing, after pleading guilty or being found guilty of the crime. Secondarily, I suspect the judge would inquire as to whose day was worse, the defendant or the deceased victim. Quite frankly, I think I would lose credibility with the Court if I asserted the "bad day" defense.

Clearly, if a death has resulted from the operation of a motor vehicle, a "mistake" has been made. What is the appropriate sanction for such a mistake? What my 20 years of legal experience has taught me is that where I practice, the taking of a life due to the negligent operation of a motor vehicle will result in a jail sentence of some sort. Where I practice the prevailing theory is that the negligent taking of the life of another is a serious act which will result in serious consequences, including jail. I have actually heard prosecutors and judges state that anything less would demean the value of the life taken. That is the standard in my community. Your standard may differ.

As an attorney I have taken an oath to represent my clients to the best of my ability. Like the ACLU attorney who represents the skin head's right to free speech or the Christian attorney who represents a person's right to gay marriage, the position of the client is not necessarily the personal position of the attorney. In all criminal cases, I do my best to mitigate sentencing once guilt has been determined. However, the fact that I am an attorney does not mean that I give up my right as a citizen to have a personal opinion that differs from my client. Such is the case here. I have, and will in the future, argue on behalf of my clients that a jail sentence is not appropriate in vehicular manslaughter cases.

That being said, I stand by my previous personal opinion as a cyclist sharing the road with drivers subject to having a "bad day" or making "mistakes" that the sentence described in the original post was too lenient. You are, of course, free to disagree. If you do, I suggest that you make sure you don't kill someone while driving through my neck of the woods because you had a "bad day" or "made a mistake". If you do, and are found guilty or plead guilty, my experience leads me to believe that it is very likely that the judge will send you to jail, no matter what your attorney may argue.

Please ride, and drive, safely.

I elected not to attend law school due to cost, effort, shrinking job market and pay and the hours involved for most attorneys. Nearly everyone I work with is an attorney. My sister is an attorney. My father is an attorney. One of my closest friends is a federal judge and has a background as a prosecuter. Another friend is an assistant DA. I feel quite comfortable saying all of them would disagree with you and none of them would consider your definition of justice an accurate one. With all due respect, your background as an attorney is meaningless in this argument.

As an attorney you should understand that we don't have access to the evidence, we weren't in the courtroom and we truly don't know what happened. The truth is that this is meaningless speculation. As an attorney you should also understand that state laws differ, jury tendencies and community standards differ and juries are wildly unpredictable. I feel confident saying that where I live, the woman would not receive jail time for making an error. All of you folks use words like negligence and choice when the truth is that every single driver out there has done something like this. Most of us just got lucky and didn't hit someone. Perhaps she's a horrible driver with a history of wreckless behavior. The evidence I'm seeing supports someone who got unlucky. Do you really think you're better than her and couldn't have been distracted by children in the car?

[cloudguy]

Consider the hypothetical that instead of hitting a bike, this woman hit a $250,000 Ferrari. Would you agree that even though it was a mistake, she (or her insurance company) is going to have to pay for the damages to that car? Now how is it that the victim's life is worth less than the bicycle she was riding on?

[Aaron O]

Consider the hypothetical that instead of hitting a bike, this woman hit a $250,000 Ferrari. Would you agree that even though it was a mistake, she (or her insurance company) is going to have to pay for the damages to that car? Now how is it that the victim's life is worth less than the bicycle she was riding on?

Consider that the 250,000 ferrari would be a civil trial, and she will face a civil trial and be on the hook for x amount of dollars. This was a criminal trial, and had she hit a ferrari and not killed anyone, I doubt there would have been one.

[rugbysecondrow]

Good points. I think what has to be recognized is that a death from driving would likely involve higher speeds, likely a greater level of recklessness, likley more neglegance or other circumstances. When an accident involves a cyclist, a death can occur at relativly slow speeds, and possibly without reckless behavior. What would be a normal fender bender without injury becomes a death when a bicycle is involved. To what degree should we hold drivers acountable for the disparity in outcomes? To what degree should cyclists accept responsibility for this disparity?


I have been a practicing attorney for 20 years. My experience is litigation oriented as opposed to transactional. I have represented individuals charged with crimes ranging from murder to speeding, as well as personal injuries as the result of automobile accidents and crime victims within the criminal justice system. I appear in court for various motions and trials at least couple of times a week on average. I have friends that I went to law school with and former co-workers who are judges and who are prosecuting attorneys. I provide this background as context for my statements herein.

In addition, I have represented at least two individuals charged with misdemeanor manslaughter wherein it was alleged that the defendant's operated their motor vehicle in a negligent manner which resulted in the death of another person. One had a "bad day" or "made a mistake" because he fell asleep at the wheel, the other because she was eating some food behind the wheel.

In my experience, in the locale in which I practice, the "bad day" defense or "made a mistake" defense would not be well taken. Initially, it is not a true defense to the crime. The only time it would come up is at sentencing, after pleading guilty or being found guilty of the crime. Secondarily, I suspect the judge would inquire as to whose day was worse, the defendant or the deceased victim. Quite frankly, I think I would lose credibility with the Court if I asserted the "bad day" defense.

Clearly, if a death has resulted from the operation of a motor vehicle, a "mistake" has been made. What is the appropriate sanction for such a mistake? What my 20 years of legal experience has taught me is that where I practice, the taking of a life due to the negligent operation of a motor vehicle will result in a jail sentence of some sort. Where I practice the prevailing theory is that the negligent taking of the life of another is a serious act which will result in serious consequences, including jail. I have actually heard prosecutors and judges state that anything less would demean the value of the life taken. That is the standard in my community. Your standard may differ.

As an attorney I have taken an oath to represent my clients to the best of my ability. Like the ACLU attorney who represents the skin head's right to free speech or the Christian attorney who represents a person's right to gay marriage, the position of the client is not necessarily the personal position of the attorney. In all criminal cases, I do my best to mitigate sentencing once guilt has been determined. However, the fact that I am an attorney does not mean that I give up my right as a citizen to have a personal opinion that differs from my client. Such is the case here. I have, and will in the future, argue on behalf of my clients that a jail sentence is not appropriate in vehicular manslaughter cases.

That being said, I stand by my previous personal opinion as a cyclist sharing the road with drivers subject to having a "bad day" or making "mistakes" that the sentence described in the original post was too lenient. You are, of course, free to disagree. If you do, I suggest that you make sure you don't kill someone while driving through my neck of the woods because you had a "bad day" or "made a mistake". If you do, and are found guilty or plead guilty, my experience leads me to believe that it is very likely that the judge will send you to jail, no matter what your attorney may argue.

Please ride, and drive, safely.

[Dan Le foot]

Well, yes, she is a danger to society. She should surrender her driver's license at the least. "She made a mistake....She had a bad day....It was a mistake and a traffic error..." All true, but there should be consequences commensurate with the gravity of her mistake, error, bad day and inattention that cost someone her life.
+1

[Vientomas]

No where in my post did I state directly or impliedly that I was "better" than the defendant? I did not. I don't understand why you would ask that question. In fact, in a previous post I stated that I would expect to go to jail for killing someone negligently. So clearly I do not consider myself to be "better".

I considered gong to medical school and I have friends and family members who are doctors. That doesn't mean I know anything about practicing medicine. My opinion as an attorney is meaningless but the opinion of your friends and family members who are attorneys does have meaning? Did I understand that correctly? "My definition of justice is wrong"? Where did I define justice? I explained my real world experience of what the court in my community does. Are you saying your friends and family members know what happens in my local court and I am not reporting it accurately? I also gave my personal opinion on the sentence. Are you saying that your friends and family members would say my personal opinion is wrong? So your friends and family members should tell me what my opinions on certain subjects should be? I thought we were all entitled to our own opinions.

You are right I don't know all of the facts. What I do know is that the defendant entered a guilty or was found guilty of killing another person due to distracted driving. Since the charge resulted in probation, the court had the discretion to impose a jail sentence but chose not to.

My last post stated the standard within my community regarding similar offenses and stated my opinion regarding the sentence imposed based upon the facts within my knowledge.

If you have knowledge of additional facts which support what I consider to be a lenient sentence, by all means please enlighten me. I am not so entrenched in my position that I am unable to consider changing my opinion.

Implying that I believe myself to be superior to the defendant or that I am a sub-standard attorney because I should know this or that will not change my opinion in this matter.

I suggest we just agree to disagree. You think the sentence was appropriate, I do not.

Many happy cycling miles to you.

[cloudguy]

My point is that a mistake can have huge costs, even if it was just a mistake. What if this woman had no family to bring up a civil suit? Then the cyclist is basically the equivalent of a deer? My feeling is that the costs this woman is being forced to pay are not in line with the value of the lost life.

[zap]

It is not the we only accept cycle/ped accidents, but we accept all auto accidents. When was the last time a driver was arrested for assault for rear ending somebody? We accept, right or wrong, that the roads are dangerous and there is inherent risk in participating. The result due to it being a cycle or ped is catastrophic, but people get injured in auto on auto accidents everyday and it is not criminal.

I guess my point is that we should not expect a greater level of action because it is a cyclist rather than an auto. As cyclists, bike riders, we all know the increased level of danger for us and we ride anyway. Auto riders accept risk as well, but a differen level of risk.

When motorcyclists are killed on the road, the sentiment is that they knew the risks. When cyclists die, it is the autos fault. I guess i see our bias as being an unfair standard.

What upsets people is that cyclists get killed yet many motorists get off with a minor fine and probation. We've gone to some court cases and let me tell you, cyclists are treated like dirt. Cyclists are treated like dirt by the police, defendants lawyers and the motoring public at large.

Pedestrians are not treated in this manner, at least in our county. Pedestrian gets killed then there is a full blitz pr campaign by local politico's, police officers making statements about greater enforcement then safety signs popping up all over the place at crosswalks and finally fixed radar further confusing the poorly trained motoring public.

You are right that ultimately cyclists sould not be treated differently. The larger arguement is that peoples investment in motoring should be greater so that like any sound investor, people will pay attention to protect their motoring investment.

Eye's forward :beer:

[rugbysecondrow]

You are right that ultimately cyclists sould not be treated differently. The larger arguement is that peoples investment in motoring should be greater so that like any sound investor, people will pay attention to protect their motoring investment.Eye's forward :beer:


Agreed.

[Lifelover]

Good points. I think what has to be recognized is that a death from driving would likely involve higher speeds, likely a greater level of recklessness, likley more neglegance or other circumstances. When an accident involves a cyclist, a death can occur at relativly slow speeds, and possibly without reckless behavior. What would be a normal fender bender without injury becomes a death when a bicycle is involved. To what degree should we hold drivers acountable for the disparity in outcomes? To what degree should cyclists accept responsibility for this disparity?

You keep hitting on a point that most cyclist don't want to recognize. Every single time that any of us drive, ride or walk on a public street we are WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY accepting a certain amount of risk. What varies is the consequence of that risk. As a cyclist, runner, or walker the risk may actually be considerable lower but the consequence is exponentially greater. There have been multiple post in this thread about accepting responsibility. If any of us cannot provide for our families as a result of an impact between us on a bike and a 2000lb+ hunk of metal, we are 100% reasonable even if we are not at fault.

[Lifelover]

No where in my post did I state directly or impliedly that I was "better" than the defendant? I did not. I don't understand why you would ask that question. In fact, in a previous post I stated that I would expect to go to jail for killing someone negligently. So clearly I do not consider myself to be "better".

I considered gong to medical school and I have friends and family members who are doctors. That doesn't mean I know anything about practicing medicine. My opinion as an attorney is meaningless but the opinion of your friends and family members who are attorneys does have meaning? Did I understand that correctly? "My definition of justice is wrong"? Where did I define justice? I explained my real world experience of what the court in my community does. Are you saying your friends and family members know what happens in my local court and I am not reporting it accurately? I also gave my personal opinion on the sentence. Are you saying that your friends and family members would say my personal opinion is wrong? So your friends and family members should tell me what my opinions on certain subjects should be? I thought we were all entitled to our own opinions.

You are right I don't know all of the facts. What I do know is that the defendant entered a guilty or was found guilty of killing another person due to distracted driving. Since the charge resulted in probation, the court had the discretion to impose a jail sentence but chose not to.

My last post stated the standard within my community regarding similar offenses and stated my opinion regarding the sentence imposed based upon the facts within my knowledge.

If you have knowledge of additional facts which support what I consider to be a lenient sentence, by all means please enlighten me. I am not so entrenched in my position that I am unable to consider changing my opinion.

Implying that I believe myself to be superior to the defendant or that I am a sub-standard attorney because I should know this or that will not change my opinion in this matter.

I suggest we just agree to disagree. You think the sentence was appropriate, I do not.

Many happy cycling miles to you.

I'm no lawyer but you don't seem to have a grasp of the definition of "Criminal Negligence". I suspect there was none in this case.

[Vientomas]

I'm no lawyer but you don't seem to have a grasp of the definition of "Criminal Negligence". I suspect there was none in this case.

Actually I do have such a grasp as defined by Idaho law. Running a red light because you were distracted by children in the car certainly can be construed as the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, without gross negligence and a wanton, flagrant or reckless disregard of consequences or willful indifference of the safety or rights of others.

Lastly, the defendant plead guilty to an offense which carried the possibility of a jail sentence. Therefore she admitted all of the elements of the offense thereby admitting criminal negligence if that was indeed an element of the offense.

18-4006.MANSLAUGHTER DEFINED. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being including, but not limited to, a human embryo or fetus, without malice. It is of three (3) kinds:
(1) Voluntary -- upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(2) Involuntary -- in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate any unlawful act, other than those acts specified in section 18-4003(d), Idaho Code; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection; or in the operation of any firearm or deadly weapon in a reckless, careless or negligent manner which produces death.
(3) Vehicular -- in which the operation of a motor vehicle is a significant cause contributing to the death because of:
(a) The commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, with gross negligence; or
(b) The commission of a violation of section 18-8004 or 18-8006, Idaho Code; or
(c) The commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, without gross negligence.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any evidence of conviction under subsection (3)(b) of this section shall be admissible in any civil action for damages resulting from the occurrence. A conviction for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) of this section means that the person has pled guilty or has been found guilty, notwithstanding the form of the judgment(s) or withheld judgment(s).

In every crime or public offense there must exist a union, or joint operation, of act and intent, or criminal negligence." The McMahan Court ruled that the term " criminal negligence" means gross negligence. Id. at 256, 65 P.2d at 162. Such negligence " amounts to a reckless disregard of consequences and of the rights of others." Id. at 256, 65 P.2d at 162-63. The McMahan Court acknowledged the

[240 P.3d 943] definition of negligence found in I.C. § 18-101 (then codified at I.C. § 17-101), but essentially held that it was subordinate to the I.C. § 18-114 requirement of " criminal negligence." Id. at 257-58, 65 P.2d at 163. The Court reasoned as follows:

The legislature did not intend every act done negligently, resulting in what would have been a crime if done intentionally, to be criminal because of the negligence, but intended only to constitute such acts criminal in the event such negligence amounted to the degree contemplated by [I.C. § 18-114].
Id. at 257, 65 P.2d at 163. See also State v. Sibley, 138 Idaho 259, 263-64, 61 P.3d 616, 620-21 (Ct.App.2002). Such criminal negligence may be committed by commission or omission. State v. Taylor, 59 Idaho 724, 735, 87 P.2d 454, 459 (1939). The McMahan interpretation of I.C. § 18-114 and its interaction with I.C. § 18-101(2) continues to be controlling unless the legislature has specifically altered this negligence standard in defining a particular offense. See Haxforth v. State, 117 Idaho 189, 190, 786 P.2d 580, 581 (Ct.App.1990). See also State v. Long, 91 Idaho 436, 441-42, 423 P.2d 858, 863-64 (1967); State v. Curtis, 106 Idaho 483, 487-88, 680 P.2d 1383, 1387-88 (Ct.App.1984). Consistent with this line of authority, Idaho Criminal Jury Instruction No. 342 defines criminal negligence as " a wanton, flagrant or reckless disregard of consequences or willful indifference of the safety or rights of others."

Have a great ride.

[JMerring]

I'm no lawyer but you don't seem to have a grasp of the definition of "Criminal Negligence". I suspect there was none in this case.

perhaps you need to bone up a bit on arkansas criminal law, then. arkansas' criminal code defines "negligently" as follows:

(A) A person acts negligently with respect to attendant circumstances or a result of his or her conduct when the person should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the attendant circumstances exist or the result will occur.
(B) The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor’s failure to perceive the risk involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to the actor.

arkansas' supreme court has noted that negligent conduct is distinguished from reckless conduct primarily in that it does not involve the conscious disregard of a perceived risk - ie, in order to be held to have acted negligently, it is not necessary that the actor be fully aware of the perceived risk and recklessly disregard it. it requires only a finding that under the circumstances he should have been aware of it and his failure to perceive it was a gross deviation from the care a reasonable, prudent person would exercise under those circumstances.

although we don't know all the facts, it is more than reasonable to suggest that ms. fulper really ought to have been found criminally negligent for "just failing to perceive the light" while merrily operating a multi-ton vehicle very easily capable of killing someone.

[Kirk007]

I propose a mock trial with a jury selected from forumites and see what the verdict is :)

[drewski]

Which means you've been lucky.

The problem with what you're saying is that you're assuming will or intent. Deterrence isn't going to prevent a careless moment. The person isn't going to be in the middle of an error and say, wait...I might get into trouble. That's what made it an error. If there was choice involved, yes.

A mistake/accident is exactly that, a mistake

The other principles of punishment are protecting society, punishment and rehabilitation.

Do we have a vested interest in punishing her further? That's a values call, I don't think so, some do.

Rehabilitation - she was given driving instruction.

Protection - we're giving driving lessons. I haven't seen enough evidence that she's a horrible driver, I just see a mistake.

I see both sides to this. As a driver I have made mistakes
that have led to car damage. Luckily no one was killed.
As cyclists we have to really go out of our way to be visible.
Let's face it you could be in the right and still wind up dead.

So get money out buy alien green vest, the dinotte lights that
are 800 lumen in the front and 400 in the back (hopefully
don't damage drivers retinas) and don't forget the rearview. By golly
no one can use the " he/she came from nowhere, I did not see him/her"
alibi. You might still wind up a highway stat but at least the driver
will get their just desserts.

[Kirk007]

It is not the we only accept cycle/ped accidents, but we accept all auto accidents.

I guess my point is that we should not expect a greater level of action because it is a cyclist rather than an auto. As cyclists, bike riders, we all know the increased level of danger for us and we ride anyway. Auto riders accept risk as well, but a differen level of risk.

When motorcyclists are killed on the road, the sentiment is that they knew the risks. When cyclists die, it is the autos fault. I guess i see our bias as being an unfair standard.

This has been an interesting thread.

I agree that as a society we accept auto accidents, but question whether we should accept them and excuse them to the degree that we do or whether we should demand more from one another.

If we don't speak out against sentences like in this case, then we are tacitly agreeing that the response for the deed is appropriate. If you believe this, that's what you believe and that is fine. But if we ever want greater protection; more responsible driving then we need to speak out in our communities against conduct that we believe is below what should be expected. And if we do so we should expect vigorous responses, particularly when it involves dead cyclists. My last LTE following a dead cyclist accident elicited a death threat, something about looking for opportunities to run my spandexed ass over as I recall....

And with respect to your question about whether cyclists and others should accept more risk of harm than someone encased in an automobile, I would suggest that the settled law on this has been, for a few hundred years, no. Someone who is negligent "takes their victim as they find them." That they are more susceptible to harm does not change the standard of care or provide a defense to negligent behavior.

What bothers me about our level of acceptance of "accidents" is that we are fundamentally making and accepting an excuse of behavior by one person that has harmed another. Excuses suck. Personal responsibility for the consequences of ones "accident" such as ones "failure to perceive a red light," is a concept that resonates much more strongly with me. I'm tired of a society where we have an excuse for everything. By accepting substandard driving and diminishing the consequences, particularly when someone loses their life, because we can all relate, because "we have all been there" is to me, simply giving us all a free pass when our self-centered behavior harms someone else; it elevates our self interest over our care and concern for one another, and virtually sanctions such behavior when the societal consequences meted out for our decisions that take a life are trivial.

It's not lack I lack compassion for granny, I would hate to be in her shoes and have to live with what she has done; its that I feel more for the dead cyclist and hope that as a society we would take whatever measures we can to decrease the risk of more dead cyclists due to a failure to perceive regardless of whether that failure is caused by alcohol, texting, kids, dogs or a bad day at the office.

[Black Dog]

In Dr. David Ryan's Case, The DA would NOT take it to the Jury.
Claimed the Jury could be too flaky and let his killer off. :crap:

Is it not the choice of the defendant if there will be a jury or not?

[Kirk007]

Is it not the choice of the defendant if there will be a jury or not?

my recollection is the DA offered a plea bargain so there was no trial just acceptance of the plea bargain and sentencing.

[Kingfish]

I heard about this case yesterday while listening to the radio. I found it to be interesting and followed it up online, today. I live about three miles from the accident site, and travel through the intersection at least three or four times a week.

I intend on finding out more regarding the details of this accident, because the nature of the accident, (running a red light), and the location of the accident are serious concerns of mine.

My biggest pet peave regarding driving violations is running red lights. I wish the police would focus more on setting up traps for runners of red lights, then they do on speed traps. Ten miles over the limit is going to get you a ticket, but running a red light is going to get you in an accident, or worse.

There are two ways to run a red light. The first is the most common, people trying to "beat" the light when it turns yellow. When I am first or second in line waiting at a red light, I never proceed when the light turns green until I scout out the lanes and make sure no one is running the light. I have avoided many a T-bone this way.

The second way to run a red light is to just fly through a solid red light instead of stopping. It appears, based on what I have read so far, that this accident involved the latter.

Which brings me to my primary concern about this accident. If this woman was driving her grandkids home from church, then that implies that she was familiar with this intersection. This intersection is HUGE. The approach to the intersection from either side takes forever. Her inatentiveness had to take place over an extended period of time. My concern is that someone who would run a red light at this particular intersection, in the manner that this woman did, should not be allowed to drive a car. I'm not arguing for her serving time in jail, or her doing more community service. I'm just fearful that this woman is out on the roads driving.

[Ahneida Ride]

my recollection is the DA offered a plea bargain so there was no trial just acceptance of the plea bargain and sentencing.

This is true. Dr. David Ryan executioner was scheduled to serve
2.5 years. Was suddenly released after 1.5 years.

We have the best justice system that money can buy.

[ultraman6970]

This is america Kingfish.

[Kingfish]

This is america Kingfish.

I live in America. Do you?

[Aaron O]

No where in my post did I state directly or impliedly that I was "better" than the defendant? I did not. I don't understand why you would ask that question. In fact, in a previous post I stated that I would expect to go to jail for killing someone negligently. So clearly I do not consider myself to be "better".

I considered gong to medical school and I have friends and family members who are doctors. That doesn't mean I know anything about practicing medicine. My opinion as an attorney is meaningless but the opinion of your friends and family members who are attorneys does have meaning? Did I understand that correctly? "My definition of justice is wrong"? Where did I define justice? I explained my real world experience of what the court in my community does. Are you saying your friends and family members know what happens in my local court and I am not reporting it accurately? I also gave my personal opinion on the sentence. Are you saying that your friends and family members would say my personal opinion is wrong? So your friends and family members should tell me what my opinions on certain subjects should be? I thought we were all entitled to our own opinions.

You are right I don't know all of the facts. What I do know is that the defendant entered a guilty or was found guilty of killing another person due to distracted driving. Since the charge resulted in probation, the court had the discretion to impose a jail sentence but chose not to.

My last post stated the standard within my community regarding similar offenses and stated my opinion regarding the sentence imposed based upon the facts within my knowledge.

If you have knowledge of additional facts which support what I consider to be a lenient sentence, by all means please enlighten me. I am not so entrenched in my position that I am unable to consider changing my opinion.

Implying that I believe myself to be superior to the defendant or that I am a sub-standard attorney because I should know this or that will not change my opinion in this matter.

I suggest we just agree to disagree. You think the sentence was appropriate, I do not.

Many happy cycling miles to you.

I agree with your last sentence, but will also clarify some things you misunderstood.

#1. I didn't say their opinion or your opinion was meaningless. What I said is that many attorneys have different views and I do not believe you're being an attorney gives you any added insight into this issue. You mentioned being an attorney as an attempt to give yourself more legitimacy. I am saying many attorneys would disagree with you. I have extensive background in the legal field, attorney or not, and feel quite certain that most in the legal field that I know do NOT share your opinion.

#2 stating your opinion on a fair consequence is your concept of justice. You certainly did comment on justice and define it in this case. It's one I obviously disagree with, and I don't just see it as a difference of opinion, frankly I think your view (and apparently that of your geographic area) is incompatible with most American communities principles of justice. You are punishing a consequence, not an action.

#3 Obviously not all communities share the same values, and I'm glad the one I live in would likely not judge this the way your's would. This is of course subject to incomplete data.

#4 I did not say you claimed to be better than her, though by judging her as negligent, I think you're implying that you are. I am saying that you are easily capable of making the error she made, there was no decision to it and I strongly doubt you'd throw yourself on the sword if this happened to you. I am saying the only difference between this woman and the rest of us is luck...and I'd look in the mirror about careless things you've done that COULD have resulted in injury.

Clearly we do not share the same values, and if your description of your community is accurate, I am glad that I live here and not there.

Idaho? Sheesh...forget values, there are a million reasons I'm glad I'm here and not there.

[JMerring]

I am saying the only difference between this woman and the rest of us is luck...and I'd look in the mirror about careless things you've done that COULD have resulted in injury.

Clearly we do not share the same values, and if your description of your community is accurate, I am glad that I live here and not there.

not seeing a red light when you're driving a car has nothing to do with luck and everything to do with inattention. if you're incapable of paying sufficient attention while you're driving to miss/not miss a red light, you really shouldn't be in a car. granted, we all makes mistakes; but when the consequences of our actions are potentially fatal, the margin for error needs to be much smaller. perhaps jail time isn't fair in this case, but this woman should never be allowed behind the wheel of a car ever again.

[Aaron O]

not seeing a red light when you're driving a car has nothing to do with luck and everything to do with inattention. if you're incapable of paying sufficient attention while you're driving to miss/not miss a red light, you really shouldn't be in a car. granted, we all makes mistakes; but when the consequences of our actions are potentially fatal, the margin for error needs to be much smaller. perhaps jail time isn't fair in this case, but this woman should never be allowed behind the wheel of a car ever again.

I'm sure you've never run a light, or a stop sign, or tail gated, or weaved, or sped.

All of which can lead to a fatality.

[Ahneida Ride]

Everyone gets at least one free auto execution.

--------------

People can, it they elect to, operate a motor vehicle with clarity.

At the last Serotta open house, I rode with an on Duty Saratoga
Officer. He was on his Police bike and he was clearly marked as POLICE.
This scenic excursion thru Saratoga lasted about 20 miles.

Boy, did cars give us respect. cause they wanted to. There were
impending consequences if they did not.

One cannot eliminate risk, one can on promote actions that will mitigate it.

[JMerring]

I'm sure you've never run a light, or a stop sign, or tail gated, or weaved, or sped.

All of which can lead to a fatality.

you're correct on at least some of that. it seems like you're missing the point entirely. we'll leave it at that.

[Aaron O]

you're correct on at least some of that. it seems like you're missing the point entirely. we'll leave it at that.

One of us is :rolleyes:


Clearly I am hallucinating and most drivers do not make potentially fatal mistakes...which is why there are so few traffic fatalities and accidents (which outnumber the US deaths in Vietnam on an annual basis). You and the super hero drivers like you are clearly the majority and can rightfully sit in judgement of a woman who was distracted by kids.

[JMerring]

One of us is :rolleyes:


Clearly I am hallucinating and most drivers do not make potentially fatal mistakes...which is why there are so few traffic fatalities and accidents (which outnumber the US deaths in Vietnam on an annual basis). You and the super hero drivers like you are clearly the majority and can rightfully sit in judgement of a woman who was distracted by kids.

i'll take super hero over self righteous any day of the week. thanks!

[Ahneida Ride]

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

If one cannot manage that privilege correctly, one should not engage in that
privilege.

[Aaron O]

i'll take super hero over self righteous any day of the week. thanks!

It's hard not to be in certain situations :fight:

[Kirk007]

[QUOTE=Aaron O]I agree with your last sentence, but will also clarify some things you misunderstood.

What I said is that many attorneys have different views and I do not believe you're being an attorney gives you any added insight into this issue.

He's a criminal trial lawyer with direct experience in sentencing of similar cases, this does not add insight over the average joe on sentencing for criminal conduct? Really?


You mentioned being an attorney as an attempt to give yourself more legitimacy. I am saying many attorneys would disagree with you. I have extensive background in the legal field, attorney or not, and feel quite certain that most in the legal field that I know do NOT share your opinion.

Have you polled "most in the legal field" and what is the sample size of those you know? That attorneys disagree on sentencing is hardly a surprise. Put a group of prosecutors at one end of the bar and a group of PDs at the other and the discussion is going to be very different. I can tell you what the judge I clerked for would have done - he would have rejected the plea deal. And aren't you boosting your credibility in the same way you complain about here with your repeated references to your extensive knowledge of the legal community?

#2 stating your opinion on a fair consequence is your concept of justice. You certainly did comment on justice and define it in this case. It's one I obviously disagree with, and I don't just see it as a difference of opinion, frankly I think your view (and apparently that of your geographic area) is incompatible with most American communities principles of justice.

I disagree that you can so easily encapsulate a person's view of justice by relying on one instance. Moreover, How about some facts to back the assertion that "most American communities agree with you? Are you also an expert on community values across America?

#3 Obviously not all communities share the same values, and I'm glad the one I live in would likely not judge this the way your's would.

Are you sure about your community's view? My uncle was a philadelphia cop; I think he would hold a different view. Again, how can you presume to speak for your community? How can you presume that a jury of your peers would reach the same conclusion? Are you a jury expert? Have some data for us?


#4 I did not say you claimed to be better than her, though by judging her as negligent, I think you're implying that you are.

Are you seriously arguing that running over someone in an intersection and killing them is not below the standard of due care in your community? Geesh, glad I don't live there.

Clearly we do not share the same values, and if your description of your community is accurate, I am glad that I live here and not there.

]Likewise, assuming you have accurately defined your community as one that tolerates mistakes causing death with minimal societal response.

We and others simply disagree on a complex issue. We believe what we believe. We offer the insights we gain based on our personal experience; our views are formed by the same. This isn't a question where any one person has the "right" answer.

The reasons why we feel/believe what we do, and what should be accepted both as appropriate conduct and punishment is an interesting discussion. You diminish that discussion by either dismissing folks as not getting that what this woman did could have happened to any of us and that makes the punishment ok, and fair and correct and/or by taking personal swipes at those who differ from you while simultaneously building up your position with generalizations that go way too far to be believable.

While it may be true in the absolute that this could happen to any of us, the fact is that at least for me, in probably 500,000 miles of driving over 35 years I've never had a lapse that has scratched let alone killed anyone. I suspect that other posters who disagree with you have similarly not killed anyone isn a traffic accident. I submit this is not just a matter of luck. We don't all absent mindedly drive through red lights at busy intersections and solely through the grace of divine intervention do so at a time when no one else is present. This woman's inattentiveness killed another human being. To some of us we think this fact is deserving of more than what she got. That you disagree does not make our opinion wrong nor worthy of mocking.
[/U]

[Kirk007]

It's hard not to be in certain situations :fight:

then you made a good decision not to be a lawyer. Being self righteous leads to big blind spots in my experience. I love it when opposing counsel has all the answers.

[Aaron O]

[QUOTE=Aaron O]I agree with your last sentence, but will also clarify some things you misunderstood.

What I said is that many attorneys have different views and I do not believe you're being an attorney gives you any added insight into this issue.

He's a criminal trial lawyer with direct experience in sentencing of similar cases, this does not add insight over the average joe on sentencing for criminal conduct? Really?

It gives him insight over how the system works in his area, not what is just.


You mentioned being an attorney as an attempt to give yourself more legitimacy. I am saying many attorneys would disagree with you. I have extensive background in the legal field, attorney or not, and feel quite certain that most in the legal field that I know do NOT share your opinion.

Have you polled "most in the legal field" and what is the sample size of those you know? That attorneys disagree on sentencing is hardly a surprise. Put a group of prosecutors at one end of the bar and a group of PDs at the other and the discussion is going to be very different. I can tell you what the judge I clerked for would have done - he would have rejected the plea deal. And aren't you boosting your credibility in the same way you complain about here with your repeated references to your extensive knowledge of the legal community?

I actually did informally poll 4 attorneys, one of whom is a prosecutor, and all agreed that jail time or a permanent license suspension based on the limited data we have would be excessive. I am not boosting my credibility, I am saying I have standing to question his doing so.

#2 stating your opinion on a fair consequence is your concept of justice. You certainly did comment on justice and define it in this case. It's one I obviously disagree with, and I don't just see it as a difference of opinion, frankly I think your view (and apparently that of your geographic area) is incompatible with most American communities principles of justice.

I disagree that you can so easily encapsulate a person's view of justice by relying on one instance. Moreover, How about some facts to back the assertion that "most American communities agree with you? Are you also an expert on community values across America?

He clearly defined justice in this circumstance. I have no facts to back that...other than all of you complaining that cyclists are so often killed with impunity. I am not an expert on community values across America but I like to believe that empathy and mercy are more common than some values I see displayed here. You are right, I generalized.

Personally I think many of you would feel differently if this wasn't a cyclist, and I am certain you would if it were your mother on trial.

#3 Obviously not all communities share the same values, and I'm glad the one I live in would likely not judge this the way your's would.

Are you sure about your community's view? My uncle was a philadelphia cop; I think he would hold a different view. Again, how can you presume to speak for your community? How can you presume that a jury of your peers would reach the same conclusion? Are you a jury expert? Have some data for us?

I have no data, other than to say that the standard in Philadelphia for an accident that didn't involve alcohol or blatant negligence is not criminal IN MY EXPERIENCE.


#4 I did not say you claimed to be better than her, though by judging her as negligent, I think you're implying that you are.

Are you seriously arguing that running over someone in an intersection and killing them is not below the standard of due care in your community? Geesh, glad I don't live there.

I am seriously arguing that the standard of American drivers is that accidents are the norm and common place. Mistakes are the norm and commonplace. THe only difference here is the unlucky consequence.

Clearly we do not share the same values, and if your description of your community is accurate, I am glad that I live here and not there.

]Likewise, assuming you have accurately defined your community as one that tolerates mistakes causing death with minimal societal response.

We agree :)

We and others simply disagree on a complex issue. We believe what we believe. We offer the insights we gain based on our personal experience; our views are formed by the same. This isn't a question where any one person has the "right" answer.

The reasons why we feel/believe what we do, and what should be accepted both as appropriate conduct and punishment is an interesting discussion. You diminish that discussion by either dismissing folks as not getting that what this woman did could have happened to any of us and that makes the punishment ok, and fair and correct and/or by taking personal swipes at those who differ from you while simultaneously building up your position with generalizations that go way too far to be believable.

It's the internet...are you expecting a position paper? Some things should be mocked, like the allegation that I don't value life, or such intentional misunderstanding of positions I explained.

While it may be true in the absolute that this could happen to any of us, the fact is that at least for me, in probably 500,000 miles of driving over 35 years I've never had a lapse that has scratched let alone killed anyone. I suspect that other posters who disagree with you have similarly not killed anyone isn a traffic accident. I submit this is not just a matter of luck. We don't all absent mindedly drive through red lights at busy intersections and solely through the grace of divine intervention do so at a time when no one else is present. This woman's inattentiveness killed another human being. To some of us we think this fact is deserving of more than what she got. That you disagree does not make our opinion wrong nor worthy of mocking.
[/U]

I agree that it's an interesting conversation. I can tell that so few people make mistakes by the low insurance rates for driving.

[Ahneida Ride]

Self righteous is just derogatory code for ethics and a conscience
which motivates integrity.

We are all "self-righteous" since we all operate on singular codes of ethics.

Collectively we merge personal ethics (self-righteousness) into
a code of law which should in theory apply equally.

If this alleged perpetrator made it to a Jury Trial, this person would
encounter 12 "self-righteous" judgmental individuals.

[Aaron O]

then you made a good decision not to be a lawyer. Being self righteous leads to big blind spots in my experience. I love it when opposing counsel has all the answers.

Actually I believe pretty much everything is a balancing act and that life is almost always in the grey areas. I believe that any decision has winners and losers and it's usually a choice between bad alternatives. There are very few things worthy of self righteousness, like, say, calling a woman distracted by kids negligent. I answered in the same tone the statement was made in.

[Ahneida Ride]

Self righteous is just derogatory code for ethics and a conscience which motivates integrity.

We are all "self-righteous" since we all operate on singular codes of ethics.

Collectively we merge personal ethics (self-righteousness) into
a code of law which should in theory apply equally.

If this alleged perpetrator made it to a Jury Trial, this person would
encounter 12 "self-righteous" judgmental individuals.

The issue is distracted driving and it's consequences, not the self
righteousness of it's evaluators.

[Aaron O]

I also think nothing good is going to come from continuing this debate.

It is an agree to disagree. You don't care for my tactics, and I don't care for many of the ones that were used as well. Life goes on, it's the internet. I'm sure we'd get along better talking about why Campagnolo is a superior product to Shimano.

I'm done...respond away. I already got too heated and involved with this debate.

[cloudguy]

You're a douche. Hopefully, that will lock this down.

[Kirk007]

I'm sure we'd get along better talking about why Campagnolo is a superior product to Shimano.



Heck yeah we can agree on that :beer:

[1happygirl]

haven't read all the replies, but until we enforce maserati murder with the bare minimum license revocation we are not gonna solve anything. a guy in dallas just recently drunk driving and lived but killed the driver of the tanker truck he rolled into and now they say the freeway will be shut down for 6 weeks due to the fire. cars are weapons. end of subject. bicycles too.

[Aaron O]

Heck yeah we can agree on that :beer:

I knew we'd find common ground!
:beer:

[JeffS]

Is this woman a danger to society?

Yes. Very clearly.