Holding drivers responsible

Quoted message said:

Kerry Nikolaisen [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Interesting verdict in the "trial" of a woman who fell asleep at the wheel and killed a cyclist on
a bike path (not lane).

mobikefed.org2003 08 01 newsarchive.htmlOpen ↗

I suppose it is no different than the slap-on-the hand verdict for the man who killed all those in
the marketplace in CA and the one in Florida who injured all the cyclists.

States need to be more aggressive about prosecuting careless drivers. They sure would if you
replace an auto with a handgun.

Kerry

The linked news article says it was a "bike path". Missouri Bicycle Federation calls it a "bike
lane". Since the driver was charged with improper lane usage as opposed to driving off the roadway,
I choose to accept the MBF's version. Having said that, how do you think a 52 yr old woman with no
history of criminal behavior or bad driving *should* be punished? Remember, whatever sentence you
would impose will serve as a baseline for other drivers. That doesn't just mean, "It could happen
to you". It *also* means, "If you send this 52 yr old woman to prison then what do you do to a
20something driver that strikes and kills two people while changing CDs and how does *that*
sentence compare to the sentence of someone that intentionally causes serious bodily harm or death
to another?"

Regards, Bob Hunt

"Hunrobe" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

The linked news article says it was a "bike path". Missouri Bicycle

Federation

Quoted message said:

calls it a "bike lane". Since the driver was charged with improper lane

usage

Quoted message said:

as opposed to driving off the roadway, I choose to accept the MBF's

version.

Quoted message said:

Having said that, how do you think a 52 yr old woman with no history of criminal behavior or bad
driving *should* be punished?

1. A fine. (more than a token $500)
2. Suspension of driving for 1 year
3. A comprehensive driving school at the end of the suspension

It is far too easy for negligent drivers to continue driving legally. A DUI frequently results in
'banned, except for driving to-from work or school". IMHO, thats far too lenient. Too bad if you
have to find an alternate way to work.

Penalties are not only to punsh the offender, but also as a deterrent to other people.

Any crash which results in a death should result in a ban from driving for min 1 year. Circumstances
may warrant a far longer, or permanent, ban.

Pete

"Kerry Nikolaisen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Interesting verdict in the "trial" of a woman who fell asleep at the wheel and killed a cyclist on
a bike path (not lane).

mobikefed.org2003 08 01 newsarchive.htmlOpen ↗

I suppose it is no different than the slap-on-the hand verdict for the man who killed all those in
the marketplace in CA and the one in Florida who injured all the cyclists.

States need to be more aggressive about prosecuting careless drivers. They sure would if you
replace an auto with a handgun.

Kerry

I'm sure the punishment will be greater in the sure-to-be impending civil wrongful death trial.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

The linked news article says it was a "bike path". Missouri Bicycle Federation calls it a "bike
lane". Since the driver was charged with improper lane usage as opposed to driving off the roadway,
I choose to accept the MBF's version. Having said that, how do you think a 52 yr old woman with no
history of criminal behavior or bad driving *should* be punished? Remember, whatever sentence you
would impose will serve as a baseline for other drivers. That doesn't just mean, "It could happen
to you". It *also* means, "If you send

this

Quoted message said:

52 yr old woman to prison then what do you do to a 20something driver that strikes and kills two
people while changing CDs and how does *that* sentence compare to the sentence of someone that
intentionally causes serious bodily harm or death to another?"

She should lose her license for some time too. She made a really stupid decision. She chose to
drive even though she was tired. It was her choice to continue to drive. It is similar the the
choice a drunk person makes when they get behind the wheel. For that reason, they should get a
similar sentence.
-----------------
Alex __O _-\<,_ (_)/ (_)

Quoted message said:

It is far too easy for negligent drivers to continue driving legally. A

DUI

Quoted message said:

frequently results in 'banned, except for driving to-from work or school". IMHO, thats far too
lenient. Too bad if you have to find an alternate way

to

Quoted message said:

work.

Here in Quebec, a DUI gets you a criminal record. On the other hand, as I was waiting as a witness
in a criminal court, I've seen some cases before the one I was there was heard. For example, a guy
driving 3 times over the legal limit had hi lawyer come up front (probably free lawyer since he was
poor) saying that his client was poor and to consider that in the judgement...blah, blah, blah...the
guy ended up with a criminal record, license suspension and less than 200$ fine. This is less than a
speeding ticket!!!

Hunrobe said:

Quoted message said:

Kerry Nikolaisen [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Interesting verdict in the "trial" of a woman who fell asleep at the wheel and killed a cyclist on
a bike path (not lane).

mobikefed.org2003 08 01 newsarchive.htmlOpen ↗

I suppose it is no different than the slap-on-the hand verdict for the man who killed all those in
the marketplace in CA and the one in Florida who injured all the cyclists.

States need to be more aggressive about prosecuting careless drivers. They sure would if you
replace an auto with a handgun.

Kerry

The linked news article says it was a "bike path". Missouri Bicycle Federation calls it a "bike
lane". Since the driver was charged with improper lane usage as opposed to driving off the
roadway, I choose to accept the MBF's version. Having said that, how do you think a 52 yr old
woman with no history of criminal behavior or bad driving *should* be punished? Remember, whatever
sentence you would impose will serve as a baseline for other drivers. That doesn't just mean, "It
could happen to you". It *also* means, "If you send this 52 yr old woman to prison then what do
you do to a 20something driver that strikes and kills two people while changing CDs and how does
*that* sentence compare to the sentence of someone that intentionally causes serious bodily harm
or death to another?"

Regards, Bob Hunt

Bob:

In this discussion you can take the cyclist out of the equation. It doesn't matter if it was a
pedestrian, scooter operator, skateboarder, buggy driver, etc.

What needs to be addressed is holding the driver of a motor vehicle responsible for their actions.
Whether that be falling asleep at the wheel, talking on the cell phone, etc.

These are all PREVENTABLE circumstances. Now had the lady swerved to avoid hitting a deer, other
motorist, etc, then I could accept the term ACCIDENT.

We must get out of this mindset that loss of life based on irresponsible (yet preventable) actions
is acceptable as long as we view it as accidental.

Kerry

[email hidden] (Hunrobe) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Kerry Nikolaisen [email hidden]

.

Quoted message said:

Having said that, how do you think a 52 yr old woman with no history of criminal behavior or bad
driving *should* be punished?

Correction; no *known* history of bad driving. A lot of bad and stupid driving goes unnoticed,
uncaught, unpunished. For all we know this woman may have fallen asleep at the wheel dozens of
times, but this was the first time there was an accident. Supposition, but your comment about 'no
history' is really 'no recorded history'.

That said, at some point 'accidents' are not accidents. Calling them such hides the fact that a lot
of collisions are avoidable and result from people doing stupid things while wielding large weapons
(a 2000 lb+ car is in fact a deadly weapon). We as a society have, to this point, decided that
careless behavior in the wielding of this one specific type of weapon is socially acceptable. At
some point perhaps the pendulum will shift and we will start making folks more responsible for their
behavior. In one state, Utah, they started a campaign last year that involves, in part, dropping the
use of the term 'accident' when referring to collisions. The argument is that most are not
'accidents' but are the result of poor choices by drivers of vehicles. Changing the terminology
will, IMHO, have little impact. But holding the drivers to a higher standard of conduct, with more
appropriate punishments for improper use of deadly weapons could get the message across that driving
is serious business and needs to be undertaken with a set of standard precautions. Do not drive if
you did not get sufficient rest, do not take your attention away from the job to read the map,
change the CD, dial a phone call, etc. If and only if there are penalties for these behaviors will
the behavior of the masses start to change.

- rick

"Hunrobe" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I agree with you but the question still remains, what is the appropriate punishment? It's not
enough to simply say as some do, "Anyone involved in

a

Quoted message said:

fatal car crash should lose their license for X amount of time." for two reasons. First, consider
the difference between the woman in this case and

that

Quoted message said:

hypothetical 20something driver I mentioned. This defendant drives for a

living

Quoted message said:

(bus driver). Suspending or revoking *her* license will deprive her of her

job.

If professional driving is her job, and she's careless or inattentive enough to cause a fatality,
then maybe she *should* lose her job. If nothing else, for a review period. Give her a desk job.

Or do you want a proven careless driver in charge of a bus everyday? How many crashes and fatalities
should she cause before we *do* take her license away? 1, 2, 5?

If it can be shown that it isn't her fault, then fine...Give her back the keys, and she can drive
again tomorrow.

Quoted message said:

My hypothetical driver lives in an area with public transportation. For

him,

Quoted message said:

losing his driving privileges is just an inconvenience. Second, and IMO

more

Quoted message said:

important, the harsher the penalty the more likely the defendant will

either

Quoted message said:

plead down to a lesser offense or walk away entirely with a not guilty

verdict.

Quoted message said:

That's why investigating and prosecuting capital crimes are high stress occupations.

I know what you're saying, but I have a hard time with the whole "plead down" thing. I know it
happens all the time, (happened to me), but losing your driving priv does not necessarily need to be
seen as "harsh".

Pete

Hunrobe said:

Quoted message said:

Kerry Nikolaisen [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Bob:

In this discussion you can take the cyclist out of the equation. It doesn't matter if it was a
pedestrian, scooter operator, skateboarder, buggy driver, etc.

What needs to be addressed is holding the driver of a motor vehicle responsible for their actions.
Whether that be falling asleep at the wheel, talking on the cell phone, etc.

These are all PREVENTABLE circumstances. Now had the lady swerved to avoid hitting a deer, other
motorist, etc, then I could accept the term ACCIDENT.

We must get out of this mindset that loss of life based on irresponsible (yet preventable) actions
is acceptable as long as we view it as accidental.

Kerry

I agree with you but the question still remains, what is the appropriate punishment? It's not
enough to simply say as some do, "Anyone involved in a fatal car crash should lose their license
for X amount of time." for two reasons. First, consider the difference between the woman in this
case and that hypothetical 20something driver I mentioned. This defendant drives for a living (bus
driver). Suspending or revoking *her* license will deprive her of her job. My hypothetical driver
lives in an area with public transportation. For him, losing his driving privileges is just an
inconvenience. Second, and IMO more important, the harsher the penalty the more likely the
defendant will either plead down to a lesser offense or walk away entirely with a not guilty
verdict. That's why investigating and prosecuting capital crimes are high stress occupations. You
have a valid point. Many times a driver *does* "get a pass". I just don't know if the case you
cited is necessarily one of those times.

Regards, Bob Hunt

I don't see it any different than if the lady got a DUI and there was or was not loss of life
associated with it. The fact that she drives for a living is irrelevant. Perhaps she finds a
different job within the school district. Which brings up a new point - would you want this woman to
get her license back so that she could drive YOUR children to school?

Kerry

"Hunrobe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Kerry Nikolaisen [email hidden]

First, consider the difference between the woman in this case and that hypothetical 20something
driver I mentioned. This defendant drives for a

living

Quoted message said:

(bus driver). Suspending or revoking *her* license will deprive her of her

job.

When I was working as a bus driver, something like falling asleep at the wheel and running over some
one would pretty much mean you lose your job anyway, and no one else would hire you to drive either
with that on your record. So her driving career is over whether or not her license is revoked.

Hunrobe said:

Quoted message said:

Kerry Nikolaisen [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I don't see it any different than if the lady got a DUI and there was or was not loss of life
associated with it.

---snip----

If you believe that then you should try to change the laws in your State to make all traffic
offenses equivalent to a DUI if there is a fatality involved and that is simply unworkable IMO.

Quoted message said:

The fact that she drives for a

living is irrelevant. Perhaps she finds a >different job within the school district.

---snip---

We disagree. I think it's relevant because I believe the punishment should fit the crime. I don't
presume to know why you think it's irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

Which brings up a new point - would you want this woman to get her license back so that she could
drive YOUR children to school?

If she had an otherwise exemplary driving record, sure. All we know about this woman is that she
made one bad decision. I don't know anyone that hasn't. One bad decision (a bad decision, *not* a
decision to do bad) shouldn't automatically disqualify people from ever being trusted no matter
how tragic the consequences of that decision are.

Regards, Bob Hunt

People choose to drink beyond their legal limit, and drive. If pulled over by the police and
prosecuted, some have their licenses suspended (some may be pleaded down). And this is even if no
accidents or fatalities are involved. As you said, they made a bad decision. I think the punishment
fits the crime. Especially when the original decision to drink, even though it was a bad one, is
preventable.

To me, if its preventable, the sentence should fit the crime. A traffic violation that causes no
harm (speeding, running stop sign) should be considered a minor infraction (fine/points). If those
violations involve accidents or fatalities, I think their severity should be increased because,
again, they were preventable.

Kerry

When apprehended by the police, some of these pe

"Hunrobe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Pete" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

If professional driving is her job, and she's careless or inattentive

enough

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to cause a fatality, then maybe she *should* lose her job. If nothing

else,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for a review period. Give her a desk job.

---snip---

Again, I'm not saying it should *never* happen but do we have anywhere

close to

Quoted message said:

enough information that it should happen in this case? Making any

particular

Quoted message said:

punishment automatic in *every* case doesn't solve the problem of

injustice. It

Quoted message said:

simply makes injustice more widespread.

I you're misunderstanding where I'm going with this.

*If* a death occurs, and *if* the one or more of the drivers involved is found to be at fault
(negligence, carelessness, malice), then yes... part of the mandatory sentencing should be license
revocation for a period of time, along with whatever else the court has deemed necessary.

It seems too easy to get and keep your license in this country.

Driving is not a right, even if it is your job. It has been partly responsible for what this country
is today (whether you see that as good or bad). And it has driven a lot of the economy for the last
100 years. But aside from the 'inconvienience' of repairs and higher insurance...a crash, especially
due to carelessness, is seen as 'oh...not too bad'. Yes, this woman will live with the results of
this for the rest of her life. But the victim, due to her carelessness....well...

Maybe we can influence someone else to not drive when they are tired enough to nod off. If part of
the penalty is "You cannot drive for a year if you "accidentally" kill someone....maybe someone will
stop and think first.

And no one is inconvienciened unless they kill someone.

Does part of the normal sentencing of a rapist include jail time? Yes. Maybe part of the normal
sentencing of a guilty driver should include suspension/revocation.

Pete

Pete

In many cases the civil suits involved with such accidents have the capacity to completely ruin the
individual financially.

Unfortunately these trials don't get the publicity of criminal charges.

Chris Neary [email hidden]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the
elements I loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

(Hunrobe) said:

Having said that, how do you think a 52 yr old woman with no history of criminal behavior or bad
driving *should* be punished?

if she had shot the victim with a firearm she would be going to prison for a loooong time. a car
is a lethal weapon, too, but somehow if you kill someone with it, it's not as bad as with a gun?
gimme a break.

the perp should have got some prison time for her negligence, lost her license for life, and mother
should sue her for every penny for the granddaughter.

(Hunrobe) said:

This defendant drives for a living (bus driver). Suspending or revoking *her* license will deprive
her of her job.

all the MORE reason to keep her off the road! she has demonstrated that she is NOT a responsible
driver! you don't just "suddenly" fall asleep at the wheel. driving while drowsy is as bad as
driving while drunk; it's driving while impaired.

(Hunrobe) said:

I think it's relevant because I believe the punishment should fit the crime.

she killed someone WHILE DRIVING. therefore, stopping her from driving a bus full of children makes
perfect sense to me.

Cathy Kearns said:

When I was working as a bus driver, something like falling asleep at the wheel and running over
some one would pretty much mean you lose your job anyway, and no one else would hire you to drive
either with that on your record. So her driving career is over whether or not her license is
revoked.

according to the local newspaper forum discussion, she is driving a school bus this week! i find
that absolutely appalling.

Kerry Nikolaisen said:

People choose to drink beyond their legal limit, and drive. If pulled over by the police and
prosecuted, some have their licenses suspended (some may be pleaded down). And this is even if no
accidents or fatalities are involved. As you said, they made a bad decision. I think the punishment
fits the crime. Especially when the original decision to drink, even though it was a bad one, is
preventable.

I think the first infraction should be the last. Any subsequent travel should be as passenger or
pedestrian.

Any recidivism in drunk driving should be punished by the miscreant having its eyes put out so that
it cannot drive at all.

[email hidden] (Hunrobe) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Rick Warner)

wrote:

Quoted message said:

I thought the discussion was about the legal aspects of the case. "Unrecorded history" doesn't
exist in any courtroom save a kangaroo court.

Last I knew we were not in a courtroom, kangaroo or otherwise. Your point is, well, pointless
because the discussion was not about the legal aspects of the case (that has been determined) but
about the 'what-if' aspects. And 'unrecorded history' can have a bearing on a case in a courtroom;
verbal accounts of past incidents, none appearing in any legal record, will play a large part in the
case against the gentleman who ran his car through the Santa Monica farmer's market.

Quoted message said:

If you want to talk about semantics though, a vehicle- a car, truck, bicycle, or even a
skateboard- is a vehicle, not a "weapon" and using the term

Actually, motor vehicles are referred to as weapons quite regularly by law enforcement these days. I
could dig up articles on at least 3 or 4 police shootings of individuals in the past month in this
region with the justification that it was self defense as the person they shot was wielding a weapon
- a motor vehicle. Having been unjustly struck on 3 occasions by motor vehicles while travelling in
bicycle lanes, I believe that they are weapons when not used properly, and a driver falling asleep
at the wheel, or moving across the lane when changing CD's, etc., make the vehicle a weapon.

- rick