"Fatalistic attitude?"

I was referring to your non-chalant way to write something to the extend of: "Accidents do happen, nothing we can do about it"

"Swerving all over the road for an extended amount of time while text-messaging" as a "momentary lapsus of concentration" that could happen to anybody and should therefor be acceptable and excusable because we all are human?

That is "humanism ad absurdum" and is fairly common especially in the younger generation who grew up without any understanding of Ethics and Social Responsibility. Just because "everybody else is doing it" and there are no direct laws against it doesn't make it right.

And "I apologize" for making this personally. You know, I am only human.... "Can I go now?"

---

adrialin

(BOMK, racing drug and supplement free since 1985)

Whoever brought up manslaughter hit it on the head about the potential punishment ranges....from next to nothing to pretty stiff...from law.com:

vehicular manslaughter
n. the crime of causing the death of a human being due to illegal driving of an automobile, including gross negligence, drunk driving, reckless driving or speeding. Vehicular manslaughter can be charged as a misdemeanor (minor crime with a maximum punishment of a year in county jail or only a fine) or a felony (punishable by a term in state prison) depending on the circumstances. Gross negligence or driving a few miles over the speed limit might be charged as a misdemeanor, but drunk driving resulting in a fatality is most likely treated as a felony. Death of a passenger, including a loved one or friend, can be vehicular manslaughter if due to illegal driving.


"illegal driving" becomes the operative definiton...did they cross a line?? Man, there are too many hairs to split on this one! Either way it isn't enough to make people more aware of us out there on the roads so:

BE SAFE OUT THERE!

Paul

---

----------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by RUDY PROJECT...check out http://www.e-rudy.com
Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker.
"What does not destroy me, makes me stronger."
-Friedrich Nietzsche, Götzen-Dämmerung (1899)

In other words, "I get my potshot, but if you want to respond, you have to do it elsewhere."

Any ADAs or defense attorneys on board today?
______________________

I am a criminal defense attorney. I have said all i care to.

The problem is not that of splitting hairs. It is the problem of crossing a line that is undefined by law. The law is more than useless, since there are no moral and ethical standards established in our society that would allow to directly compare text-message driving to driving drunk.

Drinking is always bad, text-messaging is always acceptable and good?

It has been scientifically proven that text-messaging is extraordinary dangerous while driving, but still is social accepted behavior (as is interrupting a meeting by taking a personal call).

That is were I am coming from....

---

adrialin

(BOMK, racing drug and supplement free since 1985)

"Swerving all over the road for an extended amount of time while text-messaging" as a "momentary lapsus of concentration" that could happen to anybody and should therefor be acceptable and excusable because we all are human?

I smell a boogeyman. Who's said this is acceptable and excusable behavior? Who's said that this should escape punishment? Seems to me that the real issue is the severity of the punishment. And I think the fact that this is common behavior is something that can be taken into consideration (and I see how doing that could work both ways).

I think it's understandable that society is reluctant to severly punish people with stiff prison sentences for conduct that most people do on a routine basis. And I think it's reasonable for a DA when deciding what crime to charge to consider the fact that most prospective jurors are in a "but for the grace of God there go I" situation.

I consider myself a fairly cautious driver, at least most of the time, but here's a list of some of the multi-tasking sins I've committed while driving: cellphone use (talking, dialing and answering); text messaging; playing with the radio; reading the newspaper while in traffic; changing clothes (I've been butt naked); eating; yelling at the kids; grabbing stuff out of the back seat; etc. I consider myself lucky and, upon further reflecting on the risks of these actions, have cut most of them out. Still, I believe the I'm at the greatest risk when there's a simple, unintentional momentary lapse of concentration. Perhaps that's because I was aware of the risk when I committed those sins and, accordingly, took at least some minimal mitigating measure.

I'm surprised that you are a defense attorney given your responses. The common portrayal is to defend at all costs.

I agree with your comments, but the legislature will only enact what the majority population will support. If we can't get better enforcement of the drunk driving statutes, I think there is little hope for improving the driving public's awareness of, and concern for cyclists.

I am sounding awfully pessimistic here, but I have been defeated by a cold all week with no workouts since Monday. The Grinch is alive and well.

---

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)

"I think it's understandable that society is reluctant to punish people with stiff prison sentences for conduct that most people do on a routine basis. And I think it's reasonable for a DA when deciding what crime to charge to consider the fact that most prospective jurors are in a "but for the grace of God there go I" situation."

Understandable? Yes. Acceptable? No.

"I consider myself a fairly cautious driver, at least most of the time, but here's a list of some of the multi-tasking sins I've committed while driving: cellphone use (talking, dialing and answering); text messaging; playing with the radio; reading the newspaper while in traffic; changing clothes (I've been butt naked); eating; yelling at the kids; grabbing stuff out of the back seat; etc. I consider myself lucky and, upon further reflecting on the risks of these actions, have cut most of them out."

While it's good that you've cut these things out, had you caused an accident you would certainly have deserved the full extent of punishment available. (I defer to John, above, as to whether you would deserve puniishment for 'negligent' or 'reckless' driving in each case.

"Still, I believe the I'm at the greatest risk when there's a simple, unintentional momentary lapse of concentration. Perhaps that's because I was aware of the risk when I committed those sins and, accordingly, took at least some minimal mitigating measure."

This may seem a bit harsh, but I think there's a fair chance you're deluding yourself here. Almost all the actions you listed required premeditation and complex action. As a result, I think it's fair to say that you were not in full control of your vehicle for more than the time lost in a "momentary lapse of concentration".

I think it's rather frightening that you and others seem to think it's in any way acceptable for you to engage in any of these actions while in control of a fast moving, potentially explosive lump of metal, plastic and glass.

---

Stuff I like:
PBscience Triathlon Coaching and Lab Testing

So take the act of what he was doing out of the equation and just say that he was doing something other then paying attention to driving the car. That would be reckless driving which is what that kid was charged with. Reckless driving falls within the bounds of the definition of Manslaughter and is up to the discretion of the DA to press the charge or file a lesser charge.

If I were living in Douglas County CO I'd be voting for another DA in the next election.

Acceptable? No

. . .

I think it's rather frightening that you and others seem to think it's in any way acceptable for you to engage in any of these actions while in control of a fast moving, potentially explosive lump of metal, plastic and glass.

Again, who in this thread has said this is acceptable? From what I've read, I think everyone agrees that it is not. There's just a disagreement over what is the appropriate punishment. Some seem to equate cellphone use while driving, which in California is not in itself against the law, with driving while under the influence, justifying similar penalties. (Indeed, the word "murder" has been used.) I think there's a difference.

Is it safe for me to assume that all those who are calling for the strictest of sentences are the paradigm of a safe driver, that they have not and do not ever commit any of the "sins" I listed? Because if that is the claim, I think there's a real credibility issue.

OK, maybe I'm overreacting, but as a cycle commuter I face these dangers daily.

In the UK talking on the cell phone is illegal while driving (though it's very badly enforced). It is certainly proven to have a significantly detrimental effect on driver reactions, and (as I remember) one not dissimilar to the lower 'over the limit' alcohol in the blood levels that consitute drunk driving.

I don't drive. I consider it unnecessary, I can't afford it, and I like the extra training I get from cycling to work.

---

Stuff I like:
PBscience Triathlon Coaching and Lab Testing

i didn't see any word on sentencing (unless i missed it).

it is still possible the kid spends up to a year in jail for this. misdemeanors are not always monetary fines.

Ditto AlanShearer's thoughts. When composing my first thoughts for this thread, it crossed my mind the number of stupid little things I did as a young driver, where only by the grace of God, nothing came of it. Everybody is human, everybody has had a lapse of some kind. However, I think we are in agreement that being human alone isn't an excuse. We all our responsible for our actions and our lapses.

What gets tough is the case where an otherwise decent human has a lapse with a devastating consequence. I would feel sorry for such a person, knowing it wasn't an intentional act. However, I think we need deterents to modify some of the negative aspects of our human nature, such as the ability to be distracted when operating potentially dangerous machines. Until someone finds a way to rewire the brain, or develops the smart car (far more likely) the current method is the judicial system and jails/prison. Unless the current deterents are employed, I see little hope for change.

When 17 yr olds, freshly minted with driving privileges are text messaging (and who knows for how many times while driving in this case), then obviously they are not concerned about deterents, or have not been suitably impressed about the nature of the deterents.

Is that a lack of bite in the existing deterents (i.e. punishments) or a lack of education/driver training?

---

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)

I am jumping in here since I live 2 miles from the accident and have been on that road thousands of times. First, the road in question is a 2 lane, 45 MPH area that goes right by a high school, and the speed limit is 25 when the kids are going to or leaving the school. It's actually a nasty 1/4 mile climb where you are happy to see double digits on your computer as you climb. At the crest of the hill is the entrance to the school on the right and a stop light. The cyclist was through the stop light, about to go on a nice little downhill when he was struck. It looks to me like the kid was coming up the hill, looked up, saw he had a green light, went to Textmessage, swerved, saw the cyclist, slammed on the brakes and struck him. You can still see the skid marks, they are approximately 15-20 ft. so he was probably doing 50+ MPH. If the light had been red, none of this tragedy would have happened. This kid did not try to buzz him or run him off the road, he had no intention of harming anyone.
This kid made a HUGE mistake and he will pay for it the rest of his life. A woman that I swim masters with has daughters that go school with this kid. Apparently he is a good kid, never been in any real trouble and is totally devastated by what he did. Of course, this does not deny what he did. But it makes it harder, for myself at least, to lash out at this teenager. Who out there has not eaten, changed a CD, talked on your cell or done something where you swerved a bit, and as cyclists we should know better! Again, no excuse, but this kid did not set out to kill and apparently is very remorseful and saddened by what he did.
I think it's a tough call. On one hand you have a kid that made a mistake, a tragic one, but a lack of judgment. On the other you have the death of another human being. I don't think jail will "teach him a lesson" or serve to punish him more than he will punish himself every day of his life.

---

AJ Johnson
D3Multisport.com
USAT Certified Coach
2x USAT All American
2x Hawaii Ironman Finisher

"In most cases the death is not intentional. Unless negligence or purpose is proven I have a hard time charging the driver that survives with murder for what, in many cases, boils down to a momentary laps of concentration. "

man·slaugh·ter ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mnslôtr)
n. The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury.

Assuming the kid admitted he was texting and lapsed concentration, I would argue negligence has been proven. Driving classes teach you to be aware of everyone on the road at all times. No intent to kill, but a death as a direct result of your actions. And its not a misdemeanor.

You have pretty much summarize everything into one post. The odds were that it probably is a decent kid involved. Clearly it wasn't intentional, but it doesn't change the results. A bigger question is how do you prevent it from ocurring again? How are other cyclists, runners, and pedestrians to be protected from other similar accidents?

It is definitely an unpleasent call to make. My only hope is for intelligent vehicles that takes away the human frailities, but I think that is quite a number of years away.

On one hand you have a kid that made a mistake, a tragic one, but a lack of judgment.

Is this really a lack of judgement though? Don't you think that somewhere along the line, a classroom driving instructor specifically spelled out things not to do while driving? Wouldn't the parents have discussed do and don'ts? My daughter is only 11 right now, but I know she will get more than one lecture and quiz, which will also include the consequences.

I don't doubt that this individual has probably learned a permanent lesson, but doesn't he owe something to someone/society as well? It is not just about him learning. Maybe it is my Christian Judeo upbrining invoking an eye for an eye type argument, but he has cost society something, both a tangible cost to the victims family, and something less tangible for the rest of us, the loss of security for when we participate in our daily legal activities.

I suppose I am glad I am not a judge.

---

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)

Sure, lets all throw our hands in the air and recite some sunday-school wisdoms that we can't do anything about this kind of incidents (since WE all are guilty doing it). Very easy, just assume it and move on and you will sleep well at night. Maybe say a prayer.... that should do it.

"Who out there has not eaten, changed a CD, talked on your cell or done something where you swerved a bit, and as cyclists we should know better!"

I can honestly say that I never did something that would make me swerve or take my eyes off the road for more than a split second. So speak for yourself (your sig line speaks volumes about you). If you are a wreckless driver don't imply that others are! And yes, apparently you seem to have no remorse about it.

How will the kid pay for it the rest of his life? REMORSE? Good one!

Have you lost a loved one in a traffic accident, e.g. by a drunk teen driver? Who do you think will really "pay" for it? I just challenge you to think that this would have been you who would have been hit there. I bet your loved ones would be overjoyed about all the psycho-babble about fate, tragedy and mistakes they get to hear while they have to financially (and psychologically) struggle to stay afloat.

"I apologize, can I go home now?"

---

adrialin

(BOMK, racing drug and supplement free since 1985)

Of course I thought about what if it had been me. Every time I hear about a cyclist getting hit I think about the mililons of times I could have been the on the wrong end of a car/bike encounter. I especially think about this particular incident since it is so close to my home and I can still see the skid marks when I pass by. If it were me I would hope that my loved ones understand that in an instance such as this, an accident with a remorseful individual, that jail and money won't bring me back. They will be angry and upset, but you have to accept it for what it is.
I am not saying that this kid should go home and live happily ever after, I simply said that as far as I know the kid was very sorry for what he did. I said this so that those interested in this tragedy would know, not to claim that he should go home to mom and dad.
As far as your lame personal attack, it must be reassuring to know that you are the world's greatest driver. Your hands have never left the 10-2 postition, your eyes vigilantly scan the road ahead and your concentration is never broken. I simply stated what I view to be the reality. That people don't pay as much attention as they should when driving. To imply that I drive around wrecklessly without any thought as to my actions is quite a stretch. Rarely do I do any of those since I drive so little anymore. If I do have to take a call or anything that might distract me for a second I check up the road for anyone or anything beforehand. Not only do I not want to be a cyclist in a car/bike accident, I don't want to be the driver either. In fact, I make a point not to pull into an intersection too far since many kids around here ride on the sidewalk. I don't claim to be the greatest driver known to man, but I would put my driving skills up against anybody. I don't have to have remorse since I have never caused or been in an accident that was my fault. Also, since I am a triathlon coach I can't possibly have anything to say on this subject. Just what does being a triathlon coach say about me, I am curious?
I actually am dealing with the recent death of a loved one. It was preventable and she was young, with 2 children. Those that were close to her have actually taken some comfort in what you call "psycho-babble" they feel better believing that God stepped in and that she is in a better place. While I don't believe that, they do and hat's fine with me. They have to cope wiith it on their terms and with their beliefs. Just because I don't feel that way I don't have the right to demean others beliefs.
To end this, I ask you what then is your solution? How do you end this? You have made your self out to be a wiseman, so show your wisdom. You are a perfect driver, perfect cyclist, perfect person in every way, so let's hear it right now. You are the judge, so what's your ruling?

---

AJ Johnson
D3Multisport.com
USAT Certified Coach
2x USAT All American
2x Hawaii Ironman Finisher

plainly and simply driving is a choice and a conscience one at that. Simply getting into the car and driving down the road is a "choice of action" which can be avoided.

By your logic and reasoning anyone that kills another person for any reason while driving deserves a "high level of punishement"

Whithout doubt we all should avoid hazardous driving habits as much as possible. However that being said it's impossible to avoid all such "habits". Wandering minds, slightly tired, distracted or driving on very new or very familiar roads can all be a track to an accident.

Once again, texting while driving is just plain stupid and deserves punishment. However I think it's way to easy to believe there is some imaginary line that crosses over from "Good" to "Bad" as far as driving habits goes.

There is inherant risk in driving and in cycling as there is in living period. When the odds go against us, and eventually they always will, why is it that we assume that the person most likely at fault should have somehow been "perfect". It is this very mentality that leads to atrocious lawsuits and ridiculous settlements.

Face it people life is dangerous...accidents happen...and once again texting while driving is ignorant , stupid and should be punished. I just don't think throwing somene in jail for doing something ignorant is such a wise idea either. If this were the case I'd guess most everyone on the planet would be in jail....or does it only matter if you get caught?

~Matt

"I can honestly say that I never did something that would make me swerve or take my eyes off the road for more than a split second."

First I'd call BS on that. I don't know of anyone who is 100% concentrated on the road at ALL times. Even if concentrated 100% on the road at all times it still does not mean that you CAN'T be involved in ANY situation that would be your fault.

Second...it only takes a split second to kill someone, so it could be you next hitting the cyclist, better never swerve or take your eye's off the road for that split second ever again.

~Matt

I can honestly say that I never did something that would make me swerve or take my eyes off the road for more than a split second. So speak for yourself (your sig line speaks volumes about you). If you are a wreckless driver don't imply that others are! And yes, apparently you seem to have no remorse about it.


It must be easy when life is so black and white, with anyone seeing shades of gray becomming easy fodder for a personal attack.

Oh, and I can honestly say that I don't believe you.

If the skid marks were only 15-20 feet then he was probably going slower than 50+

Check out this: http://www.e-z.net/~ts/speedch.htm

How to use the chart:

1. Determine the speed in mph after the vehicle has stopped sliding. This might be zero, but generally won't be zero. If the vehicle strikes something at the end of the skid, it is still moving and this residual velocity must be allowed for when using the chart.




2. Move out (horizontally ) on a speed line until it hits one of the curves, the lower is for a 0.7 drag factor, the upper is for 0.8. This is the starting point for finding the speed drop associated with a given length of skid marks with a given residual speed after the mark ends.




3. Move out the length of the longest single skid mark, then move up until you hit the curve again to find the original speed.




EXAMPLES:

a. A vehicle leaves 40' of skid marks before coming to rest- the original speed is about 30 mph for both drag factors.

b. A vehicle leaves 60' of skid marks before striking another vehicle, the damage and post impact slide suggest that its speed was 30 mph when it struck the other vehicle.

1. Move out from the 30 mph line until you hit the curve at about 40'.

2. Add the length of the skid mark -60'- go out to the 100' mark and then up until you hit the curve again at about 46-48 mph. This is the original speed of the vehicle.

~Tucker

---

Shop at: TriSports.com

"Stick to the facts man, they are good enough, no need to go making stuff up." - STP