I hope the victim's loved ones will have the resources to remind the perpetrator every day of his life of what he did. Petitions won't change a thing. Lawyers and money are the only things that count in this country.

I have contacted the late victims representatives and have made a donation in that regard (specifically asked for the money NOT to be used for some kind of memorial or for bicycle advocacy).

That Teen charged with only a misdemeanor charge is so plain wrong that it literally choked me....

---

adrialin

(BOMK, racing drug and supplement free since 1985)

You're in Automobile country...car drivers are first class citizens, the rest are worthless...
Or at least, this is the impression given.

Big suprise. Murdering cyclists is almost legal in this country. I honestly don't understand the point of wasting time and money on non-punishments.

What should the driver be charged with? Had the individual ran into another car and killed someone what would they be charged with? What if they weren't screwing with the cell phone and still hit the cyclist?

I think we all believe that everyone should be better drivers and safer cyclist. However no one is safe and nearly every time a car and a bike come into high speed contact the bike will lose.

Everytime each one of heads out on the road we could be hit and killed. Everytime everyone of us gets into our car we could be hit and killed. 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.

~Matt

unintentional death due to dangerous driving sounds like grounds for a charge of manslaughter to me

but then, i'm no lawyer

(lawyers? please chime in)

---

Stuff I like:
PBscience Triathlon Coaching and Lab Testing

Just to clarify, the petition reference was regarding the petition to block the police's ability to limit cyclying events to 2500 participants.

I started this thread in part because I currently live in New Jersey, which is already a lost cause as far as cycling (and running for that matter) on open roads. Fortunately, I live very close to New York, and essentially do all my riding there with much better road conditions and less traffic.

I have never actually cycled in Colorado, but I always had the impression it was a much more outdoors activity friendly place for people who like to run and ride. I am hoping that, assuming that this true, Colorado doesn't lose this aspect.

As far as the judicial aspects of this case, it is hard to determine a suitable penalty for a momentary lapse, although in this case it was a total lapse of judgement and awareness and clearly inexcusable, when the individual is only 17 and the judgement will follow him the rest of his life. However, a misdemeanor clearly misses the mark by any measurement, particularly in this case.

---

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)

text messaging is not a momentary lapse. it takes intent, concentration and most importantly, time.

---

Stuff I like:
PBscience Triathlon Coaching and Lab Testing

Pretty much the textbook definition of negligence - a failure to act with an acceptable amount of care in a given situation

THIS fatalistic attitude displayed by you contributed a great deal to the current problem we have in our modern society.
Further comments on the scope and impact of this anti-social phenomenon should go in the lavender room, since it deals with religion and politics.

---

adrialin

(BOMK, racing drug and supplement free since 1985)

A car is a potentially lethal device. It's negligent operation should be treated the same as the negligent use of a gun. I'm sure if the child who was text-messaging had been operating a firearm at the same time he was texting and negligently shot and killed somebody that he'd be charged with more than a misdemeanor. I think doing the same thing while operating a car should be treated just as harshly. I don't understand why we think killing somebody with an automobile makes them less culpable.

In my state, the same crime is called "homicide by negligent operation of a motor vehicle" and is punishable by a max of 10 years in prison. If the conduct is "reckless" then the max penalty is 25 years.

The difference is basically that negligence is simple carelessness and recklessness involves a awareness of the risk and disregard for that risk.

No matter, it seems that the legislature in CO can make that penalty a bit tougher.

I saw this on the NBC crawl on the outside of my office building on the way to work. I about tripped over my own feet reading it.

In case you're interested enough to make a phone call, apparently they've taken down the email address of the district attorney.

http://www.douglas.co.us/...ial_Information.html
The 18th Judicial District Attorney is Carol Chambers, 7305 S. Potomac Street, #300, Englewood, Colorado, (303) 643-4500.

Deputy District Attorneys for Douglas County have offices in the Robert A. Christensen Justice Center; (303) 814-7100.

Why would you contact the D.A. if the legislature sets penalties. Are you suggesting that a more serious crimes should have been charged? The reality is that this was a mistake and very few crimes exist that do not require some level of intent. It would be a huge stretch to call this reckless in the criminal legal context. A DA can only charge what they in good faith believe they can win at trial. The problem here, IMO, is a legislature that believes that this conduct - killing a person with your careless driving - is a misdemeanor. The problem is not the DA's charging decision. Citizens in CO should be calling their legislators. That is where the change can be effected.

The question is would I change my stance if hit by a negligent driver?

I think we have to decide what is negligent? Glancing away to look at something that caught your eye? Texting, answering the cell phone, driving drunk?

Again not many, I'd say not any but that is an absolute, drivers have never lost concentration for a moment. If at that moment a cyclist happen to be in your path you would have hit them.

Do I think a teenager that hit a cyclist while screwing around or "texting" while driving should be punished? Certainly. Do I believe that they should spend 10 years in prison, certainly not.

Fatalistic attitude? Not really, realistic. It's highly improbably that any driver can concentrate 100% on the task at hand. Not even the best drivers in the world can do this, we are indeed human after all.

~Matt

A good flogging, just a thought.

---

"In the blocks you're a prisoner, the gun releases you."

10 years in prison for looking away at your radio while driving seems harsh to me.

I guess this is why we give some leeway to judges in such cases.

I would not want a jury of my ST peers to be handing out my punishment if I had hit a cyclist for some level of minor negligence.

~Matt

"I think we have to decide what is negligent? Glancing away to look at something that caught your eye? Texting, answering the cell phone, driving drunk?"

But that's simple, surely? Involuntary actions (glancing at something which catches your eye, closing your eyes against sun glare) are accidental. Voluntary and premeditated actions (talking on the phone, texting, choosing to drive drunk) are negligent.

I don't see the problem, and I think that a hard line, while it will never happen, would be the best way to improve overall road safety.

---

Stuff I like:
PBscience Triathlon Coaching and Lab Testing

10 years in prison for looking away at your radio while driving seems harsh to me.

_____________________________________

Don't change the facts here just to sound dramatic. We are not talking about making looking at a radio a crime. The crime is the killing of the person.

Furthermore, looking at you radio is much more likely NOT to be considered negligent by a DA making a charging decision, and by a jury. We all do it, even the car manufacturers install radios in cars. This is text-messaging - a very different thing and much harder to argu that texting is "reasonable care" while driving.

Not really trying to "change the facts" nor m I trying to argue just this individual case. I've already stated that the teenager deserves punishment on some level. Texting while driving is indeed an ignorant thing to do.

However legislation as a whole doesn't cover individual cases. Again restated, 10years in prison, for texting, answer the cell phone or looking at the radio, alll of which could lead to a similar situation, seems harsh.

~Matt

I guess I don't see it as so simple. The best drivers can avoid situations and accidents under conditions that lesser drivers will not.

Perfect example is the catch all "Driving to fast for conditions". How fast is to fast when you hit an entire sheet of ice? You are indeed at fault because you were driving to fast for conditions. However no one drives 5 MPH on an apparently clear road in the middle of the day.

Again not condoning texting while driving. Again the individual should be punished. However don't we all, almost on a daily basis, let out attention lapse momentarily while driving? Messing with the radio, talking on the cell phone, makeup, hair, looking at a billboard or hot chick on the side walk. Then blam there's a bike.

Fortunately for most of us those momentary lapses never turn into anything. Others are not so "lucky".

These "Lapses" of attention range from the mundane to the negligent I suppose. Certainly getting up from the drivers seat in the minivan to watch a DVD in teh back and letting teh vehicle kareen off the side of the road would be considerd reckless. But in most situations the death is caused under much less extreme and "grey" conditions.

~Matt

I believe that killing someone recklessly without intension is called manslaughter. Or at least it was in Illinois when I took my criminal law undergrad class. I understand that the DA can only charge the person with what the legislature gives him reign to. But I'm sure their is more that the DA can do to then give the kid a ticket and send him to bed without dinner.

Definitions of Manslaughter on the Web:

• The unlawful killing of another without intent to kill; either voluntary (upon a sudden impulse); or involuntary

Manslaughter or vehicular homicide would require a showing of recklessness. While certainly careless or even negligent, the kid's conduct may or may not rise to the level of "reckless." Besides, the legal standard for "recklessness" can be very difficult to prove. So, really, the only felony statute they could get him with is criminally negligent homicide.

However, what I think what some people here are failing to consider may be the kid's prior record. If there's no prior criminal record, then do we really believe a jury would convict him of a felony under the criminally negligent homicide law? Highly unlikely. Now, if he had 15 convictions for reckless driving, you might get a jury to convict on the felony. Why would the prosecutor waste time and money prosecuting a felony for which he can't convict? I don't mean to sound defeatist, but it's a reality of the criminal justice system. Prosecutors make deals all the time to ensure at least some conviction for conduct that warrants it.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

Again I think you fail to appreciate the fundamental difference between something you can choose not to do, and something that happens without choice. All of the things you have described are selfish and negligent actions, and should be punished as such if they result in accident, particularly in the loss of life

The best drivers may be able to avoid things, and thus get themselves out of trouble, but that doesn't make their actions any less negligent, it only means their less likely to be caught for a crime (and the law can only punish after a crime, not a potential crime - i think)

Driving to fast for conditions is a problem, certainly, but if you're out in icy conditions you can choose to drive with an excess of care (indeed at 5mph) or you can choose not to. If you choose not to then you deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law in the event you cause an accident because your actions are negligent. The fact that "no one drives 5mph on an apparently clear road" is not an acceptable excuse, you wouldn't say that it was acceptable for a gang member to join in the beating of a small boy simply because "everyone else was doing it".

There's nothing greay here. If choice of action can be proved, and one choice can be shown to be significantly likely to prevent the accident, then the other choice must be negligence. And - as I've said - if you're prepared to be negligent you should be prepared to accept a high level of punishment for your actions.

---

Stuff I like:
PBscience Triathlon Coaching and Lab Testing

I have to agree with JMuric on the risk of riding, having ridden in numerous states for the last twenty years. Regardless of what you do, you are at risk each and every ride you go out the door.

I took a spill this summer going into a right hand turn. An oncoming pickup truck turning left into the same road, not only saw me, not only new I was just starting into the intersection, not only knew I was ahead of him and had the right of way, sped up to beat me into the intersection. I had to take the turn tighter than anticipated as we would have occupied the same space at the same time, a definite no-no based on general physics principles. Unfortunately, the reason I was taking the turn wide in the first place was the sand and gravel on the inside track, so poof, down I went. Perfectly clear sunny Sunday afternoon, no other traffic, excellent visibilty, we both had each other in sight for 5-10 seconds. Now, traffic overtaking you, for the duration of a 50-100 mile ride, at speeds, with drivers doing who knows what? It is a big risk.

The second thought is, having been on a jury last year for a murder trial and numerous other charges, when you can't get a grown man, educated, otherwise intelligent, a husband and father, to understand the word/concept/definition of ATTEMPT as in Attempted Assault, I have much less faith in the judicial system. I think, given this experience with the courts, that prosecutors have very difficult jobs in getting more serious convictions. It seems that the majority of us citizens don't have what it takes to toe the line, unless apparently it is civil trials involving lawsuits against deep pocket defendents, but I digress. I suspect the appropriate charges and punishments are in most of the state statutes, as in the case of drunk driving cases, they just don't get applied enough.

The question is why?

Any ADAs or defense attorneys on board today?

---

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)