Follow Up on the recent death of the North Bay cyclist

Someone posted last week about the death of a cyclist who was run over by a drunk driver while stopped along the wide shoulder of the road. This article will make you mad as hell. Turns out the guy had seven prior arrests and/or convictions for DUI. His brother also owned the bar he was at.

SR man charged in bicyclist’s death convicted in at least 4 earlier cases; '01 crash injured sheriff’s detective
By DEREK J. MOORE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

A suspected drunken driver arrested March 28 in connection with a bicyclist’s death has been convicted of driving under the influence in Sonoma County four times since 1983, court records show.

Joseph Lynchard, 72, of Santa Rosa also was arrested three times for DUI in the 1970s, according to sheriff’s records. But because those cases are so old, it’s unknown whether the arrests led to convictions.

Despite that history, the former backhoe operator and truck driver had a valid license when he allegedly swerved in his Ford F-150 pickup and plowed into Kathryn Black, killing the 43-year-old Clearlake woman.

His arrest in that case was his second on Mark West Springs Road in four years and the third in 13 years.

In June 2001, authorities said, Lynchard rammed another Ford pickup into an unmarked Sheriff’s Department car that was stopped on Mark West Springs Road, injuring a detective and totaling the car.

That crash resulted in at least the fourth conviction for Lynchard, but the judge who sentenced him may not have been aware of his record because DUIs back then stayed on a driver’s record for seven years. His last previous conviction was in 1992.

Under a law that went into effect Jan. 1, DUIs now remain on a drivers’ record for 10 years.

On Tuesday, legislation that would prohibit anyone who is convicted of three DUIs from driving again passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

In the 2001 case, the judge ordered Lynchard to spend two days in jail and to pay a $1,428 fine and restricted him to driving to work for three months.

Lynchard also was allowed to enter a drunken-driving program for first-time offenders.

“If this guy came in to court after a 10-year period, I would say it’s more probable that he wouldn’t have been treated any different than a first-time offender, even though you say, ‘I can’t believe that,’ or ‘That’s not right,’” Assistant District Attorney Greg Jacobs said Tuesday.

He said he hadn’t reviewed Lynchard’s history, much of which is buried in court files or on microfiche at the Sheriff’s Department, and said he couldn’t comment specifically on Lynchard’s case. But he said that in general judges are less aware of a defendant’s history than they were in the past.

The county Probation Department no longer makes sentencing recommendations in most misdemeanor cases, as all of Lynchard’s were. That information might have alerted judges to his problems with drinking and driving, Jacobs said.

“In the old days you could handle these guys more directly and with more scrutiny,” he said. “That’s not the way it’s going these days.”

Brian Willits, director of the Probation Department’s adult division, blamed staff cuts for the reduced oversight.

“I think it’s frustrating for the public to take a look back at something like this, and we have a tragedy in the end,” he said.

Lynchard’s attorney, Chris Andrian, has asked for a hearing with the Department of Motor Vehicles, which has the power to suspend Lynchard’s license for up to a year. Such hearings typically are requested to contest a suspension or restriction of a person’s license.

A DMV spokeswoman said the hearing likely will be held next week in San Francisco.

Andrian didn’t return a phone call seeking comment Tuesday.

A Catholic Mass was held Monday for Black, the mother of a 5-year-old girl, who left a relative’s home in Windsor on March 28, telling her husband she was going to bicycle to Clearlake.

The CHP said preliminary evidence shows she was five to six feet from the road and possibly straddling her bike when she was struck. The force of the collision broke both of her legs in multiple places.

Lynchard was arrested on suspicion of felony DUI and vehicular manslaughter. He is out on bail while awaiting his arraignment April 19.

At the time of his arrest, Lynchard wore a cap that said “Eddie’s,” in reference to the bar that his brother owns in the Larkfield Shopping Center. The bar is about 2½ miles from Lynchard’s home on Riebli Road.

He had just left Eddie’s, and CHP officers are investigating whether the bar has any liability in the crash.

Records show Eddie’s owner Clair Edward Lynchard, 70, bailed his brother out of jail after the 2001 crash that injured David Iverson, a detective with the Sheriff’s Department.

Iverson recalled Lynchard wearing an Eddie’s cap as well on June 6, 2001, after Lynchard plowed into his unmarked car.

Iverson said he had stopped on Mark West Springs while waiting to turn left into the parking lot of Riebli Elementary School, where he was to pick up his 7-year-old daughter, when he heard screeching tires, followed by a loud blast.

Iverson said he was thrown forward into the steering wheel and then backward into the driver’s seat, which reclined from the force of the crash. Simultaneously, he watched the shattered pieces of the car’s back window pass overhead and pierce the front window, scattering across the dash.

Dazed but not seriously hurt, Iverson said he got out to check on the driver of the pickup that hit him, only to find that Lynchard already had gotten out and was talking to a woman on the side of the road.

Iverson said Lynchard “reeked” of alcohol. Toxicology tests showed Lynchard’s blood-alcohol level was .23, nearly three times the legal limit for driving, according to public records.

Iverson said he was off work for a week recovering from a sore neck and elbow, as well as the emotional trauma.

DUIs that involve injuries can result in felony charges, which can lead to prison sentences. But Lynchard was charged with a misdemeanor.

Jacobs said he doesn’t know why that was the case.

“In defense of the office and the D.A., I wouldn’t be able to tell you why it was done unless I was able to look at the files,” Jacobs said. “If the injuries were bruises or something like that, it’s a possibility that we might not prosecute it as a felony.”

The first-offender DUI program that Lynchard was sentenced to in the 2001 case was to last four months, as opposed to a similar program for second offenders, which at a minimum lasts 18 months and can go as long as 30 months.

Lynchard also completed DUI programs after convictions in 1992 and 1983, records show. He didn’t complete the terms from the 1983 case until two years later, however, after the court “re-referred” him to the program.

Records show he was kicked out of the DUI program on Jan. 18, 2002, for a “sobriety violation.” He was allowed to re-enroll and he completed the terms on April 12, 2002.

It took Lynchard much longer to complete the jail term for his 1992 conviction, which stemmed from another DUI arrest on Mark West Springs Road.

Lynchard pleaded no contest and was sentenced to 60 days. He was ordered to start serving his sentence Nov. 30, 1992, but the date kept getting pushed back as he cited illness and medical appointments.

On Jan. 13, 1993, Judge Cerena Wong granted another extention but noted this was the “last stay.” A bench warrant was issued Feb. 16, 1993, when Lynchard failed to show as promised.

A letter from the Department of Veteran Affairs given to the court May 5, 1993, said Lynchard was in a substance abuse program at a VA hospital in San Francisco from March 30 to April 20.

Lynchard was still on the hook for 39 days in jail, which he was ordered to serve on consecutive weekends in 48-hour shifts. He again failed to show on June 19, 1993, and it couldn’t be determined if he ever completed the sentence.

On Jan. 30, 1999 - eight years after his arrest - Judge Robert Boyd closed the case when Lynchard showed proof that he had attended a VA program.
© The Press Democrat. For copyright information view our User Agreement

inexcusable.

about a month ago i was sititing and drinking outside at a local pub with a buddy when this guy stumbled (literally) out of the place and crawled into his van and left, hopping the curb. we just looked at each other and said “damn, that motherfucker shouldn’t be driving at all” and went back to whatever we were talking about.

legally liable? no idea. morally liable? definitely.

DUI laws should be rewritten nationwide so that if you get 2 DUI’s in your entire life you NEVER get to drive again. No questions about misdemeanors, felonies, which state it was in, how long ago. 2 and you are done. It’s absolutely ridiculous that the state’s continue to allow these people to drive.

I don’t have the words to explain what I feel about these people.

If my wife had been hit, I would have strangled him at the scene.

You didn’t call the cops?

" This article will make you mad as hell."

That’s an understatement.

we didn’t do anything. i’d guess that nobody did. what tactics have others used to prevent people from getting behind the wheel? i’ve stopped people before (rather physically a couple of times) but they were friends.

can anyone else share what’s worked for them in preventing strangers from driving when they shouldn’t be? if i made a scene i honestly don’t know how much support i’d get from the other regulars. i’d probably be viewed as an ass. i’m not justifying it, i’m just saying that i’d probably be on my own if i decided to stop someone from driving drunk in this town, so i’d like to have a clue as to how to go about it.

Not trying to preach here but, looking like an ass or not, you’d probably have felt bad if you had seen that van on the news after it had been involved in an accident with a fatality.

In that situation I would have at least called the cops from the bar and given them the information of the van and which direction it was heading.

If he had a valid license despite several previous violations, I would personally look into the liability of the fuck face judge who allowed this guy to keep his license.

this guy needs 25 to life in prison. he should not get out again, and should be forced to live the remaining years of his life locked away, without the feel of sun ever again.

just imagine how many times he drove drunk before this happened. i read somewhere that on average drunk drivers drive drunk 100 times before getting a DUI.

This is the reason I stay on the flat paved trail…there are drunks everywhere at every time of day.

absolutely his brother’s bar needs to be held accountable…you know this guy got drunk there all the time and nothing was every brought up or done about the drunk driving.

what a damn shame.

please be careful on the roads.

kc

Call 911 with the license number and direction the car went? I know it’s not preventing them from getting on the road, but hopefully they wouldn’t get too far…

personally i think you mention it to their face unless you feel endangered by the person. if that doesn’t work, call the cops–tell them that if you feel like it. no need to get into fistacuffs when someone is clearly drunk and shouldn’t drive–it would only get you hurt and in trouble.

the way I see it, they’re going to break the law, drive drunk and hurt someone–they need to be arrested and face the consequences.

too many people drive the 1-5 miles home shitfaced from the bar and do it for years without getting caught. then, something like this happens.

So, IMO if you see someone shit faced, or just drunk, and they don’t want to listen to you to not get behind the wheel, then you owe it to them, and especially everyone around to call the cops. because at that point their options are a DUI, or possibly going to jail for hitting or killing a person.

here’s a breakdown. a cab ride is 10-40 bucks. a towed car is about 200 bucks. still cheaper than a DUI, which costs thousands. If they say no to that, then their options are a DUI, which still costs thousands, or killing someone which could possibly cost a lifeteim in prison-not to mention the murder and an innocent life gone, or severly damaged.

even if I had a friend that refused a safe ride, I would warn them that I will call the cops–although this has never happened, I would do it, and believe that the threat alone alone would probably make them wise up. a stranger I would have no quams calling the cops.

I’m guessing from your language (van, pub etc) that you are in England, so I would have rang 999 and given them the registration and direction just as the others would. I couldn’t leave it and hope nothing happened, I know this as I have had to do it before.

In my opinion, one DUI should result in permanent loss of your license. Granted, that’s easy for a guy who doesn’t drink at all to say, but the punishment should fit the crime.

this is an interesting stance…especially since most drunk drivers drive drunk a huge amount of times prior to being caught. in most cases a DUI is not given out to someone who is driving drunk on the very first time. more than likely the person has driven drunk 100’s of times without being caught.

i def think it shouldn’t come off the record for 15 years or more. drunk drivers do it over and over and over again.
and I’ve heard from many alcoholics that the first thing they do in the morning is check the car to see if there is evidence of hitting someone–blood hair, or anything like that. it’s a horrid, sickening thought. but yet they do it again and again.

Someone who kills with a car while drunk should be treated the same way as a person who shoots someone.

They made the conscious decision to drink then drive, the same decision that others make to pick up a loaded firearm and discharge it into another person.

Whether its murder 1,2, or 3 is outside my expertise as a computer geek, but the punishment should definetly fit the crime. The fact that these scumbags get nothing as far as punishment when they kill others is appalling.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050406/ap_on_re_us/ignition_interlocks
.

I like this response. Tell them they shouldn’t drive. If they tell you to mind your own business, tell them you’ll call the cops if they start to drive off. Now, it’s true that they might be inclined to take issue with what you plan. If they do, though, you’ve a got an immediate advantage if they’re drunk and you’re not.

I’d call it poetic justice if some drunk fool took a swing at me because I told him not to drive. That way, I get to drop him to the pavement in self-defense. I get to call the cops and have him arrested for assault. And on top of all that, I’ve kept him from driving drunk. If I had the time, I might even lay out this potential scenario to him before he got too aggressive.

My wife’s parents were killed by a drunk driver with priors, so this story really hits home with our family. Now that spring is here and I am biking outside again, she makes sure she knows where I am headed and that I always have ID on me in case something happens.

Education and reform obviously did not work in this case and I would suggest taking away his license would not have worked here either. I think I agree the only solution would be to lock him up and keep him away from the general public.

Mike

I’ve called 911 twice to report a drunk driver on the highway. Both times the driver passed me going way too fast and then continued to swerve back and forth across 4 lanes of almost empty highway (they were both at about 1:00 - 2:00 am).

I also have a distant cousin who was convicted of drunk driving twice. Luckily, no one was hurt in the process. His license was suspended for 6 months after the first incident and then 10 years for the second. He lives in a very rural area with no public transportation. It was as hard on him as on anyone since he had to drive to get to work, etc. But, they still suspended his license, not leeway at all. This is the way it should be. Driving is a privilege. If you abuse it, then it’s taken away.

Dawn