JoeyBike

"Careless" is difficult to prove without trusted witnesses. "Honest" can be determined by lack of a criminal record in court very easily.

100% of motorists have lapses. The judge has lapses behind the wheel. Every motorist on a jury has lapses. The cops have lapses. They will all be very hesitant to throw stones unless there is evidence the driver was knowingly impaired or the act was intentional.

So everybody answer this: When was the last time you pulled your car over to the curb and took a nap until the sun went down because the setting/rising sun was directly in front of you? Unless your answer is 100% of the times, then you are at risk of being THAT driver. And being a regular guy, nonviolent offender in prison. Who does that really serve? Certainly not the community as a whole. Or that guy's family. Accident claims are a civil matter for a reason. This is how family members get restitution after an accident.

I-Like-To-Bike

A related question would be how many of the allegedly perfect driving bicyclists refuse to drive or ride at all unless fully rested with a minimum of 8 hours sleep, and will stop and take a nap at their first yawn, and refuse to drive anywhere unless free of any health issues or any drugs (prescription, OTC or otherwise), stimulants or medications that could conceivably affect to any degree reflexes or attention span?

Leisesturm

They also all know fairly well what jail is like. The judges, prosecutors, and police know exactly what jail is like. So do the defense attorneys. They are LOATH to send 'regular guys' to prison unless they indeed have committed criminally negligent manslaughter in the 1st degree. A charge that is almost an oxymoron. If American jails were safer places for anyone less than a true sociopath, then they might be useful for enacting restitution in the case of a defendant without tangible assets, but, as prisons currently exist, even a short sentence amounts to 'cruel and inhumane' punishment, and is therefore reserved for the worst of the worst repeat offenders, or ... for relatively decent, even mild mannered individuals possessing a surfeit of melanin.

mr_bill

JoeyBike

Good grief, you and I AGREE on something.

The Horror.

greatscott

This is the most craziest thing I've ever heard. AGAIN...do you want everyone that kills someone while driving a car as a result of an accident, meaning accidental, to be put in jail for 30 years to life, or maybe even the death sentence? Do you hear what you're saying? If you go to that extreme then anyone who dies due to any sort of accident should also be in jail for 30 years to life or given the death sentence. I heard of a guy who accidently crashed his bike into another cyclist killing that cyclist, oh boy here we go with a 30 year to life sentence and maybe even the death penalty. Where does your idea of an accident end? What about NASCAR where a car crashes into another killing a driver? Wait, you can't go off on some deep end and say well those people knew the risk so that's not murder, well excuse me, but when you drive a car on the street you know the risk too. What if more than one person is killed...automatic death penalty right? I bet you that if you had a 16 year old daughter who was driving made a mistake and accidently killed another person and was tried as an adult due to the severity of the "crime" and was sentenced to 30 years to life or given the death penalty you wouldn't be setting on your high throne passing that judgement down on her, you would very quickly change your mind and be crying and begging the court for mercy. Man, you're not all there.

And by the way, I've seen a lot of cyclists ride their bikes in negligent ways, so don't go off on how perfect and legal cyclists ride their bikes, in fact I've seen a much larger percentage of cyclists riding in various negligent ways then those that don't!

SHBR

Driving cyclists?

I don't drive, I don't use any drugs, (OTC or otherwise) no major health issues, and I won't ride unless I feel rested. (I usually require 8+ hours of sleep)

Most importantly, nobody is perfect, even the best drivers and cyclists make mistakes.

The main point of this thread seems to be intent, or more specifically, lack of it.

86az135i

I would say if you are truly found negligent and you kill a pedestrian, cyclist, etc at minimum you should never be able to carry a license to operate a motor vehicle. That is a small penalty compared to a lost life.

greatscott

Yawning isn't necessary a sign of tiredness, it could be a sign of boredom, low oxygen levels in the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus of the brain can induce yawning (I'm not a doctor, I got those big medical words off the internet!), yawning is a means of communicating changing environmental or internal body conditions to others, yawning helps you to cool down when overheated, certain medications can cause yawning, certain medical conditions cause yawning, yawning is a subconscious method of showing empathy towards another also yawning, what's weird about this empathy thing is that it's now been proven that if a person near you (usually one that you supposedly love or live with or a friend/colleague etc known as a contagious yawn and if you have never do that it's a sign you could be a psychopath! So no, yawning can be more then just simple tiredness.

Also 8 hours of sleep is not a rule, it's your bodys rule that establishes how much sleep it needs, there are lots of people that get along just fine with 5 hours of sleep, and some need 12 hours, this 8 hour rule is a myth. https://blog.bulletproof.com/sleep-h...eping-8-hours/ Everyone's body is different and it will tell you when it's done sleeping; I wake up 6 hours, give or take 15 minutes, no matter what time I go to bed, no matter how tired I was when I went to bed; when I was younger it was 5 hours, sometimes I may stay in bed longer than 6 hours but that's because as you age you wake up in the middle of the night for no reason, then once I go back to sleep I start off where I left off, of course another age related issue is that there are times I may only get 3 hours of sleep, at which point I feel fine in the morning but may have to take a 1/2 hour nap midday to be able to finish the day alert.

Medical issues and medicines have zero effect on a person driving...UNLESS...that issue or medicine says that a person should not be driving. If you're taking a med that says you should not operate a motor vehicle and you drive and have an accident, the police could very well test you to see if you were sober while driving, and if the test comes back that you were on a med that you're were not suppose to drive on the cops can charge you with a DWI which just as bad as a drunk driving charge.

Daniel4

How easy is it to prove negligence? All one needs is to wait for the perpetrator to say " But I didn't even see him" or " I didn't know he was there" or " the sun was in my eyes".

The problem is the sentencing. What sentence will have a permanent improvement in driving behaviour after the sentence is over?

What happens in the business world if a forklift driver runs over coworker or a visitor?

86az135i

Hence why I said truly found negligent. And since I didn't state it since it's assumed. Criminally. Criminal law requires a higher evidence of guilt. I'm not talking civil citations here where it's only preponderance of evidence. Criminal would be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So witness', physical evidence, etc would be required.

The sentence is never over, that's why I said lifetime ban. Why should someone who carelessly took someone's life be entitle to drive the roads?

In the business world, if you're found at fault. You're fired. The right to drive a forklift is given by the private company as long as they are trained and certified every 3 years by the company. There is no government mandated license like a motor vehicle operator has. So all a person has to do is move to another company. So that's a moot point.

JoeyBike

You had better start building new jails right now, and PLENTY of them!

There are so many meds that warn: ""MAY cause drowsiness" that are so common you might as well throw half the US workforce in jail right now.

You want to be frightened right off your bike? Do some Web research on "residual effects of sleeping pills". Especially in lightweight women specifically. Then throw in antihistamines for allergy symptoms, which are also used in sleep aids as well. Because there are so many over the counter remedies available, no one really has hard, cold numbers for how many people are sub-par behind the wheel due to prescription and non-prescription drugs that "MAY" cause drowsiness.

Do you have any idea what throwing all of those people in jail, or forbidding them to drive, would do to the economy?

"According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, about 40 million people in the United States suffer from chronic long-term sleep disorders each year and an additional 20 million people experience occasional sleep problems." - Google search

"Allergies affect more than 50 million people in the United States. Pollen allergy (hay fever or allergic rhinitis) affects about 8 percent of adults in the United States. Allergies are the sixth leading chronic illness in the United States." - Google search

I have no idea how many of ^these people medicate themselves but I would bet the number of "compromised" motorists on the road, especially early in the morning when sleep-aid residuals are highest, would be significant.

Now throw in alcohol and weed to the mix.

Surrounding ourselves in steel and plastic bubbles - with air bags - is the safest bet. NOT cycling around compromised motorists would work. How about just accepting that the entire world isn't going to stay home over a few dead cyclists and stop whining, or stop cycling? Any organism needs to adapt to their surroundings or perish. It's not the other way around.

greatscott

The reason they put those clauses on meds is to relieve them of any liability should you crash due to becoming drowsy from taking their meds, but police can, if they deem you were in no condition to drive cite you for a DWI; read this : https://www.fresnodefenders.com/blog/prescription-drugs https://www.briarwooddetox.com/blog/...ription-drugs/

Paul Barnard

What should be the appropriate punishment for the motorist in this case?

jon c. 

I think a significantly longer suspension would be more appropriate. Two to five years. Fines should be proportionate to wealth/income.

Maelochs

This is the baffling part. In situations where the driver's excuse was that s/he was not paying attention or not driving appropriately for the existing conditions, these "excuses" should be seen as admissions of guilt ... but are often accepted as explanations which illustrate any ill intent.

Ill intent aside, if a person closed his or her eyes and fired a gun in a crowded room, the fact that s/he couldn't see the person who got shot would not be an issue--guilt would be established, despite that.. But when a driver drives blind, this is taken as a valid reason to run over a cyclist?

In this case the driver admitted to operating illegally (speeding and driving blind) and the incident was still treated as an unfortunate accident, not a dereliction of duty and an abandonment of responsibility.

Paul Barnard

I can go along with that.

JoeyBike

What would be the alternative? "I saw the cyclist and hit them anyway"? "They swerved in front of me?"

Here are some facts:

1. Cyclists are often difficult to see under good conditions.

2. Setting/rising sun, darkness, optically busy surroundings, shielded by a car in front of the driver doing the hitting, rain, makes it even more difficult to see cyclists.

3. Cyclists often appear unexpectedly on roads where motorists do not expect to see anything but motor vehicles operating at roughly the same speed as they are.

4. Think of all the things a school bus has to possess in order to be seen EVERY time at bus stops - huge - both tall and wide, safety yellow, flashing lights up high, low, and sides, filling the entire lane with said qualities. A cyclist has the opposite qualities - small, passive lighting, likely off to the right edge of the road, etc., and might as well be "stopped" on high speed roads due to speed differential.

5. Most importantly, hitting a cyclist with a motor vehicle under most conditions is something that could easily happen to any motorist - judge, jury, attorneys - who all drive into the sunrise, sunset, after dark, and on roads cyclists "don't belong on". Even YOU could hit a cyclist under circumstances you often drive under, unless you never drive.

Unless there are other circumstances like intoxication or driving without a license, or some suspicion that murder was the intent, almost no judge or jury is going to convict someone for an act that could very easily happen to them on the way home from the courtroom. Honest mistakes can be deadly. This does not make them criminal. They won't throw you in jail because your windshield wipers aren't brand new. Even motorists run into each other, or have close calls, due to the sun in their eyes or rain. This is VERY common. It is not criminal.

Hope this helps.

parkbrav

I think the criminal aspects are irrelevant here since this is a civil penalty.

I thought the point here was, besides the sympathy for the poor unfortunate cyclist who lost her life tragically, more along the lines of, is the CIVIL penalty of a three month license suspension and a $1000 fine ENOUGH?

I say, not nearly enough.

JoeyBike

It does seem a bit light. A lot can go into those judgements. If the driver is a model citizen with a record of staying out of trouble, if the road is known to be treacherous, if there are witnesses, he didn't leave the scene and offered assistance the best he could, complied with officials, showed remorse and sympathy for the loss of life, and basically wasn't a jackass (or the wrong skin tone in some cases), then he gets the low end of the formula as a penalty.

Honestly, I have no idea how they formulate those judgements. But I know there are standards written down in some law book somewhere for each state, maybe each county.

greatscott

I think longer suspensions are in order but the fines not so much because a person is going to need his money intact so that injured party can sue and get rewarded, and lawsuits like that are proportionate to wealth/income, but if you remove say $50,000 in fines well that's $50,000 less that the injured party is going to get.

Digital_Cowboy

You forgot the key part of the that, give them a bicycle and THEN hit them with your car.