johnny99

20-year-old driver plead guilty to aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and leaving the scene of an accident. 2 years probation. No jail time.

https://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...ik-fabian.html
https://www.mybikeadvocate.com/2010/0...-time-for.html

gpsblake

Horrible, horrible.... But one thing I've noticed, almost every response on that thread is blasting the judge on this.

009jim

This quote taken from one of the links is relevant:- In this world where we are demanding equality, there appears to be inequalities that go unrecognized. You might notice that a woman can kill her husband premeditated and not get jail time. Whereas, a man may get jail time for just striking his wife. An old man can get jail time for having an accident after going the wrong way on a freeway. A young woman may not get jail time for killing several people with her car. It's like the game of "paper-rock-scissors". So we could deduce:- female beats male, young beats old, motorist beats cyclist, corporate beats personal, rich beats poor.

Part of our legal system is based on common law. In common law, there is no written "right" or "wrong". The judge / jury decide and this sets a precedent for the next occasion when a similar incident occurs. But inequality creeps subtly into this system because an entity with more money can afford a better legal team and the probability of them winning in court is higher. So after a number of years we have a legal system with precedents which suggest the legal outcome should be favorable toward the corporate entity or the wealthy individual. I guess you can see that motorists will tend to get favor from this biased system. Motorists almost always have insurance and the cyclist may not. The motorist's insurer does not want a big personal injury payout so they fight hard in court. Hence a precedent is set and this leads to more precedents. The judge may conclude that the insurance company will appeal until they get what they want. So the judge gives a biased decision to avoid further legal action. I guess the old wild west was a better system in some ways.

Digital_Cowboy

So if not the judge who should people be blasting? I mean isn't it the judge who has the final say in what the sentence is?

Chris516

The judge asked for it with that decision.

DX-MAN

DC, I think blake was a bit surprised at the pro-cyclist postings, that's all.

That judge should be put on the cheapest, crappiest bike anyone can find, and be forced to commute through rush-hour traffic -- with a target on his back.

This isn't a miscarriage of justice -- it's an abortion of justice.

Digital_Cowboy

DM,

Agreed, especially when one considers that:

a) both men admitted their guilt
b) both men admitted that they were drunk
c) both men admitted that it was a bet that one wouldn't hit a cyclist

I'd like to know what that judges thought process was in handing out such low sentence. I mean they confessed for crying out loud.

Crank Turner

Admitted drunk driving and intentionally hitting people with a motor vehicle and the one gets 10 days and the other only two years probation. No license suspensions?

Digital_Cowboy

That's about the size of it, plus given that one be the other that he wouldn't hit a cyclist doesn't that move it up to premeditated? And let's not forget that they were underage when they were drinking. And at least one of them didn't have a valid license. Both the DA and the judge should resign or be fired. I'd like to know what the hell they were thinking.

John E

This happens all the time, when we get judges and jury members who drive cars but don't ride bikes. Too many of these folks perceive cycling as obviously and inherently dangerous, and have the attitude that we are somehow "asking for it." There can be no equality under the law until this changes.

Seattle Forrest

But I'm sure the kid needed to get around. And there would be no way for him to get to places like his friends' houses and the bar, if they took his car away. Transportation would be impossible without his license, and we can't have people inconvenienced like that. After all, boys will be boys. Oh, sure, they could have taken his license away and he could have used a bike for transportation, but doesn't this case show how dangerous riding a bike is? </sarcasm>

In fairness, though, only one of them needed a valid license, so if there were two in the car, it's OK for one of them not to have a valid license. ( There's no such thing as a passenger's license! )

The Human Car

"Your honor I have learned my lesson and next time I would not make it a bet."

Roughstuff

It takes a LONG time to plant outrage and make it legislatively effective...just look at MADD and SADD; and even now drunk drivers get a pass. But it is a much larger problem in context, for our judicial system is out of control. The same judges who let drunk drivers kill cyclists allow men to sh*t their pants, stink to high heaven, sleep and fart in local libraries, because it is a 'political statement about homelessness.'

I have said if before in a different board...until a drunk driver plows into a graduation ceremony for the children of judges, cops, and prosecutors, and smears their bodies over 200 feet of roadway, and then drives off into the sunset (I didn't see them...the sun was in my eyes!) there will be no action taken.

roughstuff

Digital_Cowboy

And sadly as has been noted several times before, until gasoline hits and stays at $6.00 or $10.00 a gallon and more people start riding bikes that attitude isn't like to change anytime soon.

Digital_Cowboy

Find the oldest, rustiest, creakiest box store bicycle and make them ride that. Or make them buy a monthly bus pass and ride the bus.

Ah but the "problem" is that both of them did take turns driving the car and hitting innocent bicyclists. So both of them did need a valid license. And let's not forget that both of them were under (and I think still are) the legal drinking age. Where were they drinking, or where did they get the alcohol from?

Seattle Forrest

I didn't see that, but you're right.

no motor?

Wow, that's bad. I live close enough to there to have voted for the State's Attorney, but I'm not going to do that again!

nwmtnbkr

Well, until there's an advocacy group that takes a reasonable message mainstream (reasonable meaning focusing on safety of all cyclists--children and adults--not an "us vs. them" rant denouncing all automobile drivers), public opinion may not shift. My father was killed by a drunk driver when I was 10 years old. (The drunk driver ran a stop sign and plowed into the front of my father's car.) The driver, with multiple drunk driving convictions before this fatal accident, was given no jail time, just probation. At the time of my father's death, the general consensus was that drunk driving wasn't a serious offense and courts shouldn't throw people in jail, even if the drunk driver killed someone. Only after MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) campaigned extensively, did public opinion begin to change somewhat. MADD has been able, in a reasonable voice, make everyone identify with the victims and family members of victims of drunk drivers. That's what needs to happen with the issue of aggressive driving, but again, you can't come out ranting like lunatics, denouncing all automobile drivers. You have to deliver your message in a tone that will be heard by all. The minute you start denouncing all drivers, most will tune you out.

Digital_Cowboy

It was in both articles.

The passenger bet his friend the driver that he wouldn't hit a cyclist, and after the driver hit the first cyclist they changed positions so that the other person could hit a cyclist. Doesn't making it a bet show premeditation?

Digital_Cowboy

In the next election vote for the opposition so that hopefully the current State Attorney/DA is voted out of office.

Seattle Forrest

Yeah ... I didn't read them. People summarized the (seemingly) relevant facts here, like that the driver confessed. I decided that reading the lurid details would be depressing. And, in this case, I made a bad assumption and put my foot in my mouth.

Digital_Cowboy

You make good points and again we know that there unfortunately are still some areas where drunk driving isn't treated as a serious problem. And is treated more as a "boys will be boys" type of thing.

As someone else has said until some drunk crashes into either a graduation or bus stop with the children of judges, prosecutors and police nothing will change.

Digital_Cowboy

SF,

Not a problem. Given that they both confessed their obscenely light sentences do not make any sense at all.

Treespeed

Couldn't both cyclists pursue civil damages, loss of work, damage to bicycles, etc.?

CB HI

Yes, but the stories indicated that neither cyclist was seriously hurt, so no major civil suit worth persuing.

That said, if I were the cyclist, I would file a claim with each of the drivers insurance companies. I would include news reports and the court transcript in my damages claim.