3alarmer 

...I have mixed emotions about this solution. When I see the DUI guys show up to buy a bike at the co-op, I wonder if putting another clueless idiot on a bicycle accomplishes anything of positive value in the world, or just creates another focus for the world's issues with bad cycling behaviors. There really are a select group of people who ought to be limited to walking and public transit.

genec

It has been long discussed here that in general we see few prosecutions of any driver who kills anyone else, unless substance abuse or an especially egregious situation was involved... so yeah, it IS a matter of perspective.

However, that said... IMHO, anyone that kills another human, through some form of negligence while operating a motor vehicle, should lose their driving license (thus their driving privilege). I would say the same about any cyclist too... but there are no cycling licences. Now the reason I say this is that a driving license is something of a contract between the driver and the public... killing someone violates that contract... therefore that motorist should have their contract revoked.

genec

The bottom line is that they no longer drive... and that is the important part.

dpeters11

It's hard to look at a still image and figure out what is actually going through someone's mind based on a frozen expression.

baron von trail 

According to the article, she was charged with and convicted of a misdemeanor offense. I guess if I have a ***** (gripe), it's that I see killing someone due to negligence as felonious. Texting and driving is at the very least reckless endangerment. I'd go so far as to argue a charge of homicide by depraved indifference is more appropriate than is a misdemeanor.

kickstart

That would be a stretch as probably 20%-30% of drivers on the road at any given time are using some form of device. Yes, it increases the odds of an incident, but real life shows the overwhelming amount of time its done without incident.

And for the record, I agree it shouldn't be done, and agree it should be illegal, but like many other other transgressions, it alone is hardly depraved indifference.

gpsblake

A judgment against her would be almost useless. Since she has two kids, it's almost certain that all her income would be exempt from being garnished for cover the judgment. It's one thing to win a judgment and another thing to collect.

FBinNY 

As a practical reality, the victims collect on the max of the insurance policy and accept that as full settlement. Sometimes they can reach a settlement beyond the policy limits and collect the excess from the driver's/or car owner's assets, but that's rarer because it slows the settlement process, which in most states cannot be closed until a full settlement is reached. So it becomes a matter of take the limits of the insurance now, vs. waiting and trying for more.

baron von trail 

They used to feel that way about drinking and driving. "Everybody does it and most of the time nothing bad happens."

3alarmer 

...someone in addiction posted a video of his friend getting knocked down by a guy on a bike. The guy was just standing at a corner waiting for the light to change, already had some cervical issues, and ended up hospitalized and even more debilitated. Honestly, the assumption that many of us make that cars and drivers are dangerous, therefore same guy on a bike is less dangerous does not hold true in my personal experience. Once again, I believe that there are folks who are better walking and taking public transit. Heck, I'll chip in for bus passes.

vol

Not that it's anything relevant, but I read only that the victim was a mother of two, not the driver?

otg 

I come down on the side of the punishment being a bit too lenient. Good dialogue going on here though.

Boro128

It is nothing short of a ridiculous sentence.

Wonder if one would get 90 days in jail for texting and shooting a gun.

Driving and texting is just as deadly.

txags92

Don't feel bad, a 17 year old kid driving 80 in a 40 mph zone killed a cyclist in San Antonio and got off with 5 years probation and no jail time. This is the same city where a guy mowed down a couple on a tandem that was riding on a wide shoulder and never even paid a fine. If you want somebody dead, get them on a bike in Texas, then run them over. You won't ever see the inside of a jail.

Driver in bicyclist?s death gets probation - San Antonio Express-News

Cyclosaurus

It's easy to want vengeance and stiff sentences. Lord knows I'm as militant as anybody cyclists' rights. But I try to think what I would do if this was my wife or close friend who accidentally killed someone. What would I think was a just sentence then?

FBinNY 

You have to have some compassion and respect for judges who have to somehow find some measure of justice, (or whatever) in what is a lose/lose situation.

They're guided by the law which sets maximum and (in some cases) minimum sentences for the crime, and have to scale the offense against others in the legal category, show respect for the victim's family, and consider the impact on the defendant, and the cost to society.

As I said, the law steps into these situations after the fact, and it's lose/lose no matter what the sentence is.

While there's always the possibility of being too lenient, the reality is that stiffer sentences don't restore the victim to life or offer anything to the family. Also, study after study has shown that stiffer sentences don't deter crime as much as greater certainty of conviction and a sentence of any kind. Stiffer sentences also draw more concerted defenses and insistence on a jury trial and the risk of acquittal.

In all likelihood, this was a negotiated plea, where the DA traded the chance of a stiffer sentence for the certainty of one at all. In any case, if the parties directly involved are satisfied with the outcome, I'm not going to heckle from the sidelines.

side_FX

Maybe if a few very harsh sentences were handed out, then, FINALLY, people will realize that cell phones should not be used while driving.

FBinNY 

If this sentence doesn't make that point, a harsher one won't either.

side_FX

10 years with no chance for parole seems like a nice round number and justified sentence for killing someone. I thing that would send a stronger message than 90 days, no?

FBinNY 

That's more than double than the maximum sentence for the crime charged. In any case, if a potential 5 year sentence isn't enough deterrent, 10 years won't be either.

In any case, convictions for negligent homicide in cases like this aren't a lock. A plea with 90 days + probation and community service, is a good result, and better than a trial and acquittal.

wphamilton

He said a 10 year sentence, actually served. You are talking about potential maximum sentences. Apples and oranges.

Stiffer sentences, when fully served, do result in lower recidivism rates. Convictions of the more serious crimes is the exception.

FBinNY 

Not quite apples and oranges. More like 10 apples to 2-5 apples. I'm not in any way convinced that a stiffer minimum sentence would act as a realistic deterrent. But that's a legislative question. The charge that fits the crime is negligent homicide, with a maximum sentence of 5 years, with time off for good behavior, and the possibility of parole.

That's the Max, which might apply to a builder who cuts corners, leading to a building collapse with a fatality. IMO - as much as we hate distracted drivers, I don't think this rises to that level of criminality. In all likelihood, barring other factors, if this went to trial and brought a conviction, the sentence would have been less than 2 years with time off.

B. Carfree

I suppose if we had actual traffic law enforcement then we wouldn't have so many scofflaw motorists running people over. What would we fill A&S with if that ever happened? We would all be reduced to talking about our great times teaching children to ride.

SurfNTurf

..............

FBinNY 

Maybe you should move to one of those legal utopias.