JonnyHK 

I get your point, but sometimes if a story is too good to be true it then it probably is.

Drugs AND drunk AND random U turn AND no witness AND wife of a cop...

We might all be wrong, but it simply doesn't stand up to the smell test. Not even close.

I-Like-To-Bike

Ain't that enuff?

That is rock solid proof for any would-be lynch mob!

Earl Grey

I agree, @mconlonx, but I hope she gets a custodial sentence regardless, for driving on a mix of Xanax, other meds, and blowing .123 half an hour after the crash. The .087 was two hours later.

She claims "one drink" and is pleading not guilty.

mr_bill

This PSA was posted by the Vermont State Police in response to the three bicycle fatalities, just two days after Kenneth Najarian was killed while the "case remain[ed] under investigation...."


-mr. bill

FBinNY 

So is a PSA about sharing the road a good thing, or do you suspect an ulterior motive?

Regardless of the timing of air time, I suspect that this was in planning and production well before the most recent incident.

kickstart

PSAs are probably the best resource available for improving cyclist safety as it reminds everyone of their rights and obligations. There are always political considerations that influence public duties, but that doesn't exclude the fact that most people in public service also want to do the right thing.

There is a reference to "recent tragedies" so it may have contributed to its content and timing.

mr_bill

"Recent tragedies have highlighted how vulnerable bike riders are when vehicles are operated irresponsibly...."

Even *IF* that video was planned and produced "well before the most recent incident", "recent tragedies" would be references to:

April 14, Kelly Boe, 55, who was killed by a drunken driver who crossed the center line.
April 26, Richard Tom, 47, who was killed by a driver operating at excessive speed of 80 mph in a 30-40 mph zone.

"...but bikers need to respect vehicles as well which means obeying Vermont's road rules...."

-mr. bill

FBinNY 

Sorry, but I don't have a problem with it. Is it perfect? No, but nothing ever is. Of course we all see stuff like this filtered by our own sensitivities, and will find bias and flaws because we're predisposed to, or stuff jumps out that others might miss.

For example, while VT is a ride right state, that doesn't obligate cyclists to ride outside the fog line, as all those in the clip were. So, I'd have liked to have at least one of the responsible cyclists to the left of the fog line, but that's not enough for me to feel that the reminder to share the road can't be anything but good.

Likewise, I don't link the PSA to this incident or the DA's prosecutorial decisions in this case.

Of course, this is just MY opinion, and I'm sure that many will disagree, but that's what a forum is about.

Earl Grey

That driver also claimed to have had one drink, blowing 0.103 ninety minutes after the crash. I wish Illinois bartenders were are generous with their pours as the Vermont ones must be.

mr_bill

Yet the Vermont State Police *does* link the PSA to this incident.

"The Vermont State Police would like to share a brief message. So far this year, there have been 3 bicyclists killed in crashes with cars."

The third bicyclist killed referenced is:
June 17: Kenneth Najarian, killed by a drunk driver.

-mr. bill

FBinNY 

I guess we're looking at different PSA's the one I watched via the link you provided, references "recent tragedies...." with no mention of a number, though we can safely assume 2 or more based on the use of the plural.

But the timing, and specific details are a minor quibble, with the real question about the PSAs (not the case at issue) being whether they are a positive or negative thing. In general I'm in favor of PSAs of this type, which remind drivers that bicyclists are especially vulnerable, and to share the road. As I said, this PSA isn't exactly to my taste, but it's still a good thing overall.

Earl Grey

I think that PSA is better than nothing, but if you've only got thirty seconds in which to improve public safety, I'd allocate the whole 30 seconds to driving behavior (in case that sounds facetious, it isn't). The attempt at 'balance' is misguided, since it doesn't reflect who is actually at risk and from what.

mr_bill

What *specific* safety advice was given to drivers of motor vehicles? [crickets]
What *specific* safety advice was given to people on bicycles? [stop at stop signs, ride right, hand signals]

Does *anyone* find that "balanced"?

-mr. bill

FBinNY 

Sometimes, the standard is "better than nothing", and IMO this meets that (minimum) standard.

For example, I don't know if VT has a 3' passing law (or similar), but if they do, the PDA should certainly have referenced that. You and I weren't given a chance to throw our 2 cents in before hand. If we were I'm sure the PSA would have been tilted differently. OTOH- it might not have been produced at all.

One thing we might be thankful for is that it blamed the "recent tragedies" on driver (referred as "vehicles", but implying motor vehicles by the context) and not bicyclist conduct.

mr_bill

Click on the Youtube logo at the lower right corner of the video. You know, the one with "Watch on Youtube.com" mouseover text?

-mr. bill

FBinNY 

Sorry, I thought you referenced the PSA you linked, which is what I watched and responded to. And not the accompanying text that would not appear if/when it's broadcast.

However, it's very clear that we have very different opinions about it either way, and leave it that way.

kickstart

Effectively yes, because in theory drivers are required to have an operators license that requires a knowledge test to receive, where as anyone may ride a bicycle on the road without any prerequisites. It simply makes sense to use what limited time that's available to mention a few basics to the group most likely to have no knowledge or training.

AngeloDolce

It may be a tough case, but that may also be due to the favorable treatment.

The 2nd link (the Vermont) has more info on the alcohol testing:

Police said Gonyeau reported she had one drink — "a can of Mike's Tea" — after work. She also said she was on three medications: Xanax, Sertraline and Nortriptyline, court records show.

Neary said Gonyeau had a preliminary roadside breath test of 0.123 percent alcohol level about a half hour after the crash.

She had an 0.087 percent alcohol two hours later when she took a court-approved breath test at the state police barracks in New Haven after conferring with two lawyers, Sarah Reed and Brooks McArthur, records show. She declined to answer further questions.

When someone I knew was pulled over (had NyQuill, not drinking), she did not get 2 hours to confer with lawyers and wait for the BAC level to fall. This case sounds to me like reasonable evidence of 50% over the state limit, but she got 2 hours to contact lawyers and try to reduce the alcohol level. I don't believe the police are so concerned over other DUI drivers, especially if they hit other motorists.

KonAaron Snake 

It's definitely an agenda blog, but it does set off the sniff test.

KonAaron Snake 

This isn't a leading question...I really don't know the answer...

I was under the impression that if you blew over the limit and were in an accident, you were pretty much assumed guilty and that the cases were easy to prosecute in most states and in most cases. This is an impression with little relation to fact or experience. I'd think prosecutors would have a pretty easy time in front of a jury, no?

klmmicro

"Killed by a drunk driver". Regardless of circumstances beyond that, the driver committed a felony, at least where I am at...vehicular manslaughter. Driving under the influence, OVER the legal limit in just alcohol while taking prescription drugs that have clear warnings against this behavior? How does one excuse this?

Smells like the Sgt is covering his wife after she killed someone while she was operating a vehicle impaired. Must be nice!

FBinNY 

No, ALL evidence is open to challenge in court. Tests are not 100% precise, they have a range of error, and a lawyer can challenge close to the limit as being within the range of error. It's like pumping your tire to a gauge pressure of 100psi. That might be anywhere from 95-105pse if you have a reasonably accurate gauge, and properly calibrated. I'm not saying that the reading is close enough to challenge successfully, that's for the lawyers to argue (with expert testimony on the point) and the judge and jury to decide.

But there are two other points to consider. The DA is describing the collision as being unavoidable, based on his interpretation of the physical evidence. This could be preferential treatment, or his honest opinion -- who knows --- and of course, depends on the actual evidence, and theories when interpreting it.

However, let nothing I've posted here lead anyone to believe that the driver didn't get preferential treatment. Almost certainly she did. For example, it's SOP in DUI cases involving fellow cops, their family and friends, to delay the BAC test as long as plausible. The added time allows the level to drop, sometimes (hopefully) below the legal threshold. Then there's (intentional) mishandling of evidence, overlooking Miranda, or any number of ways officers on scene can make a case difficult or even impossible to prosecute.

BTW- no prosecutor ever expects an easy time in a jury trial. Prosecutors who think they have slam dunk cases, rapidly become ex-prosecutors.

KonAaron Snake 

I understood that you weren't making any comments about whether there was or wasn't nepotism, I was just interested in what you said about the challenges in prosecuting DUIs. I knew you could challenge the tests and equipment, but I didn't realize those challenges were as successful as you indicate. My impressions were otherwise...and I was interested in your perspective.

As far as your other points, I agree with you. The "science" of accident reconstruction is likely less scientific than many appreciate. It definitely sets off the sniff test, but it's also hard to say. I certainly do bring a bias with how I view things. I'm still annoyed at sitting on a jury for a criminal trial that I am convinced only occurred because a supposed victim was the child of a cop.

I'm well aware of how unpredictable juries can be

Coal Buster

Not the case. Even if you're drunk, the burden of proving that you caused the accident is still on the prosecution. Suppose you're over the legal limit, proceed through a green light, and hit a cyclist speeding through a red. You're not automatically guilty of anything but DUI. Perhaps the prosecutor will say if you were sober you might have avoided the crash, but that's no sure thing, and it'd probably be a hard sell to a jury.

FBinNY 

+1, we all see these cases in black and white, but there are plenty of nuances involved. Even when the facts seem to indicate fault, proving that in a court of law is a totally different animal.