howsteepisit

Oregon Driver hit and killed, ran, while high. Once again, there is no consequence. Oh wait, 6 years in the can, no parole, and can never hold a Oregon Drivers License again.

Family of dead cyclist weeps; Driver who was high on pot gets 6 years in prison | OregonLive.com

Maelochs

I am not unhappy with this.

Revenge will not make me safer, and it will not bring back the dead rider. Six years with no parole ... for an accident ...

I have no concern for the driver. He was messed up and he messed up. The fact that the road was badly designed (disappearing bike lane) is a factor, but not a mitigating factor. The driver shouldn't have been driving, or should have been paying attention.

Still, six years in prison is a pretty hefty penalty for an accident.

I don't think it will change anybody's behavior, sadly ... possibly the driver might smarten up after a decade or so without smoking (depending on whether he is forced to stay clean for a while after his release) and six years in jail, and he will never drive again in Oregon, which is a fair penalty.

The question one needs to ask is how long he would have been jailed for killing a motorist while high. So long as the penalties are commensurate, well ... sad to see a cyclist die no matter the penalty for the driver.

jeichelberg87

Pretty stiff penalty and I think that needs to be relatively standard in cases like this. You should not operate any heavy equipment under the influence of even cold medicine, let alone marijuana.

Rollfast

The difference is that cold medicine is OTC and pot is on probation itself.


This isn't 1980 and Cheech and Chong.

jeichelberg87

You are correct. Cold medicine only has a label clearly stating not to operate heavy equipment and machinery while using it.

Forgot about that.

I do not think the legal marijuana has such a label yet. They need to start labeling the stuff.

CliffordK

Don't forget the multi-million dollar lawsuit against Portland.

I don't think I've been on the road in question up in Portland, but we've got some of those path skip spots locally. Most have pretty good visibility, but are still awkward. It can be hard to rebuild a bridge, but we've got a few where they could simply widen the the road into the curbside area.

Marijuana is now legal without the medical marijuana card. I can't wait to find out what the future has in store for the whole state.

Maelochs

it is not yet possible to quantify "How high?" so we won't see anything like DUI for BAC over the limit ... but Driving While Impaired will still work if a stoned driver does do anything damaging ... same as with a drunk driver ... Driving While Distracted (cellphone) is proving to be a greater problem anyway.

KD5NRH

Death is a pretty hefty penalty for being the not-at-fault party to one too. This was a very preventable accident, but the only way people will get it through their heads to prevent these is if the penalty actually hurts.

TenSpeedV2

What part of this was an "accident"? I am just curious.

Roughstuff

That is what bothers me. Also.

Accident? A general comment: As our investigative skills improve, there are fewer and fewer accidents and more documented cases of neglect in the part of drivers (E.g., a tire that blew out because the tire was old and should have long ago been replaced) or neglect on the part of regional authorities (in contrast, the tire blew out because the roadway had cracks and potholes that caused the blowout.)

And that isn't even the case here. The driver was compromised, knew he was such, and ran from the scene of the crash. If he had been a bit luckier he might have escaped entirely. So we basically have six years for manslaughter. Sounds wimpy to me.

Milton Keynes

Actually I was thinking 6 years is a bit too light. Did he accidentally smoke a joint before getting behind the wheel? This is exactly why we have strong DUI laws in this country, and people have gotten longer sentences for killing someone while driving drunk. The impaired driver loses 6 years of his freedom, while the cyclist lost his life.

No, this was no accident, this was vehicular manslaughter.

mconlonx

Did the driver kill the cyclist on purpose -- did he mean to kill the cyclist?

The family suing the driver and the city for substandard street design seem to be at cross-purposes -- if one's at fault, is the other, too? Is the driver 100% at fault if substandard street design played a part?

Take the driver's word at face value and it gets murkier -- he claims a driver swerved at him, that hitting the cyclist was part of avoiding a crash with that other car. There was a passenger in his car. So the choice was, in essence, endanger at least three, possibly more people with both cars crashing head-on, or endanger one person, the cyclist. If this was one of those autonomous, self-driving cars, which choice would it have made...?

TenSpeedV2

Driving while impaired is no accident.

mconlonx

Deaths or injuries as a result can be...

ac·ci·dent
ˈaksədənt/
noun
1. an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.

TenSpeedV2

All of that goes out the window when you drive impaired. I am sorry, but you will not win this argument with me.

genec

Was that an accident, or a crash? | Arizona Bike Law

Decisions were made by the driver that were intentional, thus, this was no accident.

mconlonx

Most trips taken by impaired drivers don't end in tragedy, just that the percentage is higher for impaired drivers compared non-impaired drivers.

genec

Driving impaired is making a choice... not an accident.

mconlonx

"Specific actions..." intentional actions, or unexpected/unintentional?

Driver swerved right to avoid an oncoming car which veered into his lane. Allegedly... Assuming this is true, and it was an intentional act, that he saw the cyclist and made a decision to hit the cyclist rather than hit a car head on, would you fault him for making a decision to endanger one person, vs. at least three?

What if the action he took, swerving right to avoid collision was simply reflex, that there was no thought involved that he might hit the cyclist, and it was simply about avoiding a head-on collision with another car?

On the other hand...

The story about the oncoming car could be made up, a fabrication of reason in an attempt to mitigate ultimate responsibility. In an inebriated state, he might have mistaken an oncoming car in the correct lane and decidedly not swerving, for a car swerving into his lane.

mconlonx

Encountering negligence or contributing to it may or may not be attributed to impairment.

howsteepisit

So how far up the chain of events do we take this concept of not an accident? Clearly there are those the believe there is no such thing as an accident becasue someone always has done something wrong that lead to an accident. driving with a headache - damn no wonder ya hit someone, your headache distracted you and it was forseeable that you would be distracted by pain.

To me, at some point we have to admit that we all do things that if the dice had fallen a differnt way an accident would have occoured. To play this silly game of its not an accident if there ws something wrong was done is mostly lawyer snipng to justify large damage claims. But call it what you like, I see no evidence there was any intent if injure or kill, but a bad decision lead to an accidental death that the defendant is criminally and civilly liable for. Accident does not eliminate liability. Would you all feel better is we called it an avoidable accident? How about a totally aviodable accident.

One thing is sure, if you never get behind the wheel, any accident you are involved in would be aviodable.

jefnvk

I'll be one of the few that agrees with you.

I'd rather see a six year sentence suspended, and replaced with considerable community service (say, 1000 hours a year), preferably working with a biking advocacy organization or giving talks to high school students about the dangers of drugged driving. If he screws up or violates his conditions, toss him in prison at that time. Attach whatever semantics you want to it, while reckless with devastating effect, the person did not set out to kill anyone that night, keeping him in prison does nothing but satisfy vengeance and gives those who cannot fathom punishment past prison a feel good moment.

Glad to see lifetime license revocation is a thing in Oregon, though.

eff-J

Other than putting the person in a room with a couple dozen snack-size bags of Funyuns, then counting how many are left after an hour.

genec

Oh, so it is OK to drive impaired... and thus impairment of any kind doesn't contribute to failure to control a vehicle...

mconlonx

Did I say or even imply this? No, I did not...