Bikepacker67

* No Idiot, your windshield crashed into Bullen.

Bikepacker67

A National Law needs to be passed, that simply states:

"Taking your eyes off the road to perform any task requiring more than 2 seconds while the vehicle is moving is a crime"

If being impaired behind the wheel is criminal offense, shouldn't driving blind be criminal as well??!

maximusvt

Wow. They really spent 12 hours deliberating over this and didn't come up with anything?? Sad.
You are looking in the mirror to inspect your throat for foreign objects. Obviously you won't be able to see the road. Pull the F*** over, dumbass!!

Bikepacker67

Maybe we should let Mr. Eisenberg know what we think of what he thinks...


Email: steve@eisenberglaw.org

Here's mine:

yes

^wow - defending his client is this lawyers job. It's the jurists that didn't seem to get it.

joejack951

Of course the jury won't get it; they're probably all driver's of only motor vehicles who have never pedalled more than a mile on any road to get somewhere. I'm surprised half sided with the cyclist. Must be a very good lawyer on the cyclist's side. I personally think that almost every trial where all motorists are on the jury (I have to believe this is the majority of trials) is a mistrial. They all have biased views of how the roads are intended to be used. Anyone who can say someone is not guilty when they blinded pointed their deadly weapon down the road and killed someone is obviously biased.

Neist

Or just very good at jury selection.

I like to think at least half of them thought that way because it doesnt take a genius to figure out that if you hit someone when your checking something vain in a mirror then its probably your fault.

The entire "I didnt see them" nonsense is ridiculous though. I got into a car wreck (a rather bad one, actually) once because a moving truck was crossing the highway. So I'm just cruising down the road and a truck moves in front of me and I t-bone it. He said he didnt see me. I was coming from a downhill stretch thats a mile long.. in a red car.. not see me?!?!?!

slagjumper

Two seconds is still 176 feet at 60 mph. I agree that there should be some kind language or pennalty that adaquatly deals with driver distractions. For example if the driver offers a distraction defense, then an automatic 5 year license suspension and a mandatory driver training session paid for by the driver. Same should go for driving too fast for conditions results in a death, (remember the post about the Hilton Head Hair dresser who killed the old woman on a bike, while talking on a cell phone in thick fog.)

slagjumper

Madison is a big bike town, which is probably why this wasn't a quick dismiss. Maybe some of the Madison mentallity made it to Cottage Grove.

Helmet Head

I have a really hard time believing the 12 seconds. 12 seconds is a really long time.
Even at 20 mph 12 seconds will take you 240 feet. At 40 mph... 480 feet.

I wonder if the cyclist was in the lane in front of the driver, or if the cyclist was off to the side, perhaps in a bike lane, and the driver inadvertently drifted into the cyclist? Either way, the driver is at fault, of course. But which it is matters to those of us who wish to figure out how to get the attention of those who are about to take their eyes off the road. Is being in front of them how we get their attention, or being off to the side?

lyeinyoureye

Does this mean I can drive using my feet with no fear of legal repercussions, ever?

unkchunk

Did Tracy Sorum ever indicate what he thought was caught in his throat? I mean he must of been doing something inorder for something to get caught in his throat... or is it spontaneous esophagal apparitions have become a problem now?

72grandprix

Silly question buy if something is caught IN your throat what good is it to look at it? I'm seriously confused. I cannot imagine it being feasible to locate an item in your throat with the naked eye.

Itsjustb

I was thinking about this case a lot on my commute home yesterday (I probably should have been concentrating more on my cycling considering where I ride, but that's another story).

Obviously I wasn't privy to the discussions in the deliberation room, nor to the thoughts of the jury. But I will bet my butt that at least one of the people voting "Not guilty" thought to himself: "Jeez, I do stuff like look in the rear view mirror while driving all the time. I really don't want to find this guy guilty, or it could be me next time!"

I just wish those same people would put that thought aside for a second to think, "Hey, my daughter/wife/girlfriend could be the girl on the bike. Maybe we should send a wake-up call."

I'm hoping they can find 12 people able to do these mental gymnastics for the next jury. Of course, no cyclists will be on the jury because of a perceived bias.

joejack951

And that's the infuriating thing to me. Somehow having a jury full of motorists, who all probably picture themselves in the same spot as the guy being charged like you said and who only know about the world of travel through the eyes of a motorists, (just like the person they are judging) is NOT biased yet having a cyclist on the jury, who in most cases has seen the world both as a motorist and as a cyclist, would be considered biased.

Itsjustb

joejack, I had the same exact thought too.

bikingshearer 

I can't agree with that broad a statement. What everyone needs to keep in mind is this was a criminal trial, not a civil trial. The jury was deciding whether to send the driver to jail or prison, and doing so requires that they make the requisite findings against the driver "beyond a reasonable doubt." That translates to "pretty darn close to certain." And I suspect that that standard applied in this case not just to whether the driver of the car killed the cyclist, but also applied to a question of whether the driver had the requisite state of mind in order to support a statutory definition of the crime for which he or she was accused.

By contrast, a civil jury would have been deciding whether or not the cyclist's estate and/or family would receive money from the driver and would have to make the requisite findings only by a "preponderence of the evidence." That translates roughly to "just barely more likely than not." The point is that it is an extremely high burden of proof the prosecutor (who is not "the cyclist's" attorney) has to meet. It's the same burden that applies in all criminal cases, up to and including murder cases. It is a difficult burden for a prosecutor to satisfy in any criminal case, and it is deliberately that way for some very good reasons.

I'm not saying that I agree with the jurors who favored acquital. I'm also not saying that I agree with the the jurors who favored conviction. I don't know enough about the criminal statutes at issue or the evidence to be able to make a cogent decision on that. It's not self-evident that the driver's behavior rises to the level of criminal homicide - of so, there wouldn't have been a 6-6 deadlock on that jury. I do think it was not an unreasonable position for the prosecution to have taken, though.

What does seem self-evident from the driver's version of events is that the driver should be held civilly liable - for all the reasons stated. I hope the cyclist's survivors have a good lawyer prepared to follow up on that. Money cannot compensate for the death of another person - never has, never will. But a substantial award of damages can send a message that there is in fact a cost beyond one's own conscience for being that negligent while driving a car - which, by the way, is the single most potentially lethal device most people operate on a regular basis.

I will close by saying that I am glad that the DA's office took this case seriously enough to take it to trial and to press for a conviction of a major charge. That in itself sends a message the we cyclists are to be taken seriously on the road. I just wish we didn't have to get someone killed to get that message out.

FlatTop

Homicide by negligent driving seems an ideal description of McFarland's crime. So, what can half that jury be thinking? That the victim mitigated the culpability of the motorist by riding a bicycle on a roadway?
This seems to be a subject not touched on here, although it's rather basic: The bicycle rider belonged there, had every right to be there. Something tells me that the jury, made up as it is from a cross-section of society, doesn't know that to be the fact.

Santaria

I think this is a very good question. What exactly was he looking for in his throat? Or was he visually inspecting the outside of his throat?

Something has gotten miscommunicated to the jury I think for them to consider that an acceptable response.

What if he jumped a curb and hit a family pushing a stroller? Would the same defense stand? Was he that impaired in his driving?

We'll have to see what comes of it I guess.

remsav

If you get 9 years for running over a person on a sidewalk while DUI, then running over a cyclist on a road while not drunk is just an accident, even if found guilty he deserves no jail time because he's really really sorry about what happened and it could happen to anyone who was distracted for few seconds.
I wonder why hit-man doesn't use this method more often, it'll look like hit and run and even if he gets caught it was just an accident "I didn't see him" "lost control" "had bowel movement" defense.