Next Friday will be the first day of spring. It will also be one year since pedestrian/bicycle advocate Susie Stephens was hit and killed while walking across a street in St. Louis. Ten months later, in Palo Alto, California, 6-year-old Amy Malzbender was hit and killed while riding her bike to school. Neither Susie nor Amy was in any way at fault; the operators of the motor vehicles who killed them were fully responsible for their deaths.
The person who killed Susie is Michael Wamble; he was driving a tour bus. Wamble was charged by the city with failing to yield to a pedestrian, a misdemeanor that carries a maximum penaty of $500.
Megan Coughran, an 18-yearold high school student, killed Amy. She hit two young girls that morning, killing Amy and injuring her friend Chloe. According to police, Coughran's car dragged one of the bicycles for several hundred feet and, when hit, Amy flew up onto the hood of the car. Coughran did not stop. For driving away from the crash she has been charged with two counts of felony hit-and-run. She may also be charged with misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter. If
she had not fled the scene it appears that the maximum charge would have been a misdemeanor.
Several questions must be asked. Why is it that under our current system of laws the act of killing an innocent person with a motor vehicle is of such little consequence? Why is it that the motor vehicle operators whose various failures were the direct cause of death of these two people are in no way being held accountable for the consequences of their actions? And, why do we tolerate this situation?
Michael Wamble killed Susie Stephens and the city charged him with "failure to yield to a pedestrian" While that may be true, what about the fact that he killed someone? Megan Coughran killed Amy, but had she
stopped at the scene (rather than having continued on to her boyfriend's home) she would have likely been charged only with a misdemeanor. The various state vehicle codes do not serve to hold motor vehicle
operators strictly accountable for the
consequences of their actions. There is no justice. This must change.
Over the next few months the National Center for Bicycling & Walking will contact various experts, advocates, and advocacy groups to solicit input on what others are doing to respond to this problem. We will likely commission some legal research on what approaches other countries are taking to hold drivers accountable. We will identify or develop model language to reform the vehicle code. One idea that is being discussed is to define a "standard of care" for motor vehicle operators and use it as a benchmark by which to establish fault or failure.
The system we have in place does not work. It must be fixed. It will take all of us and it will take time to make this happen. We have begun.
-- Bill Wilkinson, NCBW Executive Director
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
The fact of the matter (which you seem to miss...) is this:
Accidents happen.
Equating the first accident with murder (or even with the latter crime..) is akin to equating the lighting of a barbecue grill with arson. No matter how much hyperbole you wish to shovel onto it, it is still an accident. Trying to crucify somebody for a momentary but honest lapse of attention only weakens the rightful anger that should be saved for the latter defendant.
Try to use some intelligence, please
closetbiker
I don't know how it is in your area but in my neck of the woods I can recall at least 4 cases within the last couple of years where a car has hit and killed someone walking BESIDE the road and the drivers were sentenced to less than 2 years time. They all made parole in 1. Most cases take longer to get to trial.
I guess this is in step with lack of traffic law enforcement.
If you really don't want someone around, forget the gun, drive the car into him.:mad:
closetbiker
Originally posted by D*Alex
The fact of the matter (which you seem to miss...) is this:
Accidents happen.
Trying to crucify somebody for a momentary but honest lapse of attention only weakens the rightful anger that should be saved for the latter defendant.
Try to use some intelligence, please
Point taken, but I would think the court would determine if there was negligence involved or an honest lapse in attention.
I always think it's an interesting point to see how each of us sees this concept. I also find it interesting how the annual death toll from autos' seem to be acceptable but 1% of those same amount of deaths are unacceptable if they happen in another venue.
SteveE
First of all Mr. Wilkinson is being premature in his statement. Ms. Coughran has been charged with vehicular manslaughter and a hit-and-run felony, so it is inaccurate to say that she is "no way being held accountable for the consequences of their actions".
I make no apologies for Ms. Coughran. She needs to be held accountable. I am quite familiar with the scene of the accident, as I ride by it at least once a week. It was definitely gross negligence on the driver's part. The children were off the roadway, the morning sun was not in the driver's eyes, and the street is absolutely straight with no impaired lines of sight.
I feel deep sympathy for all the families, who are neighbors, that were part of this tragedy. I have two daughters, one of whom will be learning to drive very soon. I plan on taking her to the site of the accident so that she understands the responsibility that she has when she gets behind the wheel of a car and appreciates the consequences of not driving in a safe and controlled manner..
In my view, better driver education is the only thing that could have prevented this unfortunate incident. No amount of signage or road improvement would have had any effect. Also, California law needs to be changed so that a driver's license is revoked in this type of incident.
Earlier this month, my wife and I rode from our house to the scene where we participated with a group of 150 other riders (including Amy's father) and did the ride to school that Amy was unable to complete. It was a very sad and moving experience. I still get choked up thinking about it. I have Amy's picture hanging up where I store the bikes as a reminder of what happened.
John E
Originally posted by D*Alex
The fact of the matter (which you seem to miss...) is this:
Accidents happen.
... it is still an accident. Trying to crucify somebody for a momentary but honest lapse of attention only weakens the rightful anger that should be saved for the latter defendant.
The real problem, D*Alex, is that far too many people are being killed every day by "honest lapses of attention." I believe motorists would be more attentive if it were not so easy to retain one's license. I feel rightful anger toward both defendants, although obviously far more for the latter. Most modern societies regard life far too cheaply.
IowaParamedic
In my field (emergency medical services), we have recently changed our terminology. A Motor Vehicle Accident is now known as a Motor Vehicle Crash or Collision (MVC). Sounds like a simple change, but it isn't.
The word accident lacks a reason why the collision occured. Accidents don't just happen. There usually several documented mistakes in judgement or perception during a collision.
Chris L
Originally posted by John E
The real problem, D*Alex, is that far too many people are being killed every day by "honest lapses of attention." I believe motorists would be more attentive if it were not so easy to retain one's license. I feel rightful anger toward both defendants, although obviously far more for the latter. Most modern societies regard life far too cheaply.
Amen! As I have already stated elsewhere, defendants need to be asked "why?" in these situations when they attempt to use the standard "I didn't see him" as their excuse.
Dougmt
What would be wrong with charging these people with negligient homicide. The logic is there. If you are driving down the road and reach down to grab a CD then run off the road and kill someone this is NOT an accident. It is however negligient.
Doug
nathank
In my field (emergency medical services), we have recently changed our terminology. A Motor Vehicle Accident is now known as a Motor Vehicle Crash or Collision (MVC). Sounds like a simple change, but it isn't.
this is really a big step, and yes, the term "accident" i find very annoying as it is rarely a true accident meaning that many preventable actions could have prevented it and usually some form of negligence contributed to the "accident"
i also hear that the insurance industry is mabe going to get away from the term accident to "collision or crash or incident" or whatever.
nathank
Originally posted by D*Alex
The fact of the matter (which you seem to miss...) is this:
Accidents happen.
... it is still an accident. Trying to crucify somebody for a momentary but honest lapse of attention only weakens the rightful anger that should be saved for the latter defendant.
while people can truly have a temporary lapse and have an "accident" the current attitude that that is something that "just happens" encourages people to be negligent. i do think the penalties should be increased so people will take driving seriously as the potentially dangerous activitiy that it is and that the level of neglegence would decrease if the penalties were higher.
our current acceptance of the although decreasing but still high level of death and injury from motor vehicles is very disturbing. furthermore, the majority of the decreases in the last 30 years have come from TECHNOLOGY: safety devices like seatbelts, airbags and anti-lock brakes, things which tend to decrease AUTO injuries and fatalities, but do little to decrease less protected cyclists and pedestrains; how does a car with all the latest greatest safety feautures- airbags, seatbelts, side-impact bars, computer designed crumple zones, frequent crash-testing, etc - have much of a benefit for the cyclist or pedestrian involved in the crash with this "safe car"? maybe anti-lock brakes might help. on the other hand, the large number of safety devices might lead the driver to think he is more safe and thus to increas his level of risk taking, leading to more danger to others, particularly pedestrains and cyclists.
the basic penalties for injuring or killing pedestrains or cyclists with a motor vehicle should be very severe (the subject IS injuring or taking a life) and IF there are extenuating circumstances then on a case-by-case basis the incident should be considered in court and the penalties potentially reduced.
the fact is: people must be help responsible for their actions while operating a potentiall deadly machine, the motor vehicle! we have to dispell the trend/myth that thousands of deaths a years are just "OK" or acceptable "collateral damage" for people to drive fast and recklessly and carlessly to save a few minutes or take out their personal frustrations or whatever.
D*Alex
The real problem, D*Alex, is that far too many people are being killed every day by "honest lapses of attention." I believe motorists would be more attentive if it were not so easy to retain one's license.
Perhaps, but part of the problem, also, is the dramatic increase in traffic. As far as the St. Louis incident is concerned, and since it involved a tour bus, I'd bet that it happened somwhere around the riverfront, near the gateway arch. Traffic around there on any summer day is just awful, with tourists gawking at things, pedestrians looking at everything but the road, heavy traffic, and oppressive heat and humidity.
Another factor which may have been a factor (although, probably not in either of these cases) is reckless operation on the part of the cyclist. Around here, when you mention the word "cyclist", the image that comes to many people's mind is of a young male, often wearing dark clothes, with no lights or reflectors, disregarding any sort of safety laws, and riding against traffic at any time of the day or night. Urban or suburban, few cyclist young or old follow even basic traffic safety rules.
In the second case listed, am I the only person asking this question:
Who the hell lets a 6 year-old ride a bike to school unchaperoned?? Have the parents of the girl been charged with dereliction of their responsibilities? Shouldn't they be?
nathank
In the second case listed, am I the only person asking this question:
Who the hell lets a 6 year-old ride a bike to school unchaperoned?? Have the parents of the girl been charged with dereliction of their responsibilities? Shouldn't they be?
i'm not yet a parent, but in theory why shouldn't a 6-yr old who has been trained to properly ride a bicycle be able to ride to school alone?
why does a responsible 6-yr old need constant supervision. in my case starting at age 7 i walked home from school by myself often being also responsible for my 6-yr old sister. and some kids are more "mature" and responsible earlier than others and every environment is different.
it is sad that so many auto drivers are so incompetent and not held accountable for their actions that a qualified 6-yr old should not be able to ride to school. what if the kid were walking on the sidewalk and hit? (that also happens)
is it not a sad and depressing sign that our society is fo "dangerous" that the above question is raised?
SteveE
Originally posted by D*Alex
In the second case listed, am I the only person asking this question:
Who the hell lets a 6 year-old ride a bike to school unchaperoned?? Have the parents of the girl been charged with dereliction of their responsibilities? Shouldn't they be?
D*Alex,
Amy was not unchaperoned. Amy's father and older brother rode to the school with her every day. Amy's father was about 100 ft. behind his daughter when she was killed. The two little girls had pulled off the road and onto the gravel shoulder and were waiting up for the dad and brother.
SteveE
D*Alex
OK, no problem. Just thought it sounded strange, that's all.
oscaregg
Pedestrian and cyclist fatalities are NOT accidents in a road system such as the US's that is so excessively tailored for motor-driven transport. If I was a liberal I'd try to make the case for calling them "hate crimes," but believe that's a BS label. Rather, I'll just say that our system gives motorists a case of "special rights," and say that I think they should operate under laws that are restrictive relative to the hazard they create. As someone else in this forum has suggested, a fascist police state is a reasonable legal structure for regulating automobile use, very reasonable.
mike
Accidents DO happen, whether driving a car, a bus, or riding a bicycle.
It is with very rare exception that motorists hit bicyclist or pedestrians intentionally. I am sure that motorists who accidentally hit bicyclists or pedestrians feel terrible and probably never rinse the guilt from their hearts.
Except for drunken drivers, I wonder what is the purpose of applying strict punishment or jail time to people who have motor vehicle accidents. They are liable for civil lawsuits anyway.
nathank
It is with very rare exception that motorists hit bicyclist or pedestrians intentionally. I am sure that motorists who accidentally hit bicyclists or pedestrians feel terrible and probably never rinse the guilt from their hearts.
Except for drunken drivers, I wonder what is the purpose of applying strict punishment or jail time to people who have motor vehicle accidents. They are liable for civil lawsuits anyway.
hey Mike, i generally agree with most of what you say, but not this time.
as i said previously, each case must be looked at on a case-by-case basis, but the default punishment for injuring or killing someone with a motor vehicle should be much more severe than it is --- currently at the worst case it is involuntary manslaugher, but the offenders are usually not even charged with such and it is just ruled an "accident" that could happen to anyone, and many offenders get a normal ticket, no license suspension, no jail time... and are allowed to just continue drive as if they had been caught exceeding a speed limit in a speed trap! what message does that send? that it is acceptable to kill people by "cutting corners" when driving b/c these things are "excusable".
as can be seen from many American companies that institued "safety first" pgorams in the 80s and 90s and saw MASSIVE reductions in job-related injuries especially around heavy equipment and machinery, changing the attitude from "accidents happen. it's OK, it happens to everyone" to "every accident is preventable and some form of negligence contributes to all accidents - i.e. all accidents COULD have been prevented" makes a HUGE difference. currently the US subscribes to the "accidents just happen" attitude concerning motor vehicles and raising the penalties would be one step in getting this changed.
the person who drives while tired or speeding b/c late to a meeting or applying makeup or talking on the cell phone or any number of "distractions" is not putting safety first and increasing the chances of an accident. but since "i didn't see" (b/c i was tired or talking on the phone or thiking about my personal problems or whatever) is an acceptable excuse, people do not change and continue to drive under less than the safest ways. while i think banning some really bad offenses like talking on a cell phone while driving, i believe that rather than legislating ever little detail, people should use thier own judgement and simply be held accountable for their actions and decisons (i.e. if the sun is in their eyes and they can't see well enough to drive safely and they CHOOSE to drive ahead anyway and kill someone, well then that is not an accident, but directly the fault of their decision to drive when they could not see b/c of the sun and they should be likewise punished so that it is not "acceptable" to kill people b/c the sun was in your eyes which the lax rules basically teach)
chewa
Mike, accidents don't happen. They are better named incidents.
An accident suggests no fault.
If a bus driver allows his attention to lapse that is a fault. What, did the deceased suddenly sneak up on the bus. No. If he's in an area where there are lots of pedestrians his concentration should be max.
He's only not at fault if the pedestrian does something stupid, say jumping out at the last second. But then the pedestrian is at fault.
the only true accident is where some other factor becomes involved, e.g a tyre blowing out causing the bus to become uncontrollable, or the pedestrian having a fit and falling.
We seem to forget that a vehicle can be a weapon. If I ride my bike at speed through pedestrians and one of them steps in front of me, I am more likely to be at fault than them as, as the driver of a vehicle I should employ the needed standard of care.
That standard should be higher for a bike than a pedestrian, higher for a car than a bike, higher for a bus than a car, higher for a petrol tanker than a bus, higher for a vehicle carrying explosives than a tanker etc.
there are very few road accidents, I would say for virtually all it is someone's fault. Normally poor observation or lack of adjustment to circumstances.
Over here we have "careless driving" and "dangerous driving". One suggests lack of care and one suggests a negligent act. I'm not sure what the difference is, but the penalties are much different.
Inkwolf
Originally posted by chewa
If a bus driver allows his attention to lapse that is a fault.
On the other hand, a bus driver drives all day, every day. Is it even humanly possible for someone to never have a lapse of attention for that amount of driving time? In which case, in cases of collisions, the primary cause isn't necessarily the lapse of attention, but the fact that it happened at a critical time.
While I agree with the criticism of people who engage in unecessary distractions while driving, the belief that its possible for a person to be completely focussed on driving at all times they're behind the wheel isn't particularly realistic either.
PaulH
It might be worthwhile to read the police report on the Stephens accident:
http://home.swbell.net/mpion/susiestephens.html
I'd agree the driver is getting off pretty easy. After all, I would think that the driver of the slow-moving tour bus could have hit the brakes after (or even before) impact and before running her over. At ten feet per second assumed speed, he would have had several seconds to avert disaster.
However, the design of the intersection and signalization seem to be questionable, allowing motorists to "shoot pedestrians in the back" while turning. I think a light cycle with a "pedestrian only" phase would help make the intersection safer. The fact remains that he had a green light and she had a "walk" signal. A minimum expectation should be that people who obey traffic signals should not be set up for a collision.
Paul
nathank
While I agree with the criticism of people who engage in unecessary distractions while driving, the belief that its possible for a person to be completely focussed on driving at all times they're behind the wheel isn't particularly realistic either.
Inkwolf, i agree, but the assumption should be that they are guilty of a serious crime (killing a person) and the situation should be considered in court!
since the "default" punishment is minimal, many of the offenders never even arrive in court but are given a basic traffic ticket or whatever. in something concerning the taking of a life with a motor vehicle, the question should be proving that they were NOT negligent, not the other way around!
closetbiker
Originally posted by nathank
the situation should be considered in court!
in something concerning the taking of a life with a motor vehicle, the question should be proving that they were NOT negligent, not the other way around!
As I said before, the courts should determine if there was negligence involved and we have to remember, one is considered innocent before they are proven guilty.
My question is, if the person is guilty, what would be the best punishment to ensure this type of negligence dosn't happen again?
Would a higher standard of training for all drivers and traffic law enforcement save more lives than a jail sentence for the individual? It might, but a lot of people would then be complaining about "government interference" with their lives. :(
nathank
Would a higher standard of training for all drivers and traffic law enforcement save more lives than a jail sentence for the individual? It might but a lot of people would then be complaining about "government interference" with their lives.
i agree that more driver training would really help. i used to be against this, but now seeing the effects in Germany of a) extensive driver training that costs about $1000 and b) VERY strictly enforced driving rules where loss of license is a MAJOR threat, i really think it would be beneficial.
driving is not a RIGHT but a priveledge, and comes with major responsibilities. thus, people should be required to be trained to properly handle those responsilibities.
making it effective for ONLY new drivers would cause less public outcry, but the system should be upgraded to include difficult and rigourous exams that not everyone can pass so that only qualified drivers are licensed. the schools can remain private as long as the tests are administered by the state - those that are not good enough will have poor pass-rating and go out of business.
caloso
Originally posted by nathank
as i said previously, each case must be looked at on a case-by-case basis, but the default punishment for injuring or killing someone with a motor vehicle should be much more severe than it is --- currently at the worst case it is involuntary manslaugher, but the offenders are usually not even charged with such and it is just ruled an "accident" that could happen to anyone, and many offenders get a normal ticket, no license suspension, no jail time... and are allowed to just continue drive as if they had been caught exceeding a speed limit in a speed trap! what message does that send? that it is acceptable to kill people by "cutting corners" when driving b/c these things are "excusable".
Nathank, I generally agree with your points. I agree that most prosecutors are reluctant to charge motorists with anything more serious than a Vehicle Code violation. But I think you overstated that "at the worst case it is involuntary manslaughter." Although it's an extreme case, here (http://www.click2houston.com/hou/news/stories/news-197854120030214-110218.html) is a recent example of a motorist convicted of murder and sentenced to 20 years in prison for killing a pedestrian.
Re the death of Susie, it seems to me that a large portion of fault lies with the city traffic engineer. As someone posted above, a pedestrian crossing with a green walk signal ought to have the assurance that a bus isn't whipping around the corner.
SteveE
I went back and found an article from last Thursday's SJ Mercury which I found disturbing:
Wong said the police don't believe Coughran was grossly negligent, which is why they don't feel an emergency retest is necessary. The Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office also does not believe Coughran acted with ``gross negligence'' or behavior that shows no regard for the life and safety of others.
If driving off the road in a residential, 25MPH speed zone, no sun in your eyes, straight as an arrow road, where children are known to bike to school on a daily basis, running into two children, killing one, injuring another, and continuing to drive on isn't "gross neglience", what the heII is?
Even if this girl does not have to do serious jail time (I'm not sure that it would serve much purpose -- I'd leave it to the girl's parents to express their views), I think a conviction of "gross negligence" would be entirely appropriate under these circumstances.
D*Alex
what would be the best punishment to ensure this type of negligence dosn't happen again?
As a person who has driven trucks professionally (and still posesses a valid commercial driver's license..), I can assure you that the driver of that tour bus will never drive one again.
Pete Clark
Originally posted by closetbiker
Why is it that under our current system of laws the act of killing an innocent person with a motor vehicle is of such little consequence?
Maybe that's why cars kill over 40,000 people (not including walkers and cylists) in the U.S. every year.
We have never been serious about enforcing traffic safety. We have absolutely no balls.
mike
As bicyclists, we are extra sensitive about bicyclists being hit by cars.
However, how many of us have hit SOMETHING while driving a car, whether it was another car, a bumper, a pothole, a mailbox (hey, THAT was no accident...).
You might never want to hit a bicyclist, but fate may be against you one day and it happens. Should you be taken from society to be locked up in prison? This would not only punish you, but also your children, your employer, and others who rely on you.
Jail time and extremely high fines should be reserved for criminals who knowingly and willfully commit crimes. If we think that jail time is appropriate for automobile accidents, then why not jail time for any other accident like, say you bicycle into a man-hole and kill the guy working below?
jatkins679
Originally posted by mike
However, how many of us have hit SOMETHING while driving a car, whether it was another car, a bumper, a pothole, a mailbox (hey, THAT was no accident...).
Jail time and extremely high fines should be reserved for criminals who knowingly and willfully commit crimes...
The 18 year-old that struck Amy, she fled the scene of the accident when it simply cannot be argued that she didn't know that she had hit someone. ONE OF THE CYCLIST ROLLED ONTO HER WINDSHIELD, yet she failed to yield as demanded by law. It is for her post-accident behavior, the felony hit-and-run that she will be punished for.
Mistakes do happen, people are going to run into cyclists and you can probably argue that that is an 'accident' 99% of the time. But to willfully and deliberately flee the scene of an accident, that itself is no accident. That is a crime and the law is clear that it is.
She purposely committed a crime, she sought to hide her role in the accident, which is a crime under law in California. She should go to prison for what she did because what she did was not only just a crime, but a crime of selfishness: she purposely sought to hide evidence of a possible crime, what was clearly a motor vehicle accident that demands in the law that you stop.
I do feel badly for the girl because her life is ruined. For the rest of her life, she will have to live with the knowledge that she killed a child, a beautiful human being as all children are. And she will most likely have to live with the record and stigma that follows a convicted felon. That's a harsh way to start out as an adult, yet there are consequences for every action. She's going to have to suffer those consequences are they are not hidden and they are not muddled.
But I am disappointed that anyone would even suggest that this person didn't 'knowingly and willfully commit' a crime after the initial accident. Her behavior is prima facie evidence that she did.
Chris L
Originally posted by mike
You might never want to hit a bicyclist, but fate may be against you one day and it happens. Should you be taken from society to be locked up in prison?
It depends on the circumstances. Personally, I believe you should be required to at least explain why you hit the cyclist. Explain exactly how fate was against you on this particular day. I, for one, get sick of drivers being able to simply run over anyone who gets in their path and use the old "I didn't see him" crap and have no questions asked of them. This is clearly ridiculous and needs to be changed.
closetbiker
Originally posted by mike
You might never want to hit a bicyclist, but fate may be against you one day and it happens. Should you be taken from society to be locked up in prison?
Jail time and extremely high fines should be reserved for criminals who knowingly and willfully commit crimes.
I wouldn't argue for jail time for "accidents" (as you call them) but for car confiscations, mandatory driver safety courses, and driving restrictions (as well as strict enforcement of traffic law) for offenders.
Humans are not perfect but the level of inadequate driving skills kill tens of thousands annually. Airlines go through strict training and enforcement of flight planning (as well as maintenence requirements) and a potentially dangerous form of travel is quite safe because of the requirements made on it.
The average person just is not acting safe enough when out on the road.
jatkins679
Originally posted by Chris L
I, for one, get sick of drivers being able to simply run over anyone who gets in their path and use the old "I didn't see him" crap and have no questions asked of them. This is clearly ridiculous and needs to be changed.
She has the right to not testify at all; thus she cannot be forced to testify or explain anything. That's clearly covered under the fifth amendment to our constitution and I don't think that should be changed. I don't want to see our judicial system end up like some banana republic's, where people 'testify' about themselves at the end of a rubber hose or with severe bruises.
She might have to elocute in court as part of any plea agreement. But I really doubt that'll be a stipulation. We all know what happened already: inattention to driving and/or a lack of common-sense caused the tragedy.
(If a San Martin man can get away with letting his infant son die in an over-heated car while he watched anime videos with a simple 'I don't know why', then that DA office isn't going to push it any further with her.)
But again, what really appalls me is her behavior after the accident: she tried to cover her tracks. She sat in class at Paly HS for at least a couple of hours, all the while she could have made the right decision to contact the police. Her post-accident behavior, had it been successful, would have robbed Amy's parents of some closure, of some measure of explanation about hte death of their child. What she did after the accident is just plain wrong and she should be punished severely for it.
She probably won't go to jail, though, there is precedence for that. About 15 years ago near Morgan Hill, a woman about the same age ran down and killed four cyclists alone a rural two-lane road. She was reaching into the back seat of her S-10 Blazer for audio cassettes when all four cyclists rolled over her hood at somewhere around 50mph and she did immediately stop. She didn't do time. She pled out, got something like 10-15 years or probation and a huge fine.
But at least she was at least charged and convicted of four counts of voluntary manslaughter. That is the charge I feel Coughran's crime calls for, especially given her post-accident behavior. She certainly doesn't deserve or has earned any breaks.
jatkins679
Originally posted by closetbiker
The average person just is not acting safe enough when out on the road.
You have that right. We certainly have a history of not taking driving seriously.
I think a look at the simple charge of 'vehicular manslaughter' kind of says it all: we treat a killing committed with a car differently than under other circumstances. Why? I think because we simply don't take it as seriously. 'Oh, well, he was driving when he killed that person. That's something we ALL do and I could be him someday.' The banality of driving and the fact that we all do it (most of us on a very regular basis) makes it seem less of a crime when when a crime happens while we are doing it.
Da Tinker
First off, I am a certified safe driving instructor (among other talents), so I am not pulling this out of my navel.
The vast majority of vehicular 'accidents' are due to inattention. Drivers are in charge of tons of fast-moving metal, with a vast potential for carnage. A one day driving program, like the one I teach, can reduce accident rates by up to 75%. The majority of the class is about observation, keeping your head in the game. Too many people seem to think that they have a God-given right to drive a can any way they can get away with. And the culture supports it.
Take Texas (since I used to live there). Currently, they are killing the equivalent of the full passenger load of a 737 every week on their roads. If it really were a plane going down, all hell would break loose. But we have come to accept this horrid carnage, since it is our right to go forth and kill & main ourselves and each other.
Most people do not take driving seriously. Just look around you in traffic (carefully). You will see folks reading, using cell phones, watching videos, eating, using laptops, PDA's, you name it. Everything but giving safe driving the attention it demands. I firmly believe that anytime there is a motor vehicle fatality, manslaughter or stronger charges should be filed. The courts can determine if there was negligence, not some cop on the street, or some DA. Make people understand driving is serious business.
Is this radical? Oh, yeah. I have worked in the oilfield for my entire life. Used to, we injured, maimed & killed people on a regular basis. Now there has been a culture shift, and accident rates have fallen sharply, and every accident & near miss is investigated, the cause nailed down, and a cure found. We need the same on our roads.
jatkins679
Originally posted by Da Tinker
Take Texas (since I used to live there). Currently, they are killing the equivalent of the full passenger load of a 737 every week on their roads. If it really were a plane going down, all hell would break loose. But we have come to accept this horrid carnage, since it is our right to go forth and kill & main ourselves and each other.
I think the difference is simply that we have come as a society to accept auto accidents as a natural part of life, while airliner crashes are not supposed to happen. Everyday, hundreds are killed in motor vehicle accidents in the U.S. Yet a solitary plane crash will garner more attention than the aggregate attention paid to those motor vehicle accidents in any given week, much less day. I think that's in part due to people's general incredulity that planes crash. It simply doesn't happen very often and we are stunned that they do at all.
Still, what's the most dangerous part of flying? By far it's simply driving to the airport. There's no comparison.
But when people drive, they control their own vehicle and feel they have much more of a sense of control than they do if they're just another passenger on a plane. It's a subtle feeling of, 'I'm a good driver, I won't get into an accident.'
(Strange how some things get lost in that subtle belief, like how infinitely more hours of training pilots have over auto users and how they are held to a much higher level of job execution... and the fact that the pilot doesn't want to crash anymore than any of his/her passengers do.)
There has to be a change in culture, though, I will agree whole-heartedly there. Society must simply come to not accept that auto accidents are a necessary part of life; that for every 'accident', there is someone who didn't obey a law and lack of intent to maim/injure/kill is not a defense or an excuse.
I mean, just the term 'accident' alone seems to absolve people from responsibility and thus blame. Most automobile collisions (especially with bicyclists) are no more true 'accidents' than someone stopping at the bottom of an escalator to answer their cell phone while people behind them injure themselves trying to avoid piling up. Both involve negligence to the consequences of your own actions, a significant factor in which is simple inattention to what is going on around you... or more criminally a lack of caring about how you might injure/kill thoses around you with your behavior.
I think it's changing little-by-little. It sounds strange to us now, but there was a time not long ago that many (if not most) segments of society didn't think drunken driving was a crime at all; if you made it home OK, then where was the crime? Nowadays, it is not only considered a crime, most states consider it a violent crime. There was a time when most people thought use of seat-belts was silly. Nowadays, people have come to understand that they will save your life and most people will bucket up without a second-thought, law or no law. So society mores and general beliefs in what is safe behavior can change.
When cars and trucks pile up along I-5 and I-99 during fog in the Central Valley, there used to be a tacit belief that the event result was punishment enough for whomever actually was responsible for the event. Not anymore. It's now routine for the CHP to attempt to determine (sometimes using very sophisticated equipment) who actually caused the event and to forward their findings to prosecutors for further action. And that's the way it should be.
In a strange way, the civil courts have helped to hold people more accountable, too. I know: most people see lawyers as scum-suckers and people who sue in civil court to often be gold-diggers who say they have whiplash. But if prosecutors refuse to hold negligent drivers accountable criminally, victims or their families can punish them civilly, which is better than a sharp stick in the eye.
But still, society could do better. We could all take more interest in seeing those who negligently and inattentively injure or kill others held to a higher standard and simply called to answer for their behavior. One simple thing we could all do is vote and elect local officials (law makers and those who prosecute the law) who share our beliefs. Yet most of us can't be bothered to even mail in an absentee ballot; so how important could it be to many/most of us?
Pete Clark
My wife was driving home one day with a carload of kids after school and her work. Another lazy summer afternoon, looking forward to finally getting home.
On their usual route, about 4 minutes from home, they came upon an "accident" (not spilled milk) before the mounties arrived.
Apparently, some teenagers had crossed the grass median in a 40 mph. zone, 4 lane street and struck a lady coming in the opposite direction. No telling how fast. The lady was o.k.
My wife instructed the children to hide their eyes as she went past. She could see dead teenagers. Somehow, I doubt my kids hid their eyes.
Car "accidents" are the number one cause of teenage deaths in the United States. We have only irresponsible adults in every walk of life to thank for this as we set examples worthy of Hell itself.
Where is Clint Eastwood, Stephen Segal and Bruce Willis when it comes to real threats?
Got Balls?
I don't advocate throwing people in jail for speeding. I advocate
ticketing every son of a b* that exceeds 40 in a 25.
jatkins679
AP is reporting that the driver's license of Meghan Coughran, the 18 year-old who mowed down those two girls in Palo Alto last month, has been suspended indefinitely by the DMV. She's charged with felony hit-and-run and vehicular manslaughter.
Seems a little slow on the trigger for that suspension, but whatever.
SteveE
Originally posted by jatkins679
Seems a little slow on the trigger for that suspension, but whatever.
It may have been due to the fact that Ms. Coughran voluntarily agreed to stop operating a motor vehicle through the conclusion of the trial. The net result being that the police department took longer the normal to complete their report. I understand that it was more than 100 pages.
Mr.CPS
I make no apologies for Ms. Coughran. She needs to be held accountable. I am quite familiar with the scene of the accident, as I ride by it at least once a week. It was definitely gross negligence on the driver's part. The children were off the roadway, the morning sun was not in the driver's eyes, and the street is absolutely straight with no impaired lines of sight.
Well my goodness, how could she notice two small children when she was busy answering her cell phone, changing her CD, and putting on her make-up. I don't know that she was doing any of this, but I'll bet at least one.
FACT: Teenagers have no business operating a motor vehicle alone, period. I had no business when I was a teen, and neither did 99% of Americans. I look back now and am amazed I wasn't killed, let alone "just in accident". There are at least two accidents a week on the 4-lane through my town. Most of these involve failure to yeild when a car stops to turn left (no room for a turning lane) and at least one of those two, almost every week, involves a teenager on their way home from school. I drive with them every day, since I teach. People with less than a years experience driving alone, or with a gaggle of talking friends, with a cell phone to their ear, or bent over trying to push the right tiny button on a CD player, or trying to find that last fry, or lighting a cigarette. All the while speeding, swerving, and failing to signal.
American's attitude about driving is worse than appauling. What is the main selling point of 5,000 lb. SUV's? They're safe! No need to demand drivers actually have skill, just get the biggest vehicle you can. Of course, Cyclists, Motorcyclists, and people without the money to own and operate such a behemouth are SOL!
Auto-makers are even worse. They can't wait to wire your car with the internet and TV! That's just what we need, people chatting or watching soaps while driving! Plus, they make big bucks off big vehicles.
How to fix the problem?
While big jail sentences are satisfying, money might be a better motivator. What if this young lady had to spend her entire working life paying the little girl's family 100 bucks a month. Just a little life-long reminder of what her inattentiveness caused.
Some other ideas:
1. Drivers Ed should be taught in Chevy Suburbans, not Chevy Cavaliers. It's ludicrous to test a child on the smallest lightest type of vehicle on the road, then give them the keys to a vehicle twice as big weighing 3 times as much. Teaching in Suburbans or 15 passenger vans would teach teens to respect large vehicles and their driving characteristics.
2. Teens unable to drive without a parent until they are 18 or older. And THEN they sould have to pass a comprehensive driving test.
3. Insurance companies should be allowed to hike rates on people who have cell phones or other attention diverting items in their car.
As a new cyclist, I have been VERY careful to stay out of the way of motorists. I expect them to at least pay attention to the fact that there is another vehicle sharing the road with them.
oscaregg
Also, the SUV/treason link needs to be made........again, and again, and again!
Don't call 'em SUV's anymore, call 'em "Hussein Helpers." Feel free to copy the sticker on my helmet "Starve a raghead, ride a bike!"
Mr.CPS
I'm not so much anit-SUV as I am anti-poor driver. If people can afford it, go on and buy it. But I am very much against letting any yahoo with 30 grand to spend take charge of as much as 3 tons of steel. We require motorcyclists to have special liscences to prove they can safely operate a motorcycle, but we allow people trained on small cars to leagally operate a vehicle that can carry as much as 15 passengers! People would scream bloody murder if they allowed people to get liscences on mopeds but let them operate Harley's.
People in VA and TN are totaly ignorant of the traffic laws! I also man the crosswalk outside of school in the afternoons. You can't posibly believe the number of people who fail to yeild to pedestrians, red lights, or anything else that might delay them for a few seconds!
jatkins679
Originally posted by Mr.CPS
1. Drivers Ed should be taught in Chevy Suburbans, not Chevy Cavaliers. It's ludicrous to test a child on the smallest lightest type of vehicle on the road, then give them the keys to a vehicle twice as big weighing 3 times as much. Teaching in Suburbans or 15 passenger vans would teach teens to respect large vehicles and their driving characteristics.
But who's '(giving) them the keys' to such vehicles without making sure they're ready to pilot them in the first place? And isn't driving practice with adults supposed to help acclimate those kids to their family's vehicle anyway?
Chris L
I don't think SUV's are totally to blame for the issues we have in this thread. I think it's more to do with society's attitudes that anyone who is behind a steering wheel should be absolved from the sort of responsibility they'd have to face up to in any other facet of life.
As far as I'm concerned, we desperately need some fascist government intervention to change this.
jatkins679
Originally posted by Chris L
As far as I'm concerned, we desperately need some fascist government intervention to change this. \
Yeah, the Nazis were fairly good at that sort of stuff, weren't they?
Chris L
Originally posted by jatkins679
Yeah, the Nazis were fairly good at that sort of stuff, weren't they?
Just as nobody's perfect, there are no people totally without redeeming qualities.