Advocacy & Safety - Update on Botello trial

Last year a man driving into the sun ran over and killed a little boy on his bike on his way to school. The trial ended in a mistrial. The jury could not reach a decision.

They could not agree to find fault with the driver. Not for driving too fast into the sun. Not for not slowing down. Not for having a dirty, cracked windshield. Not for crossing a bike lane to make a right turn without being able to see if somebody was there.

It was just an accident. People get killed by cars every day whether they are walking, riding bikes or driving. Just the price we pay for "freedom" and "progress."

In my day job, I am a safety professional. When people are involved, I do not believe in 'accidents'. There is always a cause for an incident, an act or attitude that can be changed or modified to prevent the incident. Now if a meteorite hits you, that is an accident, something that would be very difficult, if not impossilbe to foresee and prevent. In my mind, the death of this child is a whole different matter. It is also a sad statement on our society when a jury could not reach a decision in the matter.

It is also proof of how, in the eyes of many, cyclist are second-class users of the public roads, how they do not belong, how cars are king in our society.

I also realize that these are inflammatory statements. You can flame me all you want, but consider it a waste of electrons, as it will not change my beliefs. If you agree with me, get out & do something, advocate, get involved. If you do not, get out of my way.

The family of the boy must take civil action.

Hopefully this trial was not the civil case...


Ultimately, the driver is responsible for killing the boy and he must be made to pay.

Here is my complex reasoning: He struck the boy. The boy died. He is responsible for killing the boy. He must be made to pay.

The sad thing is if he had rear-ended (which is what he did - he rear-ended the boy on his bike) another motorist he would certainly been at fault. But it was "only" a bicyclist, and apparently half the jury saw it this way.

The family of the boy must take civil action.

Hopefully this trial was not the civil case...


Ultimately, the driver is responsible for killing the boy and he must be made to pay.

Here is my complex reasoning: He struck the boy. The boy died. He is responsible for killing the boy. He must be made to pay.

Unfortunately so, this will end up being a wrongful death lawsuit.

The sad thing is if he had rear-ended (which is what he did - he rear-ended the boy on his bike) another motorist he would certainly been at fault. But it was "only" a bicyclist, and apparently half the jury saw it this way.

Do you know more than you told so far? 11-1 or 1-11, the result is the same, a hung jury.

Unfortunately so, this will end up being a wrongful death lawsuit.

Don't bet on it.


Not for having a dirty, cracked windshield.

Any bets that this is just part of the condition of the car and likely the finances of the driver. If he is also not insured then there is likely nothing to go after.

Education seems like the best approach.

Safety improvement and awareness education can save future lives.

Punishment may have some benefits at times, but it is very often of less benefit; sometimes there are zero benefits, or even a set of negative consequences for various people involved.

***
I almost took out a cyclist in a very similar situation. The late afternoon sun all but blinded me. I swerved with a small fraction of a second to spare. We all run into situations that are new and unexpected. Education could help people be more prepared for them.

Safety activists and educators are on the right track, it seems to me.