Advocacy & Safety - Bicyclist-death DUI case goes to jurors

This makes me so angry, I don't get it how can driving drunk be manslaughter and shooting some in the head be homicide?

The truck is a loaded weapon and you go pointing it around everywhere at people while you're drunk and stupid.
Even worse off!
This person doesn't even have a license and swerved twice before hitting him in the bike lane.
To top it off we have all the facts and she lies.

Tucson Region
Bicyclist-death DUI case goes to jurors
By Kim Smith
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 11.22.2007
advertisement
She knew the minute she tried to remove Paul L'Ecuyer's helmet.
Melissa Arrington knew there was nothing she could do to help the bicyclist she had just struck on Old Spanish Trial.
Still, Arrington told jurors Wednesday, she kept talking to him and patting his chest.
"I kept saying, 'Please wake up; please wake up,' " a tearful Arrington said.
Wednesday was the final day of testimony in Arrington's trial in Pima County Superior Court.
Arrington, 27, is facing one count of manslaughter and two counts of aggravated driving under the influence in connection with the Dec. 1, 2006, collision that took L'Ecuyer's life.
According to authorities, L'Ecuyer, 45, was riding his Schwinn in the middle of a 5-foot-wide bike lane when Arrington swerved off the road, struck him and then continued for 800 feet before stopping.
A blood test taken 2 1/2 hours after the collision showed that Arrington, who was driving on a suspended license, had a blood-alcohol content of 0.156 percent — nearly double the minimum DUI level. A witness to the crash, Joanne Jayco, testified that Arrington swerved off the road twice before the collision.
Deputy County Attorney Jonathan Mosher told jurors during opening statements last week that Arrington should be convicted of manslaughter because she showed recklessness by not only driving drunk, but by driving drunk just six months after attending a Mothers Against Drunk Driving event designed to show the results of such behavior.
Assistant county public defenders Matthew Messmer and Michael Rosenbluth contended that the crash was simply a tragic accident.
Arrington testified that she consumed three drinks at Berky's, 5769 E. Speedway, before the crash. She had just signed a lease-purchase agreement for her home in Vail, and she was celebrating with her Berky's co-workers, she said.
When she left for home in her Chevrolet Silverado pickup, Arrington said, she was feeling "completely fine" and "definitely" OK to drive.
A self-described "clean freak," Arrington said she was traveling between 45 and 50 mph when she decided to wash her hands.
"I had reached over to get the hand sanitizer, and all of a sudden my windshield caved in," Arrington said.
Unable to see and fearing someone might hit her from behind, Arrington said she immediately turned on her hazard lights and eased to a stop.
She got out of the truck and walked down the shoulder of the road, thinking she had struck a large animal.
It was only when she got back to her truck that she saw L'Ecuyer in the bed of her truck, Arrington said.
Arrington testified that she got into the bed of the truck twice — once to check for his pulse and once to try to resuscitate him. The woman who had been driving behind her called 911, Arrington said.
Arrington told jurors that she failed a portion of the field sobriety tests because she caught sight of her truck during the turn-and-walk test, and it caused her distress. She also said she couldn't blow into the breath-test machine because she was too distraught and "winded."
During cross-examination, the bartender and exotic dancer acknowledged that she was able to smoke a cigarillo before deputies arrived.
She also admitted she had lied to investigating deputies about how many drinks she'd had and where she had consumed them.
Arrington also acknowledged that her co-workers testified they'd served her five drinks that night, and she never told deputies the collision occurred while reaching for her hand sanitizer.
Mosher also asked Arrington if she was using her hand sanitizer the other two times she swerved off the road.
"I never realized I swerved off the road, but I did use my hand sanitizer several times," Arrington said.
The only time she saw the blinking reflective light on the back of L'Ecuyer's bicycle was when she was being driven from the scene, Arrington said.
One of the people who spoke at the MADD event Arrington attended had suffered severe brain damage after being struck by a drunken driver, Mosher reminded Arrington. The other killed his friend while driving drunk and is himself a quadriplegic as a result of the same crash.
Did she not care about the tragedy that had befallen them? Mosher asked.
"I heard what happened, but as far as caring, I don't know how I can answer that," Arrington said.
In answer to a juror's question, Arrington said she couldn't tell she was driving on the dirt before her windshield caved in.
Jurors heard closing arguments after Arrington's testimony and deliberated two hours before leaving court for the day. They were expected to resume deliberations Monday morning.

This makes me so angry, I don't get it how can driving drunk be manslaughter and shooting some in the head be homicide?You don't get the difference between an unintended, but predictable outcome of a negligent act, and the intended outcome of an intentional act?

Why not?

I don't understand why drinking and driving is not premeditated mass murder.

I don't understand why drinking and driving is not premeditated mass murder.Do you believe that every drunken driver commits mass murder every time he drinks and drives?

And as far as that "premeditation" charge, when you can prove that in a particular case, you let the D.A. know. Until then, you're just spouting rhetoric.

Ok, then if they're caught driving drunk but haven't hit anyone, how about calling it attempted murder or reckless endangerment?

Reckless endangerment might fly, but attempted murder? You guys need to get a grip and learn what "intent" means.

Anyway, without doing some research, I'm not sure at all that the penalty for reckless endangerment is greater than the penalty for drunk driving.

I'm slightly (read completely) baffled. Do US drivers regularly wash/wipe their hands clean while driving? Is there some health and safety regulation requiring germ free hands on the steering wheel?

Could anyone familiar with this habit explain it please?

I'm slightly (read completely) baffled. Do US drivers regularly wash/wipe their hands clean while driving? Is there some health and safety regulation requiring germ free hands on the steering wheel?

Could anyone familiar with this habit explain it please?

It's called "Being an asshat behind the wheel" and, unfortunately, too many suffer from this affliction and the only cure appears to be the complete removal of access to gasoline.

I'm slightly (read completely) baffled. Do US drivers regularly wash/wipe their hands clean while driving? Is there some health and safety regulation requiring germ free hands on the steering wheel?

Could anyone familiar with this habit explain it please?

And eat, use the cellphone, dress and apply makeup(!) and I'd heard of some rude and naughty things too(!!!)

Some people practically LIVE in them and others actually do :(

Reckless endangerment might fly, but attempted murder? You guys need to get a grip and learn what "intent" means.

Anyway, without doing some research, I'm not sure at all that the penalty for reckless endangerment is greater than the penalty for drunk driving.

MANSLAUGHTER is the term you seek. Manslaughter is charged when a person causes the death of another in an accident but without malice and intent. Cases of impairment are those in which the suspect cannot be expected to make a rational or safe judgement due to intoxication or other factor preventing it.

If your riding lawnmower throttle broke and you ran over Billy and killed him, you probably did not want to. That's manslaughter. If it did because you knew prior to that the throttle was bad and capable of severe actions yet ignored that, that is gross neglience and it may become more than a manslaughter.

If you wanted Billy dead and got drunk to "gain the courage", that is murder and premeditated plus it is a felony possibly (in the case of using a car, certainly).

The woman in Boise that clipped the female cyclist with her Hummer was stoned and in possesion of drugs that are usually only prescribed or found in Europe...she committed several felonies for possessing controlled substances and her charges for killing the cyclist are much worse due to the drugs.

Why more so than alcohol? I don't know, doesn't make sense but possession of alcohol isn't normally a felony like drugs. Go figure. They keep saying drunk driving laws are becoming tougher but you still hear stories.

The government makes money off the sale of alcohol but not from the sale of illegal drugs, that's why.

She was pickled to the gills. That's just some ridiculous excuse for her behavior. That said, I know plenty of germ freaks. Antimicrobial everything... :rolleyes:

(As I am currently eating olives out of the bowl after petting my brother's dogs, you can safely say that I am not one of them.)

Not sure, but I think it's OCD. I mean, I'd wash my hands after petting the dog, but before eating...But washing your hands repeatedly-- I think that's OCD.

An accident is something you have no control over... like smashing my thumb into oblivion this morning.

If you injure / kill someone after choosing to drink (to excess) and then choosing to drive then it should rate a more severe penalty as it's not entirely accidental.. many bad choices have to be made.

On another note...did someone say olives ?

Mmmmmmm.

The garlic stuffed ones are the best. :)

Tease.

Depending on the circumstances of the incident, we still have a law on the books in California that allows a second degree murder charge. I think it needs to be worse than her actions, though.

The story says she was driving on a suspended license, and had recently been to a MADD function, but doesn't say why her license was suspended.
If she had a prior DUI and committed a homicide while committing another DUI, that could result in a 2nd degree murder charge in California. We discussed exactly this situation in one of my criminal justice classes a while ago and that fact was made very clear. With no prior DUI convictions, it would probably be charged as manslaughter.

The punishment for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated with a prior DUI in California is 15 years-life imprisonment (see California penal code section 191.5(2)(d)- www.leginfo.ca.gov is a great place to look up California laws from their source). The punishment for normal 2nd degree murder is also 15-life.

With no prior DUI she'd be looking at PC191.5(a)-gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (a felony punishable by 4, 6, or 10 years in state prison) or PC191.5(b)-vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (a wobbler punishable by up to 1 year in county jail or 16 months, 2 years, or 4 years in state prison). So with no prior DUI convictions one could kill somebody while driving intoxicated and have it punished as a misdemeanor in California.

I know this particular incident didn't happen in California...just clarifying for the previous poster and adding some information for the "penalties aren't harsh enough" discussion.

It would be instructive to compare various state laws regarding drunk drivers. California's is pretty good, but we have it only because of intense lobbying by MADD and similar organizations. MADD is a nationwide organization, but I suspect it has been more successful in some states than others.

Circa 2000, Michele Young killed Cece Krone, who had stopped to rest on a wide uppaved road shoulder at the end of a climb. Because Ms. Krone had a previous DUI, had about a 0.20 BAC (before 11 a.m., yet), and had her 10-year-old son in the car, she was given a 7-year prison sentence. The public defender was truly inspiring: "Well, I hope the jury got what they wanted -- they just sent a 50-year-old housewife and mother to prison." No, the jury did not get what I wanted; I was hoping for at least 12 years prison and permanent license revocation. Marin County bicyclists deserve credit for organizing a courtroom vigil, in which a group of them stood silently and respectfully in the back of the courtroom, helmets in hand, during many phases of the trial. Numerous other cyclists, myself included, wrote letters to the judge, who actually read every one, even though he publicly declared that he would read letters only from the victim's immediate family members. As far as I know, but have been unable to verify, Michele Young has been out on parole for at least 2 years -- scary thought!

I see it as a popular crime. So light punishment is handed out or it would seem it is ok to drink to drive.

SECOND DUI/DWI

A.R.S. §28-1381(A)(1)(2)

Class 1 Misdemeanor

When a minority of the population is involved we don't really care all of a sudden.

POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUG

A.R.S. §13-3407

Range from Class 4 Felony to possible reduction to Class 1 Misdemeanor.

The offense shall be treated as a felony for all purposes until the court enters an order designating the offense a misdemeanor.

You don't get the difference between an unintended, but predictable outcome of a negligent act, and the intended outcome of an intentional act?

Why not?

Cardozo could not have said it more succinctly.

You don't get the difference between an unintended, but predictable outcome of a negligent act, and the intended outcome of an intentional act?

Why not?

manslaughter
Unlawful killing without intent to kill. It can be voluntary (such as a deadly fist fight) or involuntary (such as an accident caused by a speeding car).


Homocide
the killing of a human being by another human being


I don't see how DWI/DUI is not homocide.
Voluntary your not suppose to be in a fist fight in the first place.
Involuntary there is no accident in getting drunk it is a choice.
Drinking and driving is a predictable outcome you will kill people.

This makes me so angry, I don't get it how can driving drunk be manslaughter and shooting some in the head be homicide?

The truck is a loaded weapon and you go pointing it around everywhere at people while you're drunk and stupid.
Even worse off!
This person doesn't even have a license and swerved twice before hitting him in the bike lane.
To top it off we have all the facts and she lies.
.

How about the woman who smokes in bed, falls asleep, catches the bed on fire, kills everybody in the house but herself.

Tobacco is a stinky, dirty, destructive addiction - despicable in every respect. Still, does the woman deserve to face homicide charges? Of course not. That is why there is a difference between the charges of homicide and manslaughter.

This woman's actions are despicable. But think about this. People do all sorts of things while driving that are equally dangerous but are not illegal. Driving while sleepy, dialing, texting, etc. is just as voluntary and just as dangerous as driving while intoxicated. When a driver kills someone because they were reaching for the baby's bottle or yelling at the kids, it's just an accident. When they're driving drunk, it's manslaughter.

Short answer: Manslaughter IS a form of homicide.

Long answer:

DUI is not homicide if nobody dies because homicide is the simple act of one human being killing another human being.

DUI resulting in death is homicide because one human being caused the death of another human being.

Homicide covers a wide variety of situations, ranging from accidental homicide (not a crime) to premeditated, intentional murder.

Accidental homicide can occur in several circumstances. Using a vehicular example, a child runs out into the road between parked cars. A car traveling at or below the speed limit, with a clean windshield free of cracks or other visual obstructions, with no significant problems affecting the vehicle that the driver is aware of, driver is paying attention to the road, etc. strikes the child and kills him/her. That would most likely be determined to be an accident. There was nothing more the driver could have done, and the driver did not intentionally or negligently kill the child. An accidental homicide could also occur with one person shooting another person in the head. This is most often deemed an accident in the situation where a couple of kids get ahold of a gun, haven't been educated on how to use or handle firearms, and one accidentally shoots and kills the other.

Manslaughter involves the negligent killing of a human being. From the vehicular example above, if the driver was speeding prior to killing the child, that would constitute vehicular manslaughter, which is the unlawful killing of a human being while operating a vehicle in an illegal manner. The same is true if the driver of the vehicle was DUI, since DUI is illegal. With the gun situation, manslaughter could be the negligent shooting in the head of one guy by another drunk guy who didn't mean to do it but shouldn't have been holding a gun while drunk. Manslaughter could also apply to a "sudden quarrel/heat of passion" situation where one person shoots another in the head without thinking of the consequences but with intent to kill that person.

There are already heavier punishments for killing somebody while DUI than while speeding or otherwise operating a vehicle in a negligent/unlawful manner, since for some reason people think driving drunk and otherwise obeying all laws is worse than driving too fast for conditions or while distracted. Going off on a bit of a tangent, I think the same laws that apply to DUI should apply to all vehicular situations. Get caught speeding, get off relatively easy the 1st time. Kill somebody while speeding with a prior speeding conviction, go to jail for 15 years to life.

Some additional reading material (from www.leginfo.ca.gov)

PC 195. Homicide is excusable in the following cases:
1. When committed by accident and misfortune, or in doing any
other lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution,
and without any unlawful intent.
2. When committed by accident and misfortune, in the heat of
passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden
combat, when no undue advantage is taken, nor any dangerous weapon
used, and when the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

See PC 197 for situations where homicide is justifiable (it's a bit long to post here).

Found this recently, seems to present the other side of the coin, after a fashion.

"Killer cyclist dodges prison (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article474019.ece)"

You don't get the difference between an unintended, but predictable outcome of a negligent act, and the intended outcome of an intentional act?

Why not?


Ummmm.......I'm pretty sure that drunk driving isn't simple negligence. EVERYBODY knows that if you drink and drive, you can kill somebody. Just like I know if I start firing my gun up into the air, I might unintentionally and negligently force some lead into some babies crib while she's giggling at her teddy bear...or something like that. I mean, I knew it was dangerous and potentially deadly, but I was just projecting a speeding mass of metal uncontrollably through space and it happened to hit somebody....oops.

rene, it seems like you're disagreeing with Blue Order at first, but then the rest of your post provides an example of a negligent act that could have unintended but predictable outcomes like he describes. There is no support for your statement "that drunk driving isn't simple negligence." Doing something dangerous, but without the intent to kill anybody, even though "everybody knows that...you can kill somebody" would be a negligent act.

Your gun example is a great description of "an unintended, but predictable outcome of a negligent act." A fatal traffic accident involving a drunk driver is also "an unintended, but predictable outcome of a negligent act."

Just like a bullet fired up into the air, the drunk driver on the road has the potential to cause indiscriminate death, but more likely than not, just like the bullet, the drunk driver will arrive harmlessly at his/her destination without hurting anybody.

Just like somebody firing a gun up into the air, the drunk driver doesn't intend to kill, but a reasonable person can see a person shooting a gun up into the air or driving drunk is acting in an unsafe/negligent/criminal manner and should be punished. If somebody dies as a result of the person's negligent act, the punishment should be severe. Just because the negligent subject didn't intend to kill the victim, that doesn't lessen the value of the life lost.

Doing something dangerous, but without the intent to kill anybody, even though "everybody knows that...you can kill somebody" would be a negligent act.

That's not correct. Doing something dangerous does not indicate negligence at all.

Negligence involves a failure to exercise care or precautions that a reasonable and prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances. Riding a bike in traffic is dangerous. Riding a bike in traffic with a blindfold on would be negligent. Crossing a street is not dangerous. Crossing a street with a blindfold on would be negligent.

Doing something dangerous, but without the intent to kill anybody, even though "everybody knows that...you can kill somebody" would be a negligent act.


That's not correct. Doing something dangerous does not indicate negligence at all.

Negligence involves a failure to exercise care or precautions that a reasonable and prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances. Riding a bike in traffic is dangerous. Riding a bike in traffic with a blindfold on would be negligent. Crossing a street is not dangerous. Crossing a street with a blindfold on would be negligent.

More to the point, doing something dangerous without the intent to kill anybody even though everybody knows that - would be an intentional act.

Doing something dangerous, but without the intent to kill anybody, even though "everybody knows that...you can kill somebody" would be a negligent act.



More to the point, doing something dangerous without the intent to kill anybody even though everybody knows that - would be an intentional act.

How can something lacking intent be an intentional act?

EVERYBODY knows that if you drink and drive, you can kill somebody.

EVERYBODY also knows that if you don't drink and drive, you can still kill somebody. What's yer point?

EVERYBODY also knows that if you don't drink and drive, you can still kill somebody. What's yer point?

The point is we are left with laws which don't fit the crime. http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5680557&postcount=20
Or
When people choose to drive under the intoxicant and kill 15,000 people a year.
http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5677688&postcount=1

People just want to drink and kill people they don't care.
3386 people arrested in AZ USA 2006 for drinking and driving Thanksgiving to New Years
http://www.azgohs.gov/UserFiles/DUI%20Task%20force%20stats%20407.pdf

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/StopImpaired/planners/crackdown2007/planner/resources/creative/LOW/Sober-BLUE.jpg


we have our advertising section here
http://www.azgohs.gov/quick_links/traffic_info.asp
and here
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/StopImpaired/planners/crackdown2007/planner/resources/creative/LOW/Sober-BLUE.jpg

The point is we are left with laws which don't fit the crime. http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5680557&postcount=20
Or
When people choose to drive under the intoxicant and kill 15,000 people a year.
http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5677688&postcount=1

People just want to drink and kill people they don't care.
3386 people arrested in AZ USA 2006 for drinking and driving Thanksgiving to New Years
http://www.azgohs.gov/UserFiles/DUI%20Task%20force%20stats%20407.pdf

You're talking state laws--some states are very much less lenient. If the killer in this case is found to have been under the influence of something, doesn't the crime get worse? Or to turn it around--if the killer had not been under the influence of anything, I bet the consequences would be much less than even this disparity.

Now you're talking national statistics and including alcohol related fatalities which did not include bicyclists...

How many of those people arrested DUI for that period killed someone?

Or more to the point, how many of AZ's 2006 29 bicycle fatalities were caused by DUI drivers?

http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NCSA/Content/TSF/2006/810802.pdf

I'm pretty sure that drunk driving isn't simple negligence.
There is no support for your statement "that drunk driving isn't simple negligence."Actually, rene is right on that point, although accidentally so. I would argue that DUI goes beyond ordinary negligence; it is at least criminal negligence, and I would argue amounts to gross negligence. What makes it grossly negligent is the element of recklessness involved-- the DUI driver knows (or should know) the risks to others, but drinks and drives anyway.

You're talking state laws--some states are very much less lenient. If the killer in this case is found to have been under the influence of something, doesn't the crime get worse? Or to turn it around--if the killer had not been under the influence of anything, I bet the consequences would be much less than even this disparity.

Now you're talking national statistics and including alcohol related fatalities which did not include bicyclists...

How many of those people arrested DUI for that period killed someone?

Or more to the point, how many of AZ's 2006 29 bicycle fatalities were caused by DUI drivers?

http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NCSA/Content/TSF/2006/810802.pdf


What is the point to this?
I was giving analogies, you want to tear them down.
Using a sober driver comparison (note drugged driving is zero tolerance not .08), a minority of people, and since a large number of people get away with crimes why worry about the 15,000 dead people.

http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/213491


Bicyclist's death negligent homicide
Jurors can't agree on manslaughter for intoxicated woman in 2006 crash
By Kim Smith
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 11.27.2007

A Tucson woman who told jurors last week she accidentally struck and killed a 45-year-old bicyclist while reaching for hand sanitizer was convicted Monday of negligent homicide and two counts of aggravated driving under the influence.
Jurors had been asked to convict Melissa Arrington of manslaughter, but they could not reach a unanimous verdict on that more-serious charge. When sentenced Jan. 22, Arrington could receive from four years up to 11.75 years in prison, said Deputy Pima County Attorney Jonathan Mosher.
Paul L'Ecuyer, 45, was riding his Schwinn in the middle of a 5-foot-wide bike lane about 8:40 p.m. on Dec. 1, 2006, when Arrington swerved off the road, struck him and then continued for 800 feet before stopping, according to official reports.
A blood test taken 2 1/2 hours after the collision showed Arrington, who was driving on a suspended license for a prior DUI, had a blood-alcohol content of 0.156 percent — nearly double the minimum DUI level. A witness to the crash testified Arrington swerved off the road twice before the collision.
Mosher told jurors during opening statements that Arrington should be convicted of manslaughter because she showed recklessness by not only driving drunk, but also by driving drunk six months after attending a Mothers Against Drunk Driving event designed to show the results of such behavior.
Assistant county public defenders Matthew Messmer and Michael Rosenbluth contended the crash was simply a tragic accident.
Arrington testified Wednesday that she had three drinks at Berky's, 5769 E. Speedway, but felt "completely fine" when she got into her pickup truck to drive home.
Arrington said she was traveling between 45 and 50 mph when she decided to wash her hands.
"I had reached over to get the hand sanitizer, and all of a sudden my windshield caved in," Arrington said.
She didn't slam on her brakes because she knew there was traffic behind her, Arrington said.
Thinking she'd struck a large animal, Arrington said, she got out of the truck and walked down the shoulder of the road looking for it.
It was only when she got back to her truck that she saw L'Ecuyer in the bed of her truck, Arrington said.
Arrington testified that she tried to resuscitate L'Ecuyer despite knowing it was too late.
● Contact reporter Kim Smith at 573-4241 or kimsmith@azstarnet.com.

All sort of laws on the books . . .
Including in AZ that it is mandatory for motor vehehicles to allow 3 ft. of space between vehicle and the bicyclists. Also laws on driving while intoxicated. Also laws . . . and on and on.
Enforcement? Attorneys are the answer . . . get me off the hook, fix that DUI!
Example: I was hit by a pickup truck at 45 mph on Oracle Road, near Tucson, AZ. while pedaling my bicycle on right side of the road in the 'safety pulloff' lane.
Driver was intoxicated, lots of empty beer cans in the vehcicle. Police arrested and handcuffed him
and issued a citation.
He had his driver's license suspended for 3 months.
His reason fior driving drunk: "I saw a friend of mine getting hurt on the job, so I needed a few beers." My reply. "Have all the beers you want . . . but don't drive."
This female had excuses, not reasons . . . and a very good attorney! She also stated she "thought I'd hit a large animal" . . . clean your hands, texting, change the radio dial, load in a CD , answer the phone, scratch my ass, drinking my hot coffee, biting into that sloppy burger, shaving, puttin' on my makeup . . .
are excuses. Driving takes 100% of our attention (as does bicycling)!
Drive drunk? Take away their license . . . permantently.

Look at the one in NYC here earlier this week, busted a guy for driving without his license and then they find out he's had over 40 suspensions for DUI... I mean come on... how much does it take before this asshat gets tossed into a cell?

What is the point to this?
I was giving analogies, you want to tear them down.
Using a sober driver comparison (note drugged driving is zero tolerance not .08), a minority of people, and since a large number of people get away with crimes why worry about the 15,000 dead people.

Point is that here's this thread about a bicyclist getting hit and you want to turn it into a MADD propaganda piece. This is a bicycle forum, and I'm not sure what 14,300+ alcohol related traffic deaths which did not involve bicyclists matter, specifically pertaining to this accident. Seriously, how many of the 29 bicycle deaths in AZ involved alcohol? Does the percentage have any correllation to the national alcohol related traffic deaths that you brought up? That would be a lot more to the point.

Thanks for posting the follow-up. What I'd like to see is harsher punishments for drivers where rights of way infractions result in injury or death. I think after some pretty harsh sentences are handed down, drivers might start to "see" us. Actually, much the way MADD has made a dent in drunk driving, but of course that should be it's own thread, now shouldn't it...?

Jurors had been asked to convict Melissa Arrington of manslaughter, but they could not reach a unanimous verdict on that more-serious charge. When sentenced Jan. 22, Arrington


yet

Recently someone hits a kid and is charged with murder.

How does these two compare
The person as far as we know has no known prior convictions unlike mellisa
They were under the extreme dui unlike mellisa
The went through a right turn lane and ended up on the shoulder on the other side, and didn't serve off the road like mellissa
Yet this person is charged with murder
Mellissa laughs at her victims and doesn't get homicide.


So why why do we get two different sentences?

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/220718