And also if the DA prosecutes and LOSES, it could really hurt a potential civil lawsuit.

I don't know about the state it happened in. But in FL and I believe all of the US, there is a big difference between a civil case which seeks financial redress and a criminal case which seeks to impose a criminal penalty.

I even have personal experience in this. I was run down by a guy driving an SUV because he decided to drive on the wrong side of the road before turning left. He just flat did not see me even though I was there as big as life and clearly visible.

The driver got off on a technicality so he got no points on his drivers license. But the circumstances were so blatant that no one disputed his being at fault for the accident so there was never any doubt about the fact that he and his insurance company being liable for damages.

Pat

Similarly, is the instance that was very well covered in Bicycling, in the article, "Broken" (posted on the web, Dec. 11, 2007) ... it runs you over just reading it, e.g.,

Broken
Every time we take to the open road, we entrust our lives to a safety net of legal protection and basic human decency. That system has failed.

Link: http://www.bicycling.com/article/1,6610,s1-3-12-16637-1,00.html?cm_mmc=RSS-_-bicrsshome-_-NA-_-NA

:)

"...we still have a long way to go. It's a cultural shift that needs to take place - a change in how we are in our cars. A change in TV commercials that are always pushing speed and horsepower, a change in the mind-set that racing around in a car is cool, and a change in society's understanding so we acknowledge the fact that being inattentive at the wheel of a car is criminal."

Maybe most basically, we need to change the language we use to describe the consequences. "Call them crashes, Not accidents."

*************************************

It's no accident when someone choses "distraction" over attention to their first task when driving... which is driving.

Maybe most basically, we need to change the language we use to describe the consequences. "Call them crashes, Not accidents."

*************************************

It's no accident when someone choses "distraction" over attention to their first task when driving... which is driving.

Do you not drive? I don't know how any of us who drive can't read that story and say, "There but for the grace of god."

Having compassion for the victim does not mean we can't have compassion for a young 20 something girl and her baby.

This DA is prejudiced against cyclists.

I see what you're saying. Anyone know if this DA is elected or appointed?

Do you not drive? I don't know how any of us who drive can't read that story and say, "There but for the grace of god."

Having compassion for the victim does not mean we can't have compassion for a young 20 something girl and her baby.

Sure I drive.

And I don't make phone calls while driving, I don't search for CDs under the seat, I don't reach back and rummage through the groceries, I don't watch DVDs.... I drive.

I'm not perfect... but I have learned to keep my eyes on the road and pay attention to what is in front of me. If I drop something or need to answer the phone or look at a map... I pull over. It's that simple. So easy anyone can do it.... and should.

Here's another issue that was not mentioned in the link to the DA's letter to the editor:

The cyclist who was killed had had a previous serious accident with a vehicle. It happened a couple of years ago, and it took her nearly a year to fully recuperate.

This fact would surely have been used by defense counsel if the DA tried to press charges.

The defense could easily argue that the cyclist had a "history" or "pattern" of accidents due to cycling on the roads. Lacking eyewitnesses to the initial contact, and lacking physical evidence as to lateral lane positions, defense counsel could reasonably argue that it was the cyclist who may have been at fault.

While I understand all of the rationalizing and justifying by the DA and the family, I think an analogy might help. In my younger days, everybody drank and drove, because it was accepted. We knew that the worst that would happen was a slap on the wrist and an admonition to not do it again. Nowdays, does any sane law-abiding citizen drink and drive? If you do, you are asking for serious time in prison. A lot of time.

I submit that the increased emphasis in the last couple of decades on prosecuting drunk drivers has changed driving behavior significantly for the better. My kids are just out of college, and believe me, kids their age ALL routinely have designated drivers. It has become part of the culture.

If we were just as serious about insisting that drivers maintain awareness of their more-vulnerable fellow road users (like cyclists), we might have a chance to similarly modify behavior. These days, people avoid drinking and driving because they are afraid of the consequences. If they were equally afraid of the consequences of hitting a cyclist, I submit that they would pay more attention. It's just basic human nature.

I would like to see everybody driving cars absolutely terrified of even the idea of hitting a cyclist. Unfortunately, when a DA makes a joke of it by saying things like, "If taking your eyes off the road were a crime, we would all be guilty of it," he is only reinforcing the notion in the minds of the driving public that it's OK to let your attention wander, even if it cause someone's death.

It is also is part of the DA's job to determine when not to bring cases, depending on the facts. Interjecting a little dose of reality: when and if the day ever comes that, e.g., "everybody driving cars [is] absolutely terrified of even the idea of hitting a cyclist," then bicycling on public streets will be outlawed. There's a lot more of them than there is of us.

:)

It is also is part of the DA's job to determine when not to bring cases, depending on the facts.
You're giving DAs more credit for being competent and conscientious than I do.

Interjecting a little dose of reality: when and if the day ever comes that, e.g., "everybody driving cars [is] absolutely terrified of even the idea of hitting a cyclist," then bicycling on public streets will be outlawed. There's a lot more of them than there is of us.

So we should just give up on the idea of holding motorists accountable for running over us?

You're giving DAs more credit for being competent and conscientious than I do.



So we should just give up on the idea of holding motorists accountable for running over us?


if "us" means cyclists, then running over a pedestrian ought to be a more severe accounting: except when drunk drivers drive over a curb to kill a bicyclist that is on the sidewalk (as happened in Dana Pt., CA just a couple of weeks ago). Pedestrians generally are not putting themselves in harms way with the same hubris as your average cyclist.

:)

pedestrians have sidewalks, cyclists and cars share the roadway, your analogy is ludicrous

Here's another issue that was not mentioned in the link to the DA's letter to the editor:

The cyclist who was killed had had a previous serious accident with a vehicle. It happened a couple of years ago, and it took her nearly a year to fully recuperate.

This fact would surely have been used by defense counsel if the DA tried to press charges.

The defense could easily argue that the cyclist had a "history" or "pattern" of accidents due to cycling on the roads. Lacking eyewitnesses to the initial contact, and lacking physical evidence as to lateral lane positions, defense counsel could reasonably argue that it was the cyclist who may have been at fault.

Under most rules of Evidence, previous similar acts are inadmissable unless they are very similar to the acts in question and frequent enough in order to show a custom or pattern. Just the fact that she was in a previous crash is not enough.

My take on it is that he really didn't handle it any differently than he would have if she had killed another motorist. I think it was a reasonable action under the circumstance. It may point out that laws need to be changed.

Two issues not mentioned in his letter are that DA's have to decide how much time to give to "major" cases versus "minor" cases, and that may affect his decision considerably. Also, DA's like to have a good conviction rate, so they're not going to be very eager to take on cases they don't think can be won.

My take on it is that he really didn't handle it any differently than he would have if she had killed another motorist. I think it was a reasonable action under the circumstance. It may point out that laws need to be changed.

Two issues not mentioned in his letter are that DA's have to decide how much time to give to "major" cases versus "minor" cases, and that may affect his decision considerably. Also, DA's like to have a good conviction rate, so they're not going to be very eager to take on cases they don't think can be won.

Redding isn't Miami, Chicago or New York, major murder centers of the US. Redding is a podunk one horse town, pop 100,000 in the podunk 2 horse county of Shasta, pop. 160,000. This is probably the only homocide he has on his plate at this time, so it is by far one his most major cases, yet he passes on it.

I can't believe that his docket is so full of shootings, stabbings, rapes to prosecute so he can't devote time to this homocide.

He's a coward.

pedestrians have sidewalks, cyclists and cars share the roadway, your analogy is ludicrous

Your typical P&R-style mannerless, brainless thinking is an inspiration :)

feeling a bit lonely on the outside, wags?

Just imagine if the same woman, doing the same thing, turning around and reaching into the back seat while driving, hit a cop who was outside his vehicle while doing a traffic stop. Hanging would be too good for her.


A local motorist was just slapped with a mere misdemeanor for leaving the moving lane and striking a constable who was on the shoulder, tending to a traffic stop. It's not just bicyclists whose lives are worth nothing. Mobile phone usage was believed to have been involved. Had alcohol been involved, the motorist would have been slammed hard by the criminal justice system. It's a crying shame that impairment due to alcohol is punished harshly, while impairment due to willful inattention is forgiven.

It's a crying shame that impairment due to alcohol is punished harshly, while impairment due to willful inattention is forgiven.

I'm not innocent of driving after a couple beers, but I'd say that doing so is also willful inattention.

A local motorist was just slapped with a mere misdemeanor for leaving the moving lane and striking a constable who was on the shoulder, tending to a traffic stop. It's not just bicyclists whose lives are worth nothing. Mobile phone usage was believed to have been involved. Had alcohol been involved, the motorist would have been slammed hard by the criminal justice system. It's a crying shame that impairment due to alcohol is punished harshly, while impairment due to willful inattention is forgiven.

See, when its a cop they charge the driver criminally. It was a misdeamenor, which is the lowest criminal charge, but still a crime. Was the cop killed?

I live in Redding and not only am I following this case very closely but I also am a health care worker and I know Dr Mann. Dr Mann is a very compassionate man who is obviously forgiving, also I don't think Sheri would want this young mother spend time in jail. That being said the D.A. was quoted in an earlier article in the paper as saying that since there were no witnesses it couldn't be proven that Sheri didn't cross the fog line and may have been in the traffic lane. This doesn't matter as by law we have the right to be in the traffic lane and the fact that the D.A. didn't make this clear the the general public is very concerning. In regards to SSP's post if I remember correctly the woman who hit Sheri was the only one who hit her, the second vehicle actually only hit her bike which had been thrown into traffic. I am also an active member in the Shasta wheelmen bike club and the D.A. has agreed to meet with us so that he can hear our concerns. In my opinion I respect the family's decision not to press charges but I do think a huge opportunity was missed, the woman could have been given community service such as speaking to students about the dangers of inattentive driving.