Advocacy & Safety - Kill a nine year old, pay $1000

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20090304/NEWS01/90303026&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL

Another example of our car superiority complex or reasonable punishment for an extremely guilt-stricken, remorseful mother of 2?

For clarity, 9 year old Erica Forney was struck by Michelle Smith as Smith was texting to her own children while driving to pick them up from school.


Fort Collins driver pleads guilty in cell phone-related accident that killed girl
BY NATE TAYLOR • NATETAYLOR@COLORADOAN.COM • MARCH 4, 2009

The Fort Collins woman who was driving an SUV that struck and killed
9-year-old Erica Forney in November pleaded guilty Tuesday in Larimer County court to careless driving resulting in death and agreed to serve 24 months probation and pay a $300 fine.

Michelle Smith made her first appearance in court since the crash, which police say occurred when she got distracted by her cell phone, and also spoke publicly for the first time.

Erica Forney’s parents, Daren and Shelley Forney, and several other family members attended the hearing.

Smith apologized to the Forney family Tuesday and cried as she read a statement to the court.

“I was on my way home from work and took my eyes off the road, and in a short time, I changed the Forneys’ lives forever,” said Smith, who is the mother of a 1- and 2-year-old.

Smith’s lawyer, Mark Herber, said she has been greatly affected by the crash and has been seeing a therapist and psychologist. She said no matter what punishment the court gave, it couldn’t compare with the punishment she’s put herself through.

“If I could take their pain and sadness on to myself today, I would,” Smith said.

Daren Forney, with his wife by his side, read a note to the judge explaining how they’ve been affected by their daughter’s death and how Erica was their “sunshine.” He described her as a natural comedian who loved to explore rocks, plants and animals.

“Our hope is people will learn from this tragedy to prevent acts like this in the future,” Daren Forney said.

The Forney family declined to comment about the guilty plea but provided the following statement:

“We would like to take the opportunity to thank the community for all the prayers and support that you have given to us since the passing of our daughter Erica Leanne Forney. We are extremely grateful for everything that our family, friends and neighbors have done for us during this very difficult time. Erica will be loved and missed by those who knew her, but her spirit will forever live on with us.”

The agreement Smith reached with prosecutors, which was approved by Judge Christine Carney, requires her to also:

> Complete 150 hours of community service.

> Pay $500 to Autism Society of America and $250 each to Hospice of Northern Colorado, Foothills Gateway, Hearts and Horses, and the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program.

> Complete a responsible driving class.

> Write a letter of apology to the Forney family within 30 days.

> Write a letter of apology to be published in area newspapers within 60 days.

The maximum penalty for misdemeanor careless driving resulting in death is one year in prison and a $1,000 fine.

Police say Smith became distracted while driving her vehicle and struck Erica Forney head on in the neighborhood near Coyote Ridge Elementary School. The speed limit in the area is 25 miles per hour. Forney was riding her bicycle against traffic, according to witnesses, but was in the bike lane.

Remember this is the criminal part, the civil(the suing part) comes later.
Bob

Remember this is the criminal part, the civil(the suing part) comes later.
Bob

But is it more of a criminal action than what the punishment displays? She chose to become a negligent driver and killed a 9 year old.

The genocide continues.

The genocide continues.

Will Spike Bike return?

-Kurt

It would be very simple to chip a car with an interference module
that would scramble a fone signal while the ignition was in the 'On' position.

Actually, she's only paying a $300 fine. The maximum is $1,000, plus 2 years in prison (she's on 2 year's probation.).

The conviction for careless driving means the civil case will be settled quickly for the full policy amount. But what is the full policy amount? The minimum in Colorado is $25,000. Of course, this driver could have more, but the amount is still likely to be insulting-- Is the 9 year old girl's life worth $100,000? $150,000? Whatever the policy limit, that's all her family will receive.

So, I think instead of settling for these paltry sums, lawyers are going to have to start getting creative. The cell phone industry lobbies heavily to water down legislation banning cell phone use while driving. Given that, I think it's only fair, and logical, to bring the cell phone industry into court when a distracted driver kills. The insurance policy carried by the individual driver may have a relatively low policy limit, but the cell phone companies aren't similarly constrained, and their lobbying to protect cell use while driving makes them at least as culpable as the driver who is using a cell and kills.

So, I think instead of settling for these paltry sums, lawyers are going to have to start getting creative. The cell phone industry lobbies heavily to water down legislation banning cell phone use while driving. Given that, I think it's only fair, and logical, to bring the cell phone industry into court when a distracted driver kills. The insurance policy carried by the individual driver may have a relatively low policy limit, but the cell phone companies aren't similarly constrained, and their lobbying to protect cell use while driving makes them at least as culpable as the driver who is using a cell and kills.

I never understood why the cigarette/cancer precedents that get people
lots of money for smoking by their own choice don't apply to alcohol
and cell phone usage.
I know when I was younger, drinking was glorified. It was part of growing up.
Tv, society encouraged it. I think Boones Farm owes me lots of money for believing
it and embarrassing myself many times. Same with cell phones...They owe
all the people who got hit while the perps were using their service.

I never understood why the cigarette/cancer precedents that get people
lots of money for smoking by their own choice don't apply to alcohol
and cell phone usage.
I know when I was younger, drinking was glorified. It was part of growing up.
Tv, society encouraged it. I think Boones Farm owes me lots of money for believing
it and embarrassing myself many times. Same with cell phones...They owe
all the people who got hit while the perps were using their service.I think a better analogy would be if a consortium of alcoholic drink producers vigorously lobbied against DUI laws, and the justice system only "punished" the inevitable drunken killer by exacting $25,000 to $250,000-- depending on what policy limit the driver chooses-- from the driver's insurance company.

While I don't see much point in putting this mother of two young children in jail, I can't understand why her driver's license wasn't permanently revoked or at least suspended for a very long time. Same goes for anyone with DUIs or who negligently harms someone with their vehicle.

I am firmly against any type of cell phone scrambler or a total ban on cell phone use in a vehicle. I for one use my cell phone for GPS navigation which relies on the same carrier network that phone conversations share. Additionally, a growing number of vehicles and navigation systems rely on cell connectivity for navigation, traffic, weather and emergency response services. My cell phone also serves as an MP3 player, connected to my car's audio system. I do not text, e-mail, twitter or blog on my phone while driving. My passengers should be allowed to use their phones at will.

What I would like is much stricter enforcement of existing traffic laws to dissuade distracted and aggressive driving. It seems the problem is not a lack of laws, its a lack of education, courtesy and concentration a significant subset drivers. Beyond that there is simply not enough enforcement to make most of these people care.

-Old Army

I never understood why the cigarette/cancer precedents that get people
lots of money for smoking by their own choice don't apply to alcohol
and cell phone usage.
I know when I was younger, drinking was glorified. It was part of growing up.
Tv, society encouraged it. I think Boones Farm owes me lots of money for believing
it and embarrassing myself many times. Same with cell phones...They owe
all the people who got hit while the perps were using their service.

The tobacco companies for years engaged in a conspiracy to mislead people about the dangers of smoking, and for a long time outright denied that smoking caused cancer. That's why they are paying now. The alcohol and cell phone industries have never published studies showing their products were safe to use while driving.

It would be very simple to chip a car with an interference module
that would scramble a fone signal while the ignition was in the 'On' position.


Wouldn't stop testing though, people could still compose their text while driving it would just stay in the outbox until the car was switched off and then the phone would transmit. You would probably see a lot more people shutting off their engine at stop lights or when coasting downhill to allow their text messages to send.

I think that's pretty dumb... what about passengers who want to text or use their phone? Instead of creating a complex "safety" chip that people will inevitably bypass, they should be building standard features into cars where the phone plugs into the stereo or speakers so they are always on speakerphone, and they have text-to-speech/speech-to-text abilities. These already exist, they just aren't standard.

Even better would be bluetooth with near field communication technology to immediately pair cell phones by proximity so they are automatically switched to speaker mode with the car. Make it easy and better for people to safely use their phone while driving, they're going to do it anyway no matter how much you try to force them not to.

Actually, she's only paying a $300 fine. The maximum is $1,000, plus 2 years in prison (she's on 2 year's probation.).True, but feel free to read on:

"The agreement Smith reached with prosecutors, which was approved by Judge Christine Carney, requires her to also:
> Complete 150 hours of community service.
> Pay $500 to Autism Society of America and $250 each to Hospice of Northern Colorado, Foothills Gateway, Hearts and Horses, and the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program."

By my math:
$300 fine
$500 Autism Society of America
$250 Hospice of Northern Colorado
$250 Foothills Gateway
$250 Hearts and Horses
$250 Rocky Mountain Raptor Program

$1,800 TOTAL

I think that's pretty dumb... what about passengers who want to text or use their phone? Instead of creating a complex "safety" chip that people will inevitably bypass, they should be building standard features into cars where the phone plugs into the stereo or speakers so they are always on speakerphone, and they have text-to-speech/speech-to-text abilities. These already exist, they just aren't standard.

Even better would be bluetooth with near field communication technology to immediately pair cell phones by proximity so they are automatically switched to speaker mode with the car. Make it easy and better for people to safely use their phone while driving, they're going to do it anyway no matter how much you try to force them not to.Studies show that the Mental distraction of the phone conversation is just as dangerous as drunk drinking; EVEN WITH hands free phones.

I think that's pretty dumb... what about passengers who want to text or use their phone? Instead of creating a complex "safety" chip that people will inevitably bypass, they should be building standard features into cars where the phone plugs into the stereo or speakers so they are always on speakerphone, and they have text-to-speech/speech-to-text abilities. These already exist, they just aren't standard.

Even better would be bluetooth with near field communication technology to immediately pair cell phones by proximity so they are automatically switched to speaker mode with the car. Make it easy and better for people to safely use their phone while driving, they're going to do it anyway no matter how much you try to force them not to.

Studies have shown that it's not the cellphone next to your ear that causes the distraction, it's actually talking to someone who's not there. What ends up happening is that when we talk on a phone, whether hands free or not, our brain visualizes the other person. We picture them talking to us because it helps put context to their speech. We don't have the same problem talking to passengers, because they're right there. My feeling is that cell phone usage in a car should not include texting or talking on it, hands free or not.

I think that's pretty dumb... what about passengers who want to text or use their phone? Instead of creating a complex "safety" chip that people will inevitably bypass, they should be building standard features into cars where the phone plugs into the stereo or speakers so they are always on speakerphone, and they have text-to-speech/speech-to-text abilities. These already exist, they just aren't standard.

Even better would be bluetooth with near field communication technology to immediately pair cell phones by proximity so they are automatically switched to speaker mode with the car. Make it easy and better for people to safely use their phone while driving, they're going to do it anyway no matter how much you try to force them not to.And drunks are going to drive drunk. Do you think it's a good idea to make that easier too?

There's no difference in distraction levels between hand-held and hands-free cell phone use. Studies have shown that the distraction level is the same as driving drunk, regardless of whether the device is hand-held or hands-free (and studies have also shown that the distraction level of talking with a passenger is lower than the distraction level of talking of talking on the cell). People believe that hands-free cell use solves the distraction problem because the cell phone industry has lobbied for hands-free legislation, thereby sending the implicit message that is is safer, when in fact it is not safer.

It probably would have been more of a punishment if the court had taken away her cell phone.

:lol: The last three posts have all said the same thing, so I give to you... The magic study! (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-03-09-drivers-listening-cellphone_N.htm)

True, but feel free to read on:

"The agreement Smith reached with prosecutors, which was approved by Judge Christine Carney, requires her to also:
> Complete 150 hours of community service.
> Pay $500 to Autism Society of America and $250 each to Hospice of Northern Colorado, Foothills Gateway, Hearts and Horses, and the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program."

By my math:
$300 fine
$500 Autism Society of America
$250 Hospice of Northern Colorado
$250 Foothills Gateway
$250 Hearts and Horses
$250 Rocky Mountain Raptor Program

$1,800 TOTALYes, I know, I was just referring to the title of the thread. But yes, your numbers are correct. Still a pittance to pay for a child's life.

It probably would have been more of a punishment if the court had taken away her cell phone.

Here's the deal, from what I can gather (living in the same town, I have a little more info, put not much.) She's not going to text or talk on her phone while driving, I gather that from how seriously remorseful she is. She has learned her lesson, albeit and the expensive of a 9 year old's life. Removing her license, cell phone, or whatever else, is just punishing her for no more than the sake of punishing. Removing her license and cell phone also remove mobility and communication. Is this really what we want to do, Punitively punish her?

I don't know, guys. I'm torn. This woman did not kill this girl out of malice, it was a mistake, and she'll be carrying this around for the rest of her life. Do we want to take her from her kids? Do we want to remove the ability for her to transport her kids? There has to be a means of showing the public that driving is full of huge responsibility, that it bears far greater impact to us than just being a means to get from point A to point B. Is $1800, a driving course, and having to keep her nose clean really want we want to show drivers is all that will happen if they choose irresponsibility while using something so dangerous?

Very sad….

The issue is not phones, distracted driving comes about from all manner of activities drivers choose to participate in while driving. Things like reading maps, reaching for something, eating, dealing with children, and on and on.

The classic in my area, the 18 year old girl who reached into the back seat to grab a cassette tape and drifted into the bike lane and killed an entire family of 4 who were on a family bicycle outing. When public safety arrived on the scene she was in the middle of the street screaming, hysterical, completely beside herself and she was the one who had to be taken by the paramedics due to her emotional state. That girl’s life, her family's lives and the lives of those poor bicyclists were all horribly changed in that one moment of inattention. That girl does not belong in jail; she will pay the price for that act the rest of her life.

For the most part we have created a society that really has no idea the risks to themselves and to others operating a motor vehicle creates. Annually over 50,000 die in vehicle accidents in this country alone, countless more seriously injured.

Be careful out there

Here's the deal, from what I can gather (living in the same town, I have a little more info, put not much.) She's not going to text or talk on her phone while driving, I gather that from how seriously remorseful she is. She has learned her lesson, albeit and the expensive of a 9 year old's life. Removing her license, cell phone, or whatever else, is just punishing her for no more than the sake of punishing. Removing her license and cell phone also remove mobility and communication. Is this really what we want to do, Punitively punish her?

I don't know, guys. I'm torn. This woman did not kill this girl out of malice, it was a mistake, and she'll be carrying this around for the rest of her life. Do we want to take her from her kids? Do we want to remove the ability for her to transport her kids? There has to be a means of showing the public that driving is full of huge responsibility, that it bears far greater impact to us than just being a means to get from point A to point B. Is $1800, a driving course, and having to keep her nose clean really want we want to show drivers is all that will happen if they choose irresponsibility while using something so dangerous?


A cell phone is not a necessity. People did just fine without them 20 years ago.

That's ****ing outrageous. Michelle Smith's negligence deserves jail time.

I don't know, guys. I'm torn. ...

I know how you feel. I have sympathy for both sides of this tragedy. On the other hand, wouldn't the following headline be better for overall safety on the roads?

Driver gets death penalty for killing girl while texting and driving.

It's not that I want to see this particular driver punished severely, but the sentence she was given just says "Eh, this is a bad thing that you did, but not so bad."

Speedo

People use to feel sorry for drunk drivers too! And how they would have to live with the knowledge that they killed someone.

Very sad….

The issue is not phones, distracted driving comes about from all manner of activities drivers choose to participate in while driving. Things like reading maps, reaching for something, eating, dealing with children, and on and on. The difference between talking on your phone and driving distracted is that talking on the phone impairs the driver at the same level as DUI. The driver who is merely distracted isn't impaired-- or at least, there aren't any studies (as far as I know) showing that eating while driving impairs the driver at the same level as DUI. Cell phone use while driving is more akin to DUI than it is to other favorite distractions.


The classic in my area, the 18 year old girl who reached into the back seat to grab a cassette tape and drifted into the bike lane and killed an entire family of 4 who were on a family bicycle outing. When public safety arrived on the scene she was in the middle of the street screaming, hysterical, completely beside herself and she was the one who had to be taken by the paramedics due to her emotional state. That girl’s life, her family's lives and the lives of those poor bicyclists were all horribly changed in that one moment of inattention. That girl does not belong in jail; she will pay the price for that act the rest of her life.Was that in Santa Clara County? I remember a crash like that several years ago.

But I disagree, if somebody kills through their own carelessness, they do belong in jail, no matter how remorseful they are (and if I recall correctly, that girl did go to jail). The possibility of remorseful feelings doesn't even enter into consciousness when somebody decides to take their eyes off the road; the possibility of punishment is what makes people sit up and take notice of what it is they're expected to do when behind the wheel. Every driver knows that DUI is punished severely, and most drivers have modified their behavior accordingly

For clarity, 9 year old Erica Forney was struck by Michelle Smith as Smith was texting to her own children while driving to pick them up from school.

was she texting the two year old or the one year old???

I call BS!

was she texting the two year old or the one year old???

I call BS!

Ah... That's what I had heard... I didn't pay attention to the kids ages. She was definitely on the phone when the collision happened.

Maybe texting the kids' babysitter or day care?

the sentence she was given just says "Eh, this is a bad thing that you did, but not so bad."

SpeedoYeah, there are far worse things in our society than killing somebody. Pot smoking, for example. Or tax evasion. Or failing to register with the Selective Service.

A cell phone is not a necessity. People did just fine without them 20 years ago.

I'm sure she's remorseful but an example needs to be set here. It should be mandatory that she at least lose her license. She's learned the lesson of not using her cell while driving? WOW.

At least she got a somewhat substantial fine (when you add everything up) -- that's more than what most people who kill somebody with a car get.

I don't want to pay for her jail time. I also don't want her driving for about 5 years. Then, she can take a very difficult to pass driving course and if she passes with flying colors, she can have a drivers license. It is a privilege to drive, not a right. That would send a good message to others.

A cell phone is not a necessity. People did just fine without them 20 years ago.While I don't disagree with your initial claim, your justification for it is poor. Using your reasoning ...

Penicillin is not a necessity. People did just fine without it 100 years ago.
Bicycles are not a necessity. People did just fine without them 200 years ago.
Civilization is not a necessity. People did just fine without it one million (or more?) years ago ...

etc.

Also, cell phones have been around longer than 20 years -- they first appeared around 40 years ago, with commercial versions starting around 30 years ago.

I don't want to pay for her jail time. I also don't want her driving for about 5 years. Then, she can take a very difficult to pass driving course and if she passes with flying colors, she can have a drivers license. It is a privilege to drive, not a right. That would send a good message to others.And how do you enforce the law against driving without a license?

Also, cell phones have been around longer than 20 years -- they first appeared around 40 years ago, with commercial versions starting around 30 years ago.

more BS, cell phones did not become an everyday consumer item until the mid 90s at the earliest

+ 1 for losing driving for life. It's not a right. make the lifestyle change.
If someone is caught driving after having their license revoked, then start slapping them with jail.

That's ****ing outrageous. Michelle Smith's negligence deserves jail time.

Yes, killing must have consequences. Please.

I think that's pretty dumb... what about passengers who want to text or use their phone? Instead of creating a complex "safety" chip that people will inevitably bypass, they should be building standard features into cars where the phone plugs into the stereo or speakers so they are always on speakerphone, and they have text-to-speech/speech-to-text abilities. These already exist, they just aren't standard.

Even better would be bluetooth with near field communication technology to immediately pair cell phones by proximity so they are automatically switched to speaker mode with the car. Make it easy and better for people to safely use their phone while driving, they're going to do it anyway no matter how much you try to force them not to.

Recent studies that show drivers who are distracted from cell phones are about as equally distacted even hands free. Some people just can't do more than one thing at a time.

more BS, cell phones did not become an everyday consumer item until the mid 90s at the earliest

Having worked in the cell phone industry since 1995... I fully concur.

Having worked in the cell phone industry since 1995... I fully concur.

What's this then? Note the date.

http://www.jaysmarine.com/theflyer.jpg

-Kurt

I am firmly against any type of cell phone scrambler or a total ban on cell phone use in a vehicle. I for one use my cell phone for GPS navigation which relies on the same carrier network that phone conversations share. Additionally, a growing number of vehicles and navigation systems rely on cell connectivity for navigation, traffic, weather and emergency response services. My cell phone also serves as an MP3 player, connected to my car's audio system. I do not text, e-mail, twitter or blog on my phone while driving. My passengers should be allowed to use their phones at will.
-Old Army

Suck it up, OA. People have found their way around this planet for a couple million years without a freakin' gps. If you can't find your way without it, well...tough. Learn to read a map.

Having worked in the cell phone industry since 1995... I fully concur.I remember seeing my first cellphone distracted driver in '86 or so. Some wealthy looking older guy in a giant luxury car comes zipping past me on the interstate. He had a cellphone plastered to his ear, which in those days was pretty unmistakable because they were the size and weight of a brick. Four people in the car. A couple of miles later, I caught up with him. He was parked over by the side of the road still talking. I guess his pax talked him into stopping. That place in the road was difficult to negotiate safely, but didn't look like it would be. A few months later my wife administered CPR to a motorcyclist that crashed in the same place.

What's this then? Note the date.

http://www.jaysmarine.com/theflyer.jpg

-Kurt

The key words were "an everyday consumer item." America actually was slow to adopt the cell phone due to a very good wired infrastructure. It was not until the mid '90's that cell phones were "an everyday consumer item."

Europe was actually well ahead of America in the penetration and common use of the cell phone... especially due to the government agreements mandating the use of GSM.

In America, competing technologies actually also slowed the adoption of cell phones. Competing technologies, along a real mismash of small cell phone companies with very expensive roaming charges in each others' territory made the types of phones you are showing something only commonly used by a rather limited portion of society.

What's this then? Note the date.

http://www.jaysmarine.com/theflyer.jpg

-Kurt

those were not everyday consumer items

But I disagree, if somebody kills through their own carelessness, they do belong in jail,

I think the judicial arm of our legal system has a rather different view of what purpose incarceration is intended to serve.

I think the judicial arm of our legal system has a rather different view of what purpose incarceration is intended to serve.So in the view of the judicial arm of our legal system, what purpose does incarceration for DUI serve?

Have her do a TV commercial explaining how she killed a 9 year old child while using her cell phone when driving, all the while crying about how much it tears her up to have to re-live it. Air it heavily during prime time and let the cell phone companies foot the bill.