Marrock

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

"Killer cyclist dodges prison"

rene_sc

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.

JeffB502

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.

littlewaywelt

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.

Gromit

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.

littlewaywelt

How can something lacking intent be an intentional act?

mconlonx

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

wheel

The point is we are left with laws which don't fit the crime. https://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p...7&postcount=20
Or
When people choose to drive under the intoxicant and kill 15,000 people a year.
https://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p...88&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
https://www.azgohs.gov/UserFiles/DUI%...tats%20407.pdf

wheel

we have our advertising section here
https://www.azgohs.gov/quick_links/traffic_info.asp
and here
https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...Sober-BLUE.jpg

mconlonx

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?

https://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/nhtsa_st...006/810802.pdf

Blue Order

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.

wheel

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.

wheel

https://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.

zonatandem

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.

Marrock

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?

mconlonx

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...?

wheel

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?

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