Last March 2009 a 63 y/o bicyclist, Leon Hamer, was killed by a reckless driver, Raj Motwani, in Weston, FL while riding on SR84 just east of Glades Rd. A friend of mine was riding with Leon and was injured, as was the other rider in the trio.

After 17 months have passed by the trial and sentencing were last month.

Motwani got 30 days in jail, 6 months probation, fines of $293 and $1195, driving license suspended one year, 8 hours driving school and 50 hours community service.

OJ walked - What were you expecting - castration?

This is sad. Raj must have had a good lawyer.

I've both prosecuted and defended people who have killed others on the road. The circumstances and results in every case were different. Now, being a part of the judicial branch, I'd like to think (in fact, I know) that the result in most cases is right. That doesn't mean it's right in every case.

One problem with Florida criminal law is that it does not distinguish between negligence that kills someone, neglgience that causes property damage, and negligence that is simply bad driving. Running a stop sign can kill someone, but usually nothing at all happens. In Florida, usually the result in the criminal system is the same - a citation for careless driving. (In the civil law system, killing someone results in a big lawsuit, of course, but the money involved is insurance money, not the bad guy's money.)

From the sentence you describe, it sounds like Raj was convicted of reckless driving. It's a misdemeanor, and the sentence is close to the maximum for that offense. Florida needs a felony that can protect vulnerable road users (cyclists, pedestrians, maybe motorcycles) from negligent and reckless drivers.

I, too, would like to know the final charge. Kerlenbach's post looks eminently reasonable, and if he is indeed correct, then the judge did what he could under a flawed system. I hope the victim's family presses a big-ticket civil suit, since the motorist got off pretty easily in the criminal justice system.

The following is an excerpt from a letter written by my friend to the South Fla Bicycling Coalition.

"The only charges that were brought against Motwani were careless driving, a traffic infraction, and driving with a suspended license. It appears the only chance for any jail time for Motwani is the maximum of 60 days allowed by law despite a fatality being caused by his negligence and his not paying for a ticket for a recent previous traffic infraction. Motwani, according to the newspapers had about a dozen moving violations in the 10 years prior to the accident. Motwani'a family has hired one of the most prominent attorney's in Broward county, David Bogenshutz, to try to keep him from spending any time in jail. His trial keeps being delayed but now is possibly taking place the end of this month unless it is postponed again.

The assistant state's attorney handling the case against Motwani, Nicole Bloom, tells me that there isn't a law in Florida that allows him to be charged for a more serious offense that I believe is definitely appropriate with the facts being what they were in this "accident". In addition she isn't confident that the judge, Stacy Ross will give him any jail time. While the penalty of 60 days is the maximum, she said this offense rarely gets the offender jail.

The witness driving the car behind Motwani used the term to describe his driving just prior to him running us down on the right hand side of the merge lane as erratic. She said he kept stopping on Glades Road, and then looking down in his car and then speeding off a couple of times before turning onto the merge lane of 84. She also said that there wasn't anyone to the left of him on 84 keeping him in the merge lane. He just didn't move to the left. She claimed he was looking down while in the merge lane. I was wearing an extremely bright orange shirt that day that he couldn't have missed seeing if he had looked up. I plan on bringing the shirt to court for his trial to show to the judge.

I'm sending this email in hopes that we can try to close this loophole of justice. Motwani should have been charged with a FELONY and faced some serious penalties, not just letting his family pay fines and get him off. THis isn't justice and the state shouldn't allow this to ever happen again. THIS WASN"T AN ACCIDENT. THIS WAS CAUSED DIRECTLY BY MOTWANI'S NEGLIGENCE."

Seems like motorists who hit and kill cyclists too often get only a slap on the wrist. Where's the justice?

And this is exactly the basis of a civil case that sounds like it might easily succeed, if the plaintiff has enough money to fight the obviously well-funded bozo-cager defendant.

So under Fla. law the family could not sue in civil court for the death? Even though not complete justice making the offending drivers family pennyless is some justice.

Two comments from one who has been a participant in changing state laws:
-The name "Justice System" is only a convenient title for the organizational structure. It has only one interest; resolving any issues according to the arcane procedures and language interpretations within the system. Justice as commonly defined is in the eyes of the beholder and probably will vary depending on the person's perspective.

-From an earlier post in this thread it appears there is a need to change Florida's law. If you are truly upset and not just venting in this thread get like minded people together and get the laws changed. Citizen sponsored changes are not always easy. In fact they are often a bit frustrating. But, all over the nation such efforts succeed.

You have an opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to your community and maybe the nation. Will you rise to the challenge? Or, will you settle for a venting session on the internet that is, in the end, rather meaningless? The choice is yours.

I always get a kick out of these internet discussions where everyone is totally outraged, but no one actually wants to do something. As if someone of importance was actually reading what is written. They aren't. As someone who also has been involvef in the change of laws, IT CAN BE DONE - but not by writing stuff here and hoping someone else will do it. It starts with you. It can also start with supporting and being involved in advocacy groups - how many of you pay dues to an advocacy organizarion, or participate in some way?

https://www.bikeleague.org/about/index.php

Thrasymachus replies, "I affirm that the just is nothing else than the advantage of the stronger." (Republic, 338c-d).

I'm an active participant in these groups:

• Rochester Bicycling Club -- I'm a member of the club's Road and Trails Advocacy committee and work with the state, county and local DOTs to implement cycling facilities. I'm delighted that the state DOT comes to us asking for our input.
• Rochester Cycling Alliance -- A new group that's trying to cover all the bases--general cycling promotion, working with the city and county governments on a cycling master plan, and working with the DOTs.

I'm a dues-paying member of these groups:

• New York Bicycling Coalition -- Advocacy at the state legislative level.
• Bicycle Colorado -- Yeah, I live out of state, but nice facilities when I vacation there are worth chipping in towards.
• League of American Bicyclists -- Advocacy at the federal legislative level. Our own Special Interest Group and lobbyists.
• Adventure Cycling Association -- Their advocacy wing is more at the DOT level. I like good roads and support the United States Bicycle Route System

Nothing JUST about that sentence or fines. Life is cheap. Sorry for your losses, glad you friend lived to ride another day. Makes me want to stay out on the dirt. My own stupidity is my primary fear.

I think that a good place to start is by changing the lexicon. Stop calling them "traffic accidents." They are "collisions" at the very least. "He was in a collision" has a different meaning from "He was in an accident." "Accident" implies that no one was to blame. Well, if someone was negligent, it was not an accident, and most collisions are caused by negligence. The few that aren't must be intentional, or vehicular assault.

The problem is that most people drive cars and are deathly afraid of killing somebody thru their own negligence, so it is convenient that a traffic "incident" becomes an "accident." But the first step in change is to take the lexical high ground. Note that the two warring sides in the abortion issue are "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice," and not "Anti-abortionists" or "Pro-abortionists". I have always found it amusing that a person who works to improve the conditions of females (often at the expense of males) is called a "feminist," which is viewed as either a positive or neutral term, wherease a person who works to improve the condition of males (often at the expense of females) is called a "male chauvinist," a derogatory term. Women have known from the start that you need to occupy the lexical high ground.

Luis

No it doesn't.

Calling something an "accident" implies that someone was negligent. Something can be an "act of God" which implies no one is to blame, but even then someone usually is negligence. The tree that falls on a clear day and kills someone probably was rotting from the inside, and the owner was not maintaining it. A rear end fender bender might cause no injury to the average person, but an unusually vulnerable person (known in law school as the "egg-shelled skull plaintiff") might be seriously injured. Cyclists are unusually vulnerable road users. Simple negligence by a driver that might bend some metal on another car can kill a cyclist. It's still an "accident," in that the driver didn't intend to hit the other vehicle.

I have trouble with the idea of making simple negligence a serious crime. On the other hand, if one of my children were injured or killed by a negligent driver, I would want them dismembered with a blunt instrument. We all are negligent once in a while. Usually it's just a simple weave on the road when daydreaming, and nothing happens. Sometimes a cyclist is there and that simple weave causes some serious harm (see BlueDawg's recent post). Criminal law punishes the offender based on what they intended to do, and intent is the lynchpin. Civil law punishes the defendant based on the harm caused, regardless of intent (that's an overgeneralization, but it's basically right). Cyclists need more legal protection than we get now, but I am not sure just what that means.

A couple of additional comments about "activist" organizations. Not all are created equal. Some are disease oriented, like the American Lung Association or the American Diabetes Organization. Others are structural change oriented, like most bicycle organizations. They are geared to working with politicians and government workers to expand bicycling. Others, like MADD, were created to achieve social change by forcing the community at large to address reckless behaviour by drivers.

So, if you truly want to address what you believe is an unfair legal environment you need to either join, or create an organization that is focused on that. For a variety of reasons the typical bicycle organization is neither focused on that or very amenable to change.

Along the way you will see a variety of opinions. If you truly want change and are able to motivate people you will be able to use them productively.

Well, it is up to you. Action or ?

[QUOTE=Latitude65;11342020]So, if you truly want to address what you believe is an unfair legal environment you need to either join, or create an organization that is focused on that. For a variety of reasons the typical bicycle organization is neither focused on that or very amenable to change.[QUOTE]

Hmmm, that hasn't been my experience.

Our Bicycle Colorado is very involved in law changes and the legislature.

So, OJ is the only one that has walked???

Trying to understand your comment, and context!!

My visit with them and follow up information leads me to believe that as their origin would indicate their primary focus is on expanding the use of bicycles. I found nothing that showed they were involved in changing either criminal or tort law. The organizations their staff referred me to seem to be focused on expanding the use and acceptability of pedestrians and bicycles, not addressing criminal and tort law. That focus is not at all unusual. Nor is it bad. It just means a person whose focus is on changing criminal law may not find a lot of assistance from this type organization. Sometimes such organizations can be refocused, sometimes not.

Organizatioins, not just bicycle, often develop an organizational culture that is oriented around their original focus. Sometime this can be changed and often not. Also, experience is that organizations that have a disease fighting model are very different than those who have a justice system change model. It is a much different thing to organize to fight diabetes, or to expand the use of bicycles than to get the societal change to reduce drunk driving, for example.