BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

nope, nothing right about this at all. this makes me sad and angry at this particular situation and, well, cars and the lack of driver accountability.

I hate the fact that this no longer surprises me.

"[pleaded guilty to...] failing to exercise care to avoid a pedestrian."

The fact there's actually a "crime" called that is certainly a big part of the problem. I wonder if they'd let someone plead to "failing to exercise care to avoid shooting a motorist in the head".

"Defense attorney Kate English says her client was devastated by the accident."

well, that's clearly almost as bad as being dead - cough up $500 and call it even.

Did I mention I hate cars and how car-centric American culture is. An accident?, "oops" poor guy was devastated. I'm tired of hearing about accidents. Cars are dangerous, wasteful and dangerous, everyday people die in "accidents" if I had a gun and shot it haphazardly and the bullet killed someone, I'd probably go to prison, people do this with a car and it's an accident, "Gosh I'm sorry I didn't mean to drive into you." ""It was an accident" You choose to do stupid things' that's not an accident. It's bad decision making. In my opinion driving a lethal weapon around qualifies as bad decision making, and those that choose to do so should pay the costs of there decision, not others.

I really don't think you can compare a gun to a car. The problem isn't with the concept of the machine, it is with the execution and operators of said machine.

In this case, you can't possibly blame fault on the machine. The result is disgusting, but it is a matter of the court and the operator of the vehicle, not the vehicle.

I actually do have a problem with the concept of the automobile, which passed being a concept a long time ago, I find them annoying and dangerous, wasteful and inelegant. Guns don't shoot themselves, cars don't drive themselves, people choose to participate in this and people die. I don't care if people agree with me or not, members of this forum don't, I'm not expecting anyone too. I DO compare cars to guns, I'll never own either. My point is if i discharged a gun and killed someone, I wouldn't get off with a $500 fine and feeling devastated, someone kills someone with their car and it's just one of the costs of living in a society that's centered around automobiles and catering to those that choose them, when I'm out there riding my bike, I'm concerned for my safety, every car out there is a potential lethal weapon. At least most people who own guns aren't waving them around in public while talking on the phone.

I completely agree with your idea that if you killed someone with a gun you wouldn't get away with a $500 fine. I also agree that it is ludicrous that this happened.

However, you are comparing a machine that was designed specifically to kill people to a machine was was designed to move people- I can't agree with that.

I dont understand why this wasnt a vehicular manslaughter case. Or maybe he was, since the prosecutor dropped the other charges. If that is the case, then the prosecutor also needs to be seriously criticized.

Hopefully the victims family will get some victory in civil court. Even tho the truck was uninsured, hopefully the family has homeowners insurance.

Cars kill more people than guns... regardless of whether they were designed to do something else, they're pretty good at killing people.

Blaming the machine for the actions of the operator is futile and misplaced.

The problem has been, is, and most likely always will be, people. Read the newspaper stories of late-19th-century "scofflaw" cyclists on canal towpaths, panicking horses and causing pedestrians to dive for cover.

My view? Any time one decides that, because of their chosen mode of transport, they are inherently superior/have more rights than others, they're part of the problem.

BTW, speaking as a former farm boy, guns have a practical use too. Try keeping feral dogs or coyotes off your livestock with a spear sometime, I dare ya. It's all about using the tools properly.

It's the whole concept that accidents happen, "what can we do" well for one, stop driving around these horrid machines, It's not gonna happen in my lifetime but I guarantee there will be a point in the future when people look back and think, WTF? people actually did this everyday, how awful, what a huge waste of resources.

In 2005, there were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the U.S. This resulted in 2.9 million injured people and 42,636 deaths. Roughly 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in America—that's one death every 13 minutes. Automobiles, SUVs, trucks, and other fossil field-burning vehicles kill a million wild animals per week in the U.S.—not counting tens of thousands of family pets

@salty I wonder if they'd let someone plead to "failing to exercise care to avoid shooting a motorist in the head".

There is, kind of.

"Voluntary manslaughter"

Wiki says Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being in which the offender had no prior intent to kill and acted during "the heat of passion", under circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed. In the Uniform Crime Reports prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation it is referred to as non negligent manslaughter.

Trouble is they probably wouldn't let a biker with a gun plea to that. They might let Nick's girlfriend in the gold SUV cop that plea if she had ("non-negligently") removed his ass from the road permanently.

I'd need to know more of the circumstances of the Maryland driver hitting woman from Zelienople to judge this.

Was he speeding? Driving recklessly? Was she jogging on a highway with ear-phones so she couldn't hear cars coming? How was visibility? Time of day?

It seems likely that either he was driving like a jerk, OR she was jogging like a fool, OR both. Can't tell from the brief report.

Mick

I don't blame the machine, I blame the operators.

I think advocating against cars is pretty pointless. There are plenty of people who don't feel that way, don't care about the environment, or "resource waste" or any of those other arguments.

That being said, I don't see how anyone can justify a $500 fine for killing someone, regardless of what you believe or what the circumstances are.

She might have been on the wrong side of the road, ie, with traffic instead of against it. I don't believe it *should* make a real difference, but Maryland is a "pure contributory negligence" state.

The whole idea that auto fatalities are accidents confuses me, your knowingly climbing into a huge piece of machinery capable of speeds exceeding 100 mph and you sharing the road with others you don't know. If I jumped off a bridge, I know that's dangerous and most likely I'll get hurt. People would say I was stupid. Somehow getting into a 4,000 lb machine and driving fast, with a bunch of others, who may also be talking on the phone, that's just normal. When two of these vehicles intersect in a collision, oops, it's an accident, seems inevitable to me and easily avoidable "don't get in" then you won't have an "accident"

From the other reports I've read ( http://www.emmitsburg.net/archive_list/articles/ce/emmitsburg/2009/student_death.htm ), it was something around 3 pm in the afternoon -- in April (should be plenty of light), she was jogging on the shoulder on the correct side of the road (facing oncoming traffic). The original charges seemed more severe. I wonder why they dropped them?

I have no idea how drivers "don't see" people running, people biking, etc. Where are these people looking while they're driving?

Maybe I'm just super paranoid I'll hit something when I drive and never take my eyes off the road for more than a second. I guess your average driver kind of doesn't give a shit who/what they hit (at least until they discover the killed someone, then they might feel bad).

They drop charges to avoid the expense of having a trial, dude admitted he was wrong, plus he feels really bad, who needs a trial. It's called plea bargaining.

I agree, I don't accept the whole "didn't see" thing. I rode a motorcycle for a long time, and that's the argument most used after someone kills a motorcyclist also.

So, maybe, under the law, a driver is able to prove that there was not intent to kill, it was an accident, maybe they don't deserve to go to prison. But at least, if you screw up that badly, have an "accident" that extreme, maybe at least YOU SHOULDN'T EVER OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE AGAIN!. What the hell?

The guy obviously wasn't paying attention, that's not an accident, that's not paying attention, when I mess something up at work because I wasn't paying attention, I'll tell my boss "it was an accident, not my fault" I'm sure he'll understand.

A view of the road shows that it is fairly straight and level with very wide shoulders (look at street view from Seton ave). If she was running against traffic flow (which is correct) she must have been able to see his truck aproaching and still was hit. Something doesnt add up.

It's my pejorative to dislike cars, I'm not asking or expecting anyone to join me. When I read that someone was killed by a car and it's painted as something unavoidable, an "accident" it annoys me. People choose to get in and drive cars, that's their choice sometimes these casr run into others and people die. I don't consider not paying attention while driving an accident, I consider it malicious ignorance. It's particularly awful when someone innocently jogging is struck and the killer pays a small fine and says "sorry, I feel bad" you know what I feel worse and I wasn't there. I will continue to advocate against cars, I don't like them, I don't like the culture, I don't like your car but you are free to drive and I'm free to dislike them.

That being said, I don't see how anyone can justify a $500 fine for killing someone, regardless of what you believe or what the circumstances are.

+1 salty.

Especially when there's a $1000 fine for a mere paperwork violation: driving an uninsured vehicle. I can't believe they let him bargain that charge away, that's open-and-shut.

I think it is weird that the guy driving is 29, yet his parents each got fined $200 for letting him drive an uninsured truck. They must own it, and not have it insured. But then where is his fine for driving without insurance? Does he not have a car of his own, and "borrowed" this one from Mom and Dad?

Hmm, apparently that's exactly what happened, according to that second news link.

Maybe someone can explain to this girls parents how this was an "accident", oops, shit happens, nobody's fault really, the driver feels terrible, I'm sure, It cost the poor guy $500.00, considering the price of car insurance, he probably actually saved money.

I will simply add that I agree with Tim here--the semantics around "accident" have changed (I'd argue they've changed in many cases, not just when referring to the vehicles). I reckon you could write a dissertation unpacking the shift.

BTW, speaking as a former farm boy, guns have a practical use too. Try keeping feral dogs or coyotes off your livestock with a spear sometime, I dare ya. It's all about using the tools properly.

Dunno, I think Kordite might do a pretty good job with an atlatl.

Mmm, atlatl. Good point (no pun intended.)

Of course, speaking of "accidents", getting jiggy with the Paleolithic version of a lawn dart may lead to some...

I'm probably not good enough with an atlatl for dogs or coyotes, but I can hit the broad side of a mammoth.

On the other hand, the atlatl has been used against dingos and kangaroos in Austrailia for a long time, 40,000 years or so, so don't knock those paleolithic lawn darts.

I can hit the broad side of a mammoth

Pictures or it didn't happen.