Interesting read of trial of "nail polish" driver

[Capt. Morgan]

Here is an account by a PGR member who attended the trial and documented it. It is a long read and some graphic descriptions. http://pgr.pxxq.com/LakeZurich7.htm

[Popeye]

Thanks for posting this Steve.  A good read.

[alph]

These things seem to happen every couple of years.  People need to remember that they can't go driving with their heads up the arse. 

I would not be opposed to a law requiring people to retest for their license every 5 or 10 years.  Think of all the other things you need to do to keep your certifications at work!

My mother has Alzheimer’s.  Still has a valid Arizona driver’s license.  Hasn’t driven in over ten years.  But legally can do so at any moment.  That’s wrong.

[DFragn]

   
Something I feel about this incident.

Not that I have any knowledge what happened, but we as riders must always be aware that our bikes [most bikes] are capable of stopping much more quickly then cars can.

Our Valkyrie', for instance, remain one of the most capable braking bikes to this day. With functional ability we can stop from 60 mph in 106'. That's the length of the extension cord in your garage! That gives very little time to a distracted passenger vehicle to even react with their ABS brake systems.

I do my best to remain aware of traffic behind me when approaching any intersection. If a light goes yellow I am "usually" prepared to make the decision stop or go though it based on rearward traffic tightness and potential oncoming left turners, right-on-red turners and cross traffic.
Alternatively, we can never forecast the level of attentiveness of following traffic or any surrounding traffic.

I cannot say, even having knowledge of the testimony, that this rider was wrong to stop for the yellow. But, given this intersection is a 4-lane divided highway & T crossing [from her left] and no potential of someone rushing a left turn coming at her or danger from the right. It may have been more prudent for the rider to go through the yellow.

I know this intersection well and will go through the yellow with traffic behind me.
It's preceded by a long sweeping curve with plenty of visibility of the traffic signal. I'm guessing I would have to be doing at least twice the 55mph speed limit to even begin to drag a peg through it.

We must remain as much aware as possible of rearward following traffic as we are of cross & oncoming even though vibrating mirrors can make this task difficult.

[MP]

+1 Dfragn.

However, in this case, testimony at trial, from the black box, shows that the car did not let off the gas pedal until one second AFTER impact.  So, in this case, stopping distance played no factor.  She made no attempt to even slow down.

Total inattention.  Too bad it wasn't a semi parked there.  Then, at least, the dead one would be the one that made the mistake.

And, what really PO'd me, was the defense attorney tried to blame the biker.  The biker was reckless, according to him!  The lawyer should be disbarred!  Another case of "blame the victim".

MP

[DFragn]

And, what really PO'd me, was the defense attorney tried to blame the biker.  The biker was reckless, according to him!  The lawyer should be disbarred!  Another case of "blame the victim".

MP

Respectfully, the defense had no other level to pursue whether viable or not when the defendant openly stated her activities at the scene of the accident prior to and then tried to backpedal under cross. She should have said nothing at the scene. The defense simply did their job. I would make a terrible defense attorney if I knew the defendant was guilty.

[MP]

Probably.  However, I am free to take offense at portraying the biker at the problem.  You know, if she had stayed home, my client would not have hit her.  Therefore, my client is innocent, and it is all the bikers fault.

It may be their job, and I assume you may be one, but it is one of the things that give all lawyers a black eye.

MP

[DFragn]

Thankfully, I am not an attorney.

I just tend to view all sides of an instance or issue. The ones I'm unable to perceive with "my logic" I will avoid discussion or conversion unless it directly & coherently effects my life, family or friends.

I see your points. But, they seem perceived with rider bias and emotion. I'm probably an emotional midget at times. Sorry, not "probably", "I am" at times.

Safe riding. 

[MP]

No, I do not think it is "rider" bias.  If she did the same thing to a car, to someone walking in the crosswalk, to kids in a crossing bus, I would feel the same way.  Same punishment.  I just feel people are not being held accountable for their actions.

No matter what the rider was in, a car, a bike, a bus, walking, she lost her life. Her family is without her for the rest of time.  Forever.  She did NOTHING wrong.

Yet, she was targeted as at fault, to try to push the blame off the real culprit. And, I feel that is morally wrong.  Maybe legally OK, but to me, it stinks.

 Until we hold people accountable, nothing will change.

MP

[DFragn]

No, I do not think it is "rider" bias.  If she did the same thing to a car, to someone walking in the crosswalk, to kids in a crossing bus, I would feel the same way.  Same punishment.  I just feel people are not being held accountable for their actions.

No matter what the rider was in, a car, a bike, a bus, walking, she lost her life. Her family is without her for the rest of time.  Forever.  She did NOTHING wrong.

Yet, she was targeted as at fault, to try to push the blame off the real culprit. And, I feel that is morally wrong.  Maybe legally OK, but to me, it stinks.

 Until we hold people accountable, nothing will change.

MP

MP,

Let's say you just picked up a large cup of coffee from wherever. You know it's too damn hot to drink, especially while driving. So, instead of letting it cool in the cup holder you decide to try it anyway, taking just a sip all the while your eyes are on the road. You scald your tongue/mouth and you inadvertently tighten your grip on the cup - the lids pops off and 10 of the 12 ounces of scalding hot coffee is now scalding your crotch. Your seriously distracted now. You have to put the cup in the holder so you don't spill the rest and then you have to fidget with pulling the scalding hot fabric away from your crotch for some sort of relief. You are on fire for about 2 minutes.You made a decision to drink that hot coffee while driving. You've created a huge distraction to yourself and driving and BAM you rear end and kill a driver in front of you!

Would your family want you to do 5 years in prison? Would you want to! If you where willing to do time I'm sure your family would do anything to convince you to allow your defense attorney to do anything he could.

I'm not comparing coffee to nail painting there's some difference, but it's distracted driving all the same.

Edit in response to MP response:
My point was regarding the potential immorality [yet legal] of a defense attorney placing reason or blame elsewhere, if no other defense is plausible, in order to reduce sentence or provide an innocent verdict.

[MP]

Of course my family would not want me to do time.  If I murdered someone during a robbery, I doubt that they would want me to do time. But I would!

What about the victim though?  That is my point.  Do we just say, let it go.  MP just ran into a school van full of 1st graders, killing 14 and seriously maiming 6.  But, hey, he spilt coffee, it is not his fault.  We do not want to cause his family any discomfort.  Let him go?

I am sorry, NOT.

My point is, yes, it would be hard on me.  But what about the victims?  Have they no rights?  I should be punished.

We have let people, like me in this example, off too easy for too long.  So long, nobody cares any more about the true victims.

Maybe if I, and others like me, were punished harshly, a lot of these incidents would end.

Maybe, I would not take that coffee in the car to drink. 

Maybe, I would think twice before opening it. 

Maybe, I would say, "you know, if I open this too hot, and cause a wreck, I will spend years in prison".  So, instead of opening it hot, I put it in the cup holder BEFORE I leave home, or the store, and only pick it up to drink when I am sure it is cool enough.

Maybe, before that lady started putting on nail polish, she would say to herself," you know, if I screw up, I could spend 10 years in prison, so I will wait until it is safe".

Maybe.

MP

[Hellcat]

I would not be opposed to a law requiring people to retest for their license every 5 or 10 years.  Think of all the other things you need to do to keep your certifications at work!

My mother has Alzheimer’s.  Still has a valid Arizona driver’s license.  Hasn’t driven in over ten years.  But legally can do so at any moment.  That’s wrong.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

It amazes me that we are not required to retest for driving licenses at intervals. First, it would get old, incompetent drivers off the road (sad but necessary), and second, it would make people learn the laws and protocols again. How many people "forget" over the years that a pedestrian almost always has the right of way, that bicycles have a right to a lane (but should leave room if possible), that a flashing red light means "stop"  just like a stop sign, that a yield sign does not mean "merge"  except on an interstate.

It is amazing to me that you read the book at sixteen, take the test, and then presumably remember every detail for fifty or seventy or ninety years.

One of the problems, of course, is that AARP and the retired-age voting bloc in general is very active and powerful, and sometimes puts "threats to their freedom"  above the obvious threats to society as a whole.

[DFragn]

Apparently, the victims family is only pushing for her drivers license to be suspended for "life" instead of the mandatory 2 years for being found guilty. I've seen nothing inferring they want her in prison.