Infuriating

[pll]

NOt a lawyer here, and I don't understand why can't be charged and be convicted of a felony. As for the "felony deferred...", it could have repercussions in the future, depending on how the NASD phrases the relevant questions. If the NASD does what immigration authorities do, the question is whether someone was *ever charged* with a crime or offense, and the answer is a sworn statement, he cannot "deny that anything had happened," as Hurlbert suggests.

[PamNY]

I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on TV etc but if fines are are part of the punishment and I think I read somewhere they are then doesn't planning the fines, calculating his ability to pay etc before trial or even charges mean we're skipping that whole radical activist Constitutional "guilty until proven innocent beyond a" thang?

He was offered a plea bargain -- so no trial to determine guilt. That's the purpose of a plea bargain. At least that's how it works in other states.

[ny biker]

Bob Mionske's take:

http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadright...cites-outrage/

He feels the crime is definitely a felony, due to the severity of the injuries. Also he points out the court could refuse the accept the plea.

And also, from velonews.com, The Explainer weighs in:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/...defense_149196

[ny biker]

An update on this case:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/...n-court_152315

There will be a hearing on Dec. 16 in which the judge would have to opportunity to reject the plea deal. The victim is expected to be there.

Also apparently the driver was required to report to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority that he was charged with felony by Sept. 2, but he has not done so.

[channlluv]

Feh.

+1 -- I've been thinking this exact same thing. And also that this uber-wealthy money guy and his uber-wealthy-protectionist DA sound like Fat Cat Republicans to me, but I wasn't going to say so out loud. Ha! I really don't see what a judge, liberal or otherwise, has to do with what charges a DA brings. And it's not like it's a class thing because the victim here is a surgeon and while he may not earn as much as uber-wealthy money guy, I imagine he's pretty comfortable. (And I'm a registered Independent, fwiw.)

Except for the lifetime of pain he's going to endure because of this accident.

I DO understand the desire for $$$ restitution on that point, and if uber-wealthy money guy is going to pay up big, he's going to need to work, so maybe all of that really did figure into the plea bargaining and the victim's lawyer was okay with it, in spite of the moral outrage. He gets paid more to, then, doesn't he?

In the end, it's really all about the money.


Roxy

[bmccasland]

Yeah but the victim isn't exactly in the "poverty" economic class either - which is making this class talk rather interesting. The Doc could have been one of the Financial Manager's clients.

It's still sad that for a really lame reason a person was thus far allowed to get away with seriously injuring another. If he had beat him to a pulp with his fists, he'd be in jail. Or maybe his lawyer would be trying to get him off for some dumb reason.

It still amazes me that you can hit someone with a car, seriously injuring them, leave the scene of the accident and get away with it as if all you did was smack them on the butt as you walked by.

[channlluv]

I'm trying to see this from the driver's POV. If he really was asleep at the wheel, and as someone with sleep apnea, I can relate to the extreme fatigue (I've actually dozed off at red lights - nuts, I know), but if he really did fall asleep, he may have hit the cyclist and not noticed. The report I read said he also hit an embankment or wall or something. If it was right after hitting the doctor, he may not have noticed the impact with the bicycle, or he may have assumed it was from the impact with the embankment. IF the the larger impact woke him up, then I think it's plausible that he really didn't know that he'd hit a person.

Still, wouldn't that still make him guilty of gross vehicular recklessness resulting in bodily injury or something?

Roxy

[Charlotte Berry]

I'm not getting out the popcorn for this.

I think it's going to take coffee rather then Popcorn. I didn't make it through on just a candy bar, so coffee or perhaps a mocha. I'm staying out of the fray, ducking entering and leaving. Nicities went out the window in this one, I say ducking and weaving. :-)

[Eden]

(stepping into my flame proof suit)

If you can fall asleep and kill someone without knowing it from apnea then perhaps it is time to limit/disallow driving for those diagnosed with severe and untreatable or untreated apnea...(not unlike limitations on driving for epileptics). Of course this never stops people from driving anyway and who knows how many people are undiagnosed.

[ridebikeme]

I agree with Eden ! The fact remains that we all make decisions to drive all the time. The difference here is that most people would take responsibility for their actions, and not make excuses. While there may be a sleep apnea problem for this person, the end result is that he caused a very serious accident. What truly bothers me is that he was able to stay awake long enough to drive and call his mechanic about the damages !! And if he does indeed have this problem, how does he stay awake long enough to perform his job?

Regardless of what happens, each time we drive our vehicles we are responsible for our actions. Whether we are tired, talking on the phone, or any other excuse that we can come up with... the fact remains that we are responsible.

Perhaps the family of the cyclist will file a wrongful death lawsuit against the driver, and have some sort of legal action taken. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

[ny biker]

"The new-car smell made me do it."

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/...hearing_153108


I think bikesnobnyc sums things up pretty well:

"It's becoming increasingly clear to me that if you were addicted to humanity's shortcomings, and in order to feed your addiction you were to to take 21st century America and freebase it so that only its worst elements were left, you'd wind up with the quivering little gooey blob that is Martin Erzinger, which you'd then proceed to smoke and inhale. In any case, the patent absurdity of the "new-car defense" aside, I must say I'm tremendously disappointed in the current state of our rich people. At least "back in the day" they were ruthless in an above-board way, like robber barons, Mr. Burns from "The Simpsons," and the people in "Boardwalk Empire." Now they're just a bunch of cowardly whiners who can't handle the smells of their own luxury cars. Frankly, I think that when a human has devolved to the point where even the richly-appointed interior of his new Mercedes is too much for him, he's really not qualified for life in the outside world and should spend the rest of his life in a small enclosed area like the milk-fed veal calf that he is."

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2010...imes-soft.html

[badgercat]

NEW CAR SMELL?!

It's like the Twinkie Defense all over again.

[Bike Chick]

Sentencing is set for 1:00 today. Let's just hope the judge can see through all the bs the defendant is dishing out. Most of the time they can. The real villian in this case is the da, however. Someone needs to prosecute him for not doing his job!

[Bike Chick]

The judge in the case has accepted the plea saying it wasn't a deal he would have made but he didn't find it to be unreasonable. The only thing I can find about today's sentencing was here on Velo News. Perhaps there will be more tomorrow.

[Deborajen]

After having a couple of seizures two years ago, I was told I couldn't drive for 6 months - Kansas Law. After 6 months, my doctor had to submit a form to the State reporting that 1. I hadn't had any more seizures 2. I'm compliant with taking my medications 3. I've followed up with my doctor as prescribed. The doctor also signed off that future medical exams shouldn't be required for me to retain my driving privileges, which basically means I take my condition and treatment seriously. The State responded that they'd go ahead and allow me to keep my license, but THEY want me to have an annual medical exam - failure to do so would result in immediate revocation of my license. I'm still complying with all of this. It's really not a bad idea, for my safety and for everyone else's.

Interesting that the driver in this case uses his condition as an EXCUSE. How often does he doze off and what would the consequences be if it happens when he's driving? I had 2 seizures in 46 years and then went on medication which research shows could very likely prevent me from having another seizure - ever. But I'm in the State's computer as being a medical risk. I'd NEVER get off the hook for an accident if I said "I didn't mean to - I just had a seizure."

The driver most certainly was negligent. He shouldn't be getting off the hook for this - not for a lot of reasons.