Run over and kill someone, go to ja...well, you might possibly be punished, anyway...
Recently, a 19-year-old Urbana woman made headlines after killing a cyclist on route 130 while downloading ringtones on her cell phone. After discovering that she was charged only with "improper lane usage," I was a bit irate, to say the least. As an occasional runner, cyclist, and motorcyclist, it seems plain wrong to me that someone can end the life of another human being through negligent, inattentive driving and not even face a license suspension. She entered a guilty plea a few weeks ago, and is to be sentenced on November 29th. The maximum sentence she can receive is a $1000.00 fine.
I calmed down a bit after reading Champaign County State’s Attorney Julia Rietz’s comments regarding the plea in the News-Gazette a few weeks ago. She stated that, with regard to her not charging the woman with reckless homicide or involuntary manslaughter, ""The mental state for (those crimes) is a willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others. And her actions here don't rise to that level. People drive negligently and cause accidents. Because accidents result in fatalities does not justify charging the driver with a felony." I, believe it or not, agree with this. Running over someone and depriving them of their life doesn’t necessarily require punishment in the form of years of unsolicited buggery in a state prison.
However…
Driving through a construction zone on I-57 last week, I noticed the signs which no one probably gives much thought to anymore; the signs that say "HIT A WORKER: $10,000 FINE / 14 YEARS." It struck me as extremely stupid that one could fly through a construction zone, missing all indications that they’re traveling through said zone, hit/kill a worker who is most likely expected to be dangerously close to the roadway, and be more liable or guilty of a higher crime than a person who drives over someone on route 130 while downloading a ringtone. Maybe I’m the only one who sees it this way (and admittedly, I don’t know offhand what charges one would face for killing someone in a construction zone), but this says to me that a driver must absolutely pay attention and obey the law in construction zones, but that attentiveness and responsibility are only "encouraged" on any other roadways. Why shouldn’t the penalties outside of a construction zone be as harsh? Why shouldn’t one, at least, lose their right to drive FOREVER in the state of Illinois if they’ve killed someone through negligent driving? Civil suits aside, is your husband/wife/child/mother/father/friend/etc. worth only $1,000—payable to the state of Illinois? When someone is killed through bad driving, do the bereaved find additional peace of mind in knowing that whoever killed their loved one is absolutely free to do it again?
State’s Attorney Rietz went on to say that, "Any time someone violates a traffic safety law or gives less than their full attention to safe driving, it's more likely an accident is going to result, but that is not recklessness under the law. That's negligence. If people disagree with the law as it is written, they should address their state legislators." I plan to do just that.
Recently, a 19-year-old Urbana woman made headlines after killing a cyclist on route 130 while downloading ringtones on her cell phone. After discovering that she was charged only with "improper lane usage," I was a bit irate, to say the least. As an occasional runner, cyclist, and motorcyclist, it seems plain wrong to me that someone can end the life of another human being through negligent, inattentive driving and not even face a license suspension. She entered a guilty plea a few weeks ago, and is to be sentenced on November 29th. The maximum sentence she can receive is a $1000.00 fine.
I calmed down a bit after reading Champaign County State’s Attorney Julia Rietz’s comments regarding the plea in the News-Gazette a few weeks ago. She stated that, with regard to her not charging the woman with reckless homicide or involuntary manslaughter, ""The mental state for (those crimes) is a willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others. And her actions here don't rise to that level. People drive negligently and cause accidents. Because accidents result in fatalities does not justify charging the driver with a felony." I, believe it or not, agree with this. Running over someone and depriving them of their life doesn’t necessarily require punishment in the form of years of unsolicited buggery in a state prison.
However…
Driving through a construction zone on I-57 last week, I noticed the signs which no one probably gives much thought to anymore; the signs that say "HIT A WORKER: $10,000 FINE / 14 YEARS." It struck me as extremely stupid that one could fly through a construction zone, missing all indications that they’re traveling through said zone, hit/kill a worker who is most likely expected to be dangerously close to the roadway, and be more liable or guilty of a higher crime than a person who drives over someone on route 130 while downloading a ringtone. Maybe I’m the only one who sees it this way (and admittedly, I don’t know offhand what charges one would face for killing someone in a construction zone), but this says to me that a driver must absolutely pay attention and obey the law in construction zones, but that attentiveness and responsibility are only "encouraged" on any other roadways. Why shouldn’t the penalties outside of a construction zone be as harsh? Why shouldn’t one, at least, lose their right to drive FOREVER in the state of Illinois if they’ve killed someone through negligent driving? Civil suits aside, is your husband/wife/child/mother/father/friend/etc. worth only $1,000—payable to the state of Illinois? When someone is killed through bad driving, do the bereaved find additional peace of mind in knowing that whoever killed their loved one is absolutely free to do it again?
State’s Attorney Rietz went on to say that, "Any time someone violates a traffic safety law or gives less than their full attention to safe driving, it's more likely an accident is going to result, but that is not recklessness under the law. That's negligence. If people disagree with the law as it is written, they should address their state legislators." I plan to do just that.
posted by Woof at 10:40 PM
6 Comments:
The thing that irritated me most about that young girl, was that she had received 4 tickets in the last 17 months. How did she even still have a drivers' license? 4 tickets wasn't enough for her to think that maybe she should tune-in and focus on her driving?
I suppose NOW she'll pay attention on the road? I hope to hell that's true.
I'm guilty of taking and making phone calls while I'm driving. I try to keep them short, and sometimes pull over and park. Still, I'd like to see cel phone use, while driving, banned. It really is too much of a distraction, and those (of us) who think we can do it and drive are kidding ourselves. Myself included.
I agree, re: a ban on cel phone use while driving (no matter how incoveniencing that might be...). The pessimist in me says, though, that infractions would be enforced as rarely as those pertaining to lane usage, turn signals, stops, etc. The way legislation works in this community and state, the final version of a change to the law would probably end up as, "...illegal to run over someone while using a cell phone."
OK, I have many thoughts on this subject.
First of all, let me be devil's advocate and just say that there are a host of things this lady could have been doing to distract her from driving (some of which, I think we are all guilty of at one time or another):
eating;
putting on makeup;
changing the radio/IPOD;
filing her nails;
reading (I know, WTF???? But, I've seen people doing this!!);
dropped something and looking for it;
singing while recording yourself;
etc., etc...
And I know that there have been times where we all might have almost hit a person. I think that pedestrians and bicyclists share in this responsibility too. Recently, I saw a lady about to pull out of a bank. It just so happens that there is a sidewalk in front of the exit to the bank/entrace to the street. She looked right and then left and then went to go and "BAM!" a bicyclist hit her hood. We watched in horror as she got out of her car and they discussed the incident. He was fine - his bike was bent up. But should he stop at sidewalk breaks? What is the law? Doesn't he have an obligation to look both ways, too?
OK, I know this incident is a different case. I'm sure the bicyclist was adhering to the "rules of the road". And driving is way more important than downloading ringtones (or the other things that we all do instead of focusing on our driving). And I know that I feel sympathy for everyone in almost every situation. This young lady - - - it just as easily could have been me that struck and killed someone.
It serves as a reminder for all of us in CU (and everywhere) to be more careful. I certainly hope to be.
The price of a human life is $1000 in Illinois? Insane. I really hope the Illinois voters remember Matt when it comes re-election time for Julia Rietz. Rietz needs to be kicked out of office for failing to protect the citizens of her county. Matt's family have put up a new website for Matt: www.mattslaw.org - I hope it makes a difference.
Stark should be in jail and have all her driving privileges revoked for life
momo, what you just wrote is ridiculous. It is NOT okay to drive in a reckless manner. Just because you do it and get away with killing someone doesn't make it ok to do some of the time.
Regarding the lady who pulled out in front of a cyclist. The driver was totally at fault (unless he was riding the bike on the sidewalk). Bicyclist are not required to stop at sidewalk breaks! Imagine all the stoppage going on riding down a residential street if it was so required.
""The mental state for (those crimes) is a willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others. And her actions here don't rise to that level. People drive negligently and cause accidents. Because accidents result in fatalities does not justify charging the driver with a felony."
What spew and BS. Right there, in her own words, are the reasons to charge that young woman with a felony. Because she willfully and wantonly disreguarded the safety of others while she blissfully downloaded ringtones. She did NOT display obediance in the rules of the road, and she willfully did so, resulting in the death of another human being.
Man, my half-ass attempt at being a lawyer could easily win this case. But, common sense went out the window long ago.
Post a Comment
<< Home