Proof. Where's the proof he was going 27? Would the two mph have made a difference? The old guy's case is far more cut and dried than your scenario.

The geezer in question did not have the right way. Your analogy would work better if your kid was crossing at a crosswalk and the driver made an otherwise lawful turn on red, striking and killing the child. (Right turns on red are legal in MI. Even left turns are under limited circumstances.)

I've also said that pedestrians hit by vehicles when the pedestrian hasn't the right of way should be liable for the damage to the car.

Obey the rules or accept the consequences.

"Accident" in a casual, slang term, yes.

The ticket will say "crash" and so do my state's laws.

So was the ass epic? Pics?

So where are we at now ? Are we going to hang grandpa in back of the courthouse cause he can't see so good or not ?

Dude you're missing the point. Presumably that's why you think the analogy is flawed.  

The point is not that the driver did something wrong in either case. The point is that the driver did something without all the information. He didn't know a motorcycle was coming, and he didn't know he was speeding. Both of those things are "infractions". In both cases, there is a negative outcome. In both cases, the severity of that outcome is based on characteristics of the victim, NOT on the "relative dangerousness" of the action the driver is taking.

The point boils down to this: if in a million instances of something "wrong" happening with little or no impact, what makes the one-in-a-million case where it leads to a fatality any more special? Other than it hurts some feelings, it's not different at all.

You've most likely nearly killed someone before. We all have. Some of us know it, but many more go on about our lives and never even knew it. How does that make any of us an less culpable than this old man? The fact that we got lucky? I hate that the American legal system has boiled down to luck in many regards, but what's worse is how that seems to be how so many actually want it to be.

"Oh, well, too bad for you, he was on a motorcycle and not in a car, and couldn't survive the collision. Your bad luck is going to cost you the rest of your life in prison. The other driver in LinkedM4's case managed to avoid the collision, so he gets to go on the rest of his life without ever knowing he even made the mistake."

No, we're on the same page, sort of.  I don't think anything absolves the old man of any responsibility.

You answered your own question but  I underlined the answer anyways.   I dont consider that just to be hurt feelings.

You are right, ive nearly killed before with a vehicle.  I cant argue that.  But i think humans can do better

I'm not saying anything about this case.  I was just commenting on what Aimless said.  If this happened in Michigan, which I don't think it did, then it would be up to the prosecutor to decide if his actions met the standard set in the statute.  "Negligent homicide" is just what they decided to call it.

Two years is the maximum penalty.  In the vast majority of all criminal cases, the sentence is shorter than the maximum.  A friend of mine rear ended a woman a few years ago and she died as a result.  IIRC, he didn't do any jail time but served something like 12 months probation because he had no other criminal history.

That's interesting, because I didn't expect this to take that sort of turn. I think that humans can't do better, as in actually really can't in some cases. Human visual perception is complex, and it fails.

I wrote a long post going into detail, but I suspect it doesn't matter to anyone. Suffice it to say there are studies that show that in some cases, the harder you look for things, the more likely you are to miss something of critical importance. If you feel up to it, google "Gorilla Suit Experiment."

I think i know what you are talking about.  Brain games did gorilla suit a bunny and and a big chicken across the stage while you focus on counting other things on stage.  And i missed all the animals.
I think the 'humans can do better' may be the point i and a few others have been for all along, just unable to actually get that point across.

Id bet that if penalties would start being enforced, people would start paying attention.  Start with first offence dui - hurt someone during a dui?  Month in jail.  Killed?  A year.  I bet humans would start doing better.

Some of you guys are just the worst. In one thread you complain about government being too involved in our lives. You talk about jury nullification, bash on law enforcement, and are generally 15 years old. And then in this thread you want traffic accidents to be crimes. You want simple negligence (as opposed to criminal negligence) to be sufficient to put someone in prison.

I'm glad the crazies on this site (who are also in the minority here, thankfully) have no real power over how the real world works.

Argue that next time you get a ticket.


Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

is he a felon now?

This.

People die in traffic accidents all the time and jail time isn't served.  Let alone charges brought up other than maybe a traffic citation.

Eta: Holy shit.  there are actually people *on this very forum* that think anytime someone dies in a traffic accident that hard time is served.  Do you people still think that Santa and the Easter bunny are real?!?

I'm going with 'upstanding member of the community, veteran, hospital volunteer, church elder, Lions club, Mason ' has unfortunate accident with inkie out on probation, stoned on meth, speeding like a bat out of hell.

He was convicted of "misdemeanor vehicular homicide".

Looking up Ohio's version of this law, it appears that the judge/jury believe the guy was negligent in some way that led to the death of the motorcyclist.

What that was, exactly, will probably be hard to determine, without court transcripts for this case.

So, in short, yes, you CAN face criminal charges for a traffic infraction. It seems some sort of negligence has to be involved,  though.

My GUESS is that the court felt the driver wasn't able to safely drive under the conditions and should have known that driving under said conditions could lead to injury or death to someone else on the road.

That's a WAG, though.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

I'm not sure whether or not he pled guilty to a felony or a lesser charge.

This (absent the smiley) might be the only time I have ever truly disagreed with you, TBK.  I ride my bike with the assumption that every cage driver out there is actively plotting my demise already, but damn.  It is sentences like this that make it "no big deal" in the eyes of the average motorist.  Riding a motorcycle is such a risky proposition, BECAUSE people don't pay attention.  IMHO this guy should have been charged with vehicular manslaughter at the least.  I mean nobody would be shrugging and blowing this off if it was a child on a bicycle that he killed.

Well they charge the crap out of people here for that


Gr

And he wasn't convicted of vehicular manslaughter. He was convicted of  vehicular homicide.

The court and jury sure wasn't shrugging it off.

This likely isn't a "normal" traffic infraction.

As you said, POSSIBLE. Depends on the circumstance. In this case, the old man was engaged in an otherwise legal act (turning left on a green light) which only resulted in a collision based on failure to yield. Had he been turning left on a red light, the initial unlawful and reckless behavior would have supported a higher charge. This, from what we know, does NOT rise to that level.