Text-messaging driver kills cyclist - Charged with misdemeanor in criminal coddler america

wrote:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10295430/

Text-messaging driver accused of hitting cyclist

Victim died 2 days after accident; 17-year-old charged with
misdemeanor

Updated: 10:27 a.m. ET Dec. 2, 2005
HIGHLANDS RANCH, Colo. - A teenage driver accused of text messaging
behind the wheel and hitting a cyclist was charged with a misdemeanor,
authorities said.

The 17-year-old was charged with careless driving causing death,
according to the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office. The charge carries a
maximum sentence of one year in prison.

The victim, Jim R. Price, 63, was riding his bicycle Nov. 23 when he
was hit by the teen’s car, said Lt. Alan Stanton, a spokesman for the
sheriff’s office. Price died two days after the accident.

The teen has not been identified because he is a minor. Authorities
said he lost control of the car because he was sending text messages
on a cell phone. He was issued a summons and ordered to appear in
court, authorities said.

[NOT cross-posted]

The District Attorney is:

Carol Chambers

--
Live simply so that others may simply live

One of the moderators of www.bikeforums.net started an online petition
to ask Congress to ban cell phones while driving, enforce the ban, and
impose stiffer penalties for hurting/killing people while using their
cell phone.

Please review the petition and consider signing.

The life you save, ....

http://www.petitiononline.com/7474355/petition.html

Of course, this doesn't solve the larger 'distracted driver' issue,
but it's a step ... and, IMO, a good one.
--
Live simply so that others may simply live

Neil Brooks writes:

One of the moderators of www.bikeforums.net started an online petition
to ask Congress to ban cell phones while driving, enforce the ban, and
impose stiffer penalties for hurting/killing people while using their
cell phone.

Considering that using cell phones is less dangerous than changing radio
stations, according to the numbers I've seen, what exactly is the point?
This is a horrible accident, but that's just what it is: an accident.

--
Robert Uhl http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl
A person who's interested only in books doesn't need other people...
--Arturo Perez-Reverte, The Club Dumas

Robert Uhl wrote:

Neil Brooks writes:

One of the moderators of www.bikeforums.net started an online petition
to ask Congress to ban cell phones while driving, enforce the ban, and
impose stiffer penalties for hurting/killing people while using their
cell phone.

Considering that using cell phones is less dangerous than changing radio
stations, according to the numbers I've seen, what exactly is the point?

Then don't sign it ... and cite your source for that info, if you
don't mind. I'm pretty incredulous.

This is a horrible accident, but that's just what it is: an accident.

Only in the strictest sense (no clear intent). Otherwise, it was both
foreseeable and preventable. That, exactly, is the point.

--
Live simply so that others may simply live

Robert Uhl wrote:
Neil Brooks writes:


One of the moderators of www.bikeforums.net started an online petition
to ask Congress to ban cell phones while driving, enforce the ban, and
impose stiffer penalties for hurting/killing people while using their
cell phone.


Considering that using cell phones is less dangerous than changing radio
stations, according to the numbers I've seen, what exactly is the point?
This is a horrible accident, but that's just what it is: an accident.

Yeah it was an accident, caused by some young teenage yutz how deserves
more time to think about what he did than a year in prison.

Ken

Ken M wrote:
Robert Uhl wrote:

Neil Brooks writes:


One of the moderators of www.bikeforums.net started an online petition
to ask Congress to ban cell phones while driving, enforce the ban, and
impose stiffer penalties for hurting/killing people while using their
cell phone.



Considering that using cell phones is less dangerous than changing radio
stations, according to the numbers I've seen, what exactly is the point?
This is a horrible accident, but that's just what it is: an accident.

Yeah it was an accident, caused by some young teenage yutz how deserves
more time to think about what he did than a year in prison.


Like I said, pull his licence for 10 years, every day as he schleps
along on the bus, bike (wouldn't that be ironic) or on foot, or begs
rides from friends, yutz gets to think about what he did. Every time
someone asks him, why he doesn't drive and he has to explain, yutz gets
to think about what he did. This would be a far more fitting penalty,
and for a 17 year old, much more serious penalty then a year in jail.
Driving is a privilege not a right, and if you abuse that privilege then
it should be taken away from you. I think the same about drunk drivers,
get a DUI, lose your licence, period. This would also not cost the
state taxpayers much if anything.

W

The Wogster wrote:
Ken M wrote:

Robert Uhl wrote:

Neil Brooks writes:


One of the moderators of www.bikeforums.net started an online petition
to ask Congress to ban cell phones while driving, enforce the ban, and
impose stiffer penalties for hurting/killing people while using their
cell phone.




Considering that using cell phones is less dangerous than changing radio
stations, according to the numbers I've seen, what exactly is the point?
This is a horrible accident, but that's just what it is: an accident.

Yeah it was an accident, caused by some young teenage yutz how
deserves more time to think about what he did than a year in prison.


Like I said, pull his licence for 10 years, every day as he schleps
along on the bus, bike (wouldn't that be ironic) or on foot, or begs
rides from friends, yutz gets to think about what he did. Every time
someone asks him, why he doesn't drive and he has to explain, yutz gets
to think about what he did. This would be a far more fitting penalty,
and for a 17 year old, much more serious penalty then a year in jail.
Driving is a privilege not a right, and if you abuse that privilege then
it should be taken away from you. I think the same about drunk drivers,
get a DUI, lose your licence, period. This would also not cost the
state taxpayers much if anything.

W


Ok, now your punishment sounds like a reasonable plan for the yutz. But
I also think that it should include going around the state / country
talking to the soon to be teenage drivers about what he did and why they
should not attempt to do something as stupid as he did!

Ken


--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

"Robert Uhl" wrote in message
...

Considering that using cell phones is less dangerous than changing radio
stations, according to the numbers I've seen, what exactly is the point?
This is a horrible accident, but that's just what it is: an accident.

The word "accident" is falling into disfavor in the context of this case.
"Crash" is now more prevalent. It implies a preventable incident to which
negligence contributed as a root cause.

People who use firearms used to refer to "ADs" for "accidental discharge".
That term is giving way to ND for "negligent discharge", for the same
reasons that "crash" is displacing "accident".

Robert Uhl wrote:
Neil Brooks writes:

One of the moderators of www.bikeforums.net started an online petition
to ask Congress to ban cell phones while driving, enforce the ban, and
impose stiffer penalties for hurting/killing people while using their
cell phone.

Considering that using cell phones is less dangerous than changing radio
stations, according to the numbers I've seen, what exactly is the point?
This is a horrible accident, but that's just what it is: an accident.

You must have seen some strange studies. Most of the ones I have seen
sugest that talking on a cell phone when driving is more dangerous than
driving while over the legal alcohol level. Actually text messaging
might be less dangerous.
John Kane Kingston ON Canada

Neil Brooks writes:

Robert Uhl wrote:

Neil Brooks writes:

One of the moderators of www.bikeforums.net started an online petition
to ask Congress to ban cell phones while driving, enforce the ban, and
impose stiffer penalties for hurting/killing people while using their
cell phone.

Considering that using cell phones is less dangerous than changing radio
stations, according to the numbers I've seen, what exactly is the point?

Then don't sign it ... and cite your source for that info, if you
don't mind. I'm pretty incredulous.

My file just contains the following:

Distracting factors leading to traffic accidents:
- object or person outside the car 30%
- adjusting the radio or CD player 11%
- dealing with another occupant in the car 11%
- cellular phones 1.5%
--Highway Safety Research Center at the University of North Carolina

And on re-reading I'd actually support stiff penalties for accidents
which occur while using a cell phone. Let folks choose when to use it,
but if they make the wrong choice, slap 'em down.

--
Robert Uhl http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl
I'm against picketing; I just don't know how to show it. --M.H.