Bonneville America Forums Forums Off Topic Discussion Forums Lounge Why Not Vehicular Homicide?

Why aren't people charged with at least manslaughter or vehicular homicide when they clearly cause the death of another by failing to obey traffic laws? Here is news of a motorcycle fatality from Dover Delaware from this past weekend.

"A motorcycle passenger critically injured in a Dover-area collision on Saturday died early Sunday at Christiana Hospital. Randi M. Freedman, 43, of Ellicott City, Md., succumbed to injuries from the crash at 1:50 a.m., said state police spokesman Cpl. Jeff Oldham. Freedman was riding on a 2004 Honda operated by Mark Banaszak, 49, of Middletown, when it collided with a 1999 Dodge Durango at U.S. 13 and Dyke Branch Road about 4 p.m. Saturday. Banaszak was trying to turn left from Dyke Branch onto northbound U.S. 13 when the Durango's driver, Tia Bailey, 21, of Dover, failed to stop for a red light and struck the motorcycle, throwing off both riders, Oldham said. Neither of the motorcycle's riders were wearing helmets, Oldham said. Banaszak was admitted to Christiana in serious condition with multiple pelvis fractures and internal injuries. Bailey and a 16-year-old passenger in the Durango, both of whom were wearing seat belts, were treated at Kent General Hospital for minor injuries. Bailey was cited with disregarding a red light."

I agree that they absolutely should be!

Soren

I agree...thats BS! Isnt the AMA fighting for this cause? I havent checked their site in a long time...

You guys should know by now that motorcyclists are second-class citizens.

At the very least, an inability to see redlights and motorcycles should be cause to declare a person too blind to ever drive again. Also, such blindness should be cause to limit the person to the most menial of jobs.

There are no mandatories,ie.Jessica's Law,it varies from state to state,county to county,a judge could give the Durango driver a small fine,probation or 45 years,it's his call.If he was a biker,I'm sure is judgements would be refreshingly biased.

Even if a pro-motorcycle judge threw the book at the person, it's likely the appeals court wouldn't share his view.

We always hear these stories, but has anyone ever heard of someone getting tossed in the can for killing a motorcyclist? I haven't. It would be encouraging.

I don't know if I agree. If the motorcyclist was driving a regular car and the same thing happened it would just be an accident. Driving is an inherently dangerous act and riding is even more dangerous. We all know what the risks are and that accidents do sometimes happen. Most of us have made the same mistakes while driving a car and sending someone to jail because of an accident, no matter how harmful, would be a very dangerous precedent to set. Just to clarify, I am not talking about driving while under the influence.

Quote:

---

Just to clarify, I am not talking about driving while under the influence.

---

How about driving while distracted by a cell phone? It's just as bad.

i have a friend ( yes i do) who was sentenced to 9yr for hitting a pedestrian crossing at an intersection. this person was not killed, spent about 4hr in the hospital for observation and was sent home and sufferd no real bad injuries. was not in the crosswalk, it was night time and it was snowing real bad and the roads were icey, so not being in the crosswalk, was in a blind spot. but my friend got 9yr???? i suppose if he had hit a motorcycleist he would have gotten off scott free?? think of Jankowski in Dakota. i dont understand how and why this happens. if you kill somebody with your car, and you were in the wrong(ie:breaking the law, running a light,speeding,drunk,etc) it should be vehicular manslaughter no matter what!!!!! i dont get it either. and then to give somebody 9yr for what was truley an accident, and in reality the fault of the pedestrian (for not being in the crosswalk) is to me, unbelievably wrong?? I DONT UNDERSTAND whats going on in the courts anymore than you do, it seems so unbalanced and out of wack????

I completely agree. Matters not that it was a motorcyclist, another car, or even a pedestrian but rather that the car ran the light and a death occurred. By not stopping the driver committed a crime that resulted in homicide, at the very least negligent manslaughter ought to be the rule of law.

I still disagree. Your friend should not have gotten 9 years as it was an accident and neither should a motorist who is involved in an accident. What's next, sending doctors to jail because they made an error, sending farmers to jail if their food becomes contaminated, sending an airline pilot or air traffic controller to jail because of an error? To err is human. Running a red light is not being grossly negligent. The people should be held financially responsible in the civil courts but accidents are not and should not be criminal acts to be looped in with someone who shoots someone.

I agree with Cyrus here.....

And if Tia Bailey(the driver of the car) was somebody here's daughter, I wonder if "somebody here" would feel the same way?

Nope?! From what I gather reading this news item, Mr.Banaszak(the M/C operator) failed to realize that Ms.Bailey wasn't going to stop at that intersection as her light changed to red, and probably "thinking" that she was, he started making his left turn. There are almost always telltale indications that a motorist is going to do something illegal or just plain stupid around you out there.

While Ms.Bailey CERTAINLY should have stopped, and because she apparently failed to do so, she should be cited, BUT even though what I'm about to say doesn't "sound fair", riding a motorcycle ALMOST ALWAYS places YOU as the "responsible party", maybe not "de jure"...but definately "de facto"!

I'm sure, from all the evidence I see every day(remnants of broken glass sitting in areas of intersections were passing tires fail to sweep away this "evidence") that accidents of this type happen with regularity. And, I'm sure most people don't die in most of these incidences when they're somewhat safely tucked inside an automobile.

For many reasons we riders choose NOT to be "safely tucked inside an automobile", and thus once we forget that our choice to ride ALSO greatly increases OUR responibility to stay alive out there, then bad(or maybe I should say WORSE) things can and usually do happen.

It isn't "fair", never has been, but that's the way it is out there, and the more motorcyclist never forget this, the better chance they have to live to be one of those 80 year old three-wheeler riding die-hards you see traveling down the road now and then.

Oh, and one thing MORE...I seem to recall reading NEITHER the motorcycle operator NOR his passenger were wearing HELMETS!

(I'm ALSO "guessing" that they thought that "it couldn't happen to them", OR that they felt that they "don't look as cool" while wearing one!!!)

The penalty would indeed be greater if drinking was involved, but intent matters and it seems to not be the issue here, in what reads as a simple accident. HE could have chosen to wait before going also, is that not what we are told to do, to not assume the other guy will stop ( or turn, or yield, or whatever )?

Under our Oklahoma traffic laws that Durango driver could have been charged. Below is a link to show a case where a driver that was resonsible for the death of a motorcyclist WAS tried and convicted. This defendants appeal failed as indicated below.

So sorry for the extra long post but I couldn't use a link to the court records site,
Bob

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 47. Motor Vehicles
Chapter 11 - Rules of the Road
Article Article 9 - Reckless Driving, Driving While Intoxicated, and Negligent Homicide
Section 11-903 - Negligent Homicide

A. When the death of any person ensues within one (1) year as a proximate result of injury received by the driving of any vehicle by any person in reckless disregard of the safety of others, the person so operating such vehicle shall be guilty of negligent homicide.

B. Any person convicted of negligent homicide shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one (1) year or by fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

C. The Commissioner of Public Safety shall revoke the license or permit to drive and any nonresident operating privilege of any person convicted of negligent homicide.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

THOMPSON v. STATE
1976 OK CR 197
554 P.2d 105
Case Number: M-76-147
Decided: 08/26/1976
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cite as: 1976 OK CR 197, 554 P.2d 105
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the District Court, Tulsa County; Robert Edmiston, Judge.

Byron Henry Thompson, appellant, was convicted of the offense of Negligent Homicide; was assessed a fine in the amount of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars, and appeals. Judgment and sentence AFFIRMED.

Roehm A. West, and Carol J. Russo, Tulsa, for appellant.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Robert L. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., Annis Kernan, Legal Intern, for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

¶1 Appellant, Byron Henry Thompson, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court, Tulsa County, Case No. TR-75-6445, for the offense of Negligent Homicide, in violation of 47 O.S. 1971 § 11-903 [47-11-903]. His punishment was fixed at a fine of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars, and from said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

¶2 The testimonies of the State's first two witnesses, Larry Gene Moheng and Flint Caves, were substantially the same. At approximately 2:00 on the afternoon of July 22, 1975, these witnesses were traveling together in a truck proceeding in a northerly direction on South Garnett Road in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Also traveling in a northerly direction, approximately 30 yards ahead of the witnesses' vehicle, was David Bruce Clift, the victim, who was operating a motorcycle. The witnesses further testified that Garnett Road at this point is a two lane road paved with asphalt. The motorcycle, operated by the victim, was on the right side of the right lane, traveling at a speed of approximately 30 to 35 miles per hour. The witnesses then testified that a Chevrolet Nova, which had been traveling south on South Garnett Road turned left across the lane of the motorcycle at an estimated speed of two to three miles per hour. This left-hand turn of the vehicle was negotiated at a distance of approximately 25 yards in front of the motorcycle. Before the automobile was able to completely cross through the lane the victim's motorcycle struck the rear tire of the automobile, throwing the victim into the rear quarter panel of the car. Although both witnesses testified that they had not seen the car give a left turn signal, they admitted that they had not paid much attention to the actions of the car prior to the accident. The witnesses testified that immediately after the impact the defendant jumped from his car to assist the victim.

¶3 The State's last witness was Officer Charles E. Pierce, a policeman for the City of Tulsa assigned to Traffic Division. On the day in question Officer Pierce was dispatched to investigate the scene of this accident. During his testimony, based on his investigation, he related that the operator of the motorcycle applied his brakes at a distance of 59 feet prior to impact. After the motorcycle had skidded 23 feet it swung sideways, leaving 36 feet of sliding marks before striking the car in the right rear quarter. The officer also noted that during his investigation he discovered that the victim was not licensed to operate a motor vehicle in the State of Oklahoma and that the motorcycle did not bear a current safety inspection sticker.

¶4 The traffic report of the officer revealed that the defendant, just prior to the accident, had been traveling in an easterly direction approaching Garnett Road. From this easterly direction, the defendant turned south onto Garnett Road, immediately realizing that he had intended to turn north. The defendant, observing no one approaching him in the left lane, turned left into a private drive for the purposes of turning his vehicle around. Just before the defendant entered the private drive he felt a slight bump from the rear of his car. The defendant then got out of his car and discovered the victim lying in the road.

¶5 Thereafter, the State rested its case and the defendant, not desiring to offer any evidence, stipulated to the fact of the victim's death and the cause thereof.

¶6 In this case the defendant and the State have both requested that this court arrive at a definitive interpretation of the standard "in reckless disregard of the safety of others" as used by the legislature in 47 O.S. 1971 § 11-903 [47-11-903](a). Before a conviction can be sustained under this statute the jury must conclude from the evidence that the defendant's conduct in operating his motor vehicle came within a degree of negligence equivalent to the one above stated. The State and the defendant both assert that this standard has not been adequately defined for the purpose of applying it to a factual situation. However, both the State and the defendant have offered, after presenting their own analysis of the law, what they each believe the standard to be.

¶7 The defendant requests this Court, on the basis of its argument and authorities, to conclude that the standard of "reckless disregard" contemplates more than ordinary negligence. The defendant then proposes that this Court find that his conduct amounted only to ordinary negligence, thus necessitating a reversal of his conviction.

¶8 It is the opinion of this Court that the State quite correctly analyzed the case law in arriving at the conclusion that the definition of reckless disregard is precisely the same as the definition of culpable negligence under 21 O.S. 1971 § 716 [21-716].

¶9 In Atchley v. State, Okl.Cr., 473, P.2d 286 (1970), this Court held that the enactment of 47 O.S. 1971 § 11-903 [47-11-903] (negligent homicide) impliedly repealed 21 O.S. 1971 § 716 [21-716] (manslaughter in the second degree) to the extent that motor vehicles were involved. After examining these two statutes in depth we held that in order to sustain a conviction for either crime the identical elements must have been proven. The inconsistency between these statutes existed in that the offense under 21 O.S. 1971 § 716 [21-716], was punishable as a felony and the offense under the negligent homicide statute was punishable as only a misdemeanor. In coming to the decision that these two statutes were identical, we analyzed the standards of conduct set forth in both of these statutes and held:

[A] thorough examination of the two statutes in question reveal that the crime element established by the latter statute [47 O.S. § 11-903 [47-11-903], Reckless disregard for the safety of others] and the elements of manslaughter second degree [21 O.S. § 716 [21-716], Culpable Negligence] disclose that the substance of the crime in each case is the operation of an automobile with reckless disregard for the safety of others, thereby causing the death of another. Thus, we find two statutes providing for the punishment of identical acts, . . ."

¶10 Quite clearly then, the standard in 47 O.S., § 11-903 [47-11-903], is the same standard we applied in all of the cases which arose under 21 O.S., § 716 [21-716]. The definition of culpable negligence as established by this Court, under 21 O.S., § 716 [21-716], was set forth in Freeman v. State, 69 Okl.Cr. 164, 101 P.2d 653 (1940), and Crossett v. State, 96 Okl.Cr. 209, 252 P.2d 150 (1952), as follows:

". . . Culpable negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person would do, or the want of the usual and ordinary care and caution in the performance of an act usually and ordinarily exercised by a person under similar circumstances and conditions."

¶11 With this in mind, it is unnecessary to attempt to categorize this definition as ordinary negligence, gross negligence, or as any other degree of negligence. What is of great importance is that a jury receive a proper definition of "reckless disregard," to which they can readily apply a factual situation. It is the opinion of this Court that this definition so provides a jury with such an instrument. However, it might be noted that the words "reckless disregard of the safety of others" should be substituted for the words "culpable negligence."

¶12 Finally, we are of the opinion that the defendant's conviction must be affirmed. In regard to the defendant's contention that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction under this statute, the following comments by the trial court at the formal sentencing of the defendant are particularly appropriate:

". . . It's a simple case, a most simple case, a very basic fact, circumstance, which indeed must be examined by a sworn trier of fact to determine whether all the circumstances added up would indicate a violation of a specific statute, and it's not the judge's position to be the trier of fact once there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the State should be allowed to have the jury decide or consider those facts in any light of that statute, and when I ruled on the Demur, (sic) I considered the facts. There was an obvious showing that the defendant did indeed not see the boy on the motor cycle. Therefore, I must from that assume that he did not look carefully enough to see the boy because there was nothing to obstruct his view, he was going at a very slow pace. There is evidence that he did not even apply his brakes. When he stopped in the private drive, he did turn across an oncoming lane, without contradiction, did directly turn into the path of the deceased. To me, what it revolved down to, was a simple question, was the inattentive driving of the defendant under the facts and circumstances which were in evidence at that location, at that time of day, on that day, sufficient for the triers of the fact to conclude that he was in reckless disregard for the safety of the boy who was killed, and I conclude that there was evidence of negligence. I concluded from listening to the case presented by the State that there was as much evidence as I have ever seen in any case, that negligence was indeed committed. That the defendant either through inadvertance or oversight or inattention or being himself queried at the time as to where he was, or what he was particularly doing, did not pay the attention that a driver on a highway should pay under those circumstances. . . ." (Transcript of Sentencing pages 7-8)

The jury in the instant case was given an instruction defining reckless disregard in a context which required them to find a greater degree of negligence than that which we have herein prescribed as necessary. Undoubtedly, such an instruction operated to the benefit of the defendant. Under these circumstances, we must conclude that it is not the policy of this Court to interfere with the verdict of the jury.

¶13 Based on the foregoing reasons, the judgment and sentence is, hereby, AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P.J., and BLISS, J., concur.

Nice bit of research that...

So, If I read this correctly, Bob, The state of Oklahoma had basically decided that "reckless disregard for the safety of others", which the definition to me at least sounds more of an issue of wanton behavior and being purposeful in nature, as compared to what I believe "culpable negligence" sounds as though it would or should at least mean an incidence/accident with the direct cause being some inattentiveness due to reasons such as an oversight or any number of what might be considered "a momentary mental breakdown" such as confusion, were ruled to be one and the same.

If I'm right in my assessment here, all I can say is.....
"Judges!!! HRUMPH!!! I wonder where some of them leave there brains laying around sometimes."

I don't know.If she had hit a pedestrian or another car hard enough to kill someone she would probably be charged. She did run a red light. The problem seems to be that there is no punishment for hitting a motorcycle. Today people just don"t pay attention. Talking on cells,reading,putting on makeup,combing hair,shaving ect.. we have all seen it and some been victims of it. Either in cars or on bikes. I know people, a brother included, who have been seriously injured or killed and nothing happens to the driver of the car. It is the job of every driver to operate their vehicle in a reasonable and safe manner. Also as far as the helmet issue. We may not all agree but if they are following the law that should not be a factor. Personally at this time I ride with a full face.
And for the "if it were your" daughter. I have two, 21 and 17, and I would be devastated if it were them. But I would be even more devastated if it were one of them on the bike with me.
I think the major problem is that people think of driving as a right. Driving is a responsibility not a right. It has gotten way out of control. I will not even start through a green light without looking because running red lights is so prevalent around here. And I am not talking about "squeezing the lemon". People will blow through at 40-50 mph long after the light has changed. I think we need to get back to enforcing the basic laws and getting some new ones on the books.

Quote:

---

There should be some penalty for killing someone, even if it is an accident.

---

That's a tough sell... If you are driving down the road, below limit, etc, and someone falls off the sidewalk and you run their head over... Or like people who get hit by trains... There is NO way you can avoid that! Loss of life is horrible, but sometimes you can't do anything about it.

It just seems like the legal system in most states says that if you decide to ride a motorcycle you assume a greater level of responsibility for the risk that you may be injured or killed in an accident that you would otherwise survive if you were in a car. It feels like bias. I'll allow that it's my subjective perception and may not be reality or the letter of the law. I'm jus'sayin' it seems warped.

A plain old honest accident is hard to judge harshly, but when alcohol or cell phones or anything else that shows negligence on the part of the person who caused the accident is involved, through the friggin book at them. And if the motorcyclist was riding drunk and cause the accident, throw the book at him/her, too.

Quote:

---

A plain old honest accident is hard to judge harshly, but when alcohol or cell phones or anything else that shows negligence on the part of the person who caused the accident is involved, through the friggin book at them. And if the motorcyclist was riding drunk and cause the accident, throw the book at him/her, too.

---

We need a little emotocon of a smiley hitting a nail on the head...

This is as close as I could come on short notice (pinched from TRat.net):

Here's a variation on the theme. I call it, wait for it...

The Hammer of Smitingâ„¢

24 years ago my best friend and I were driving from my house to his when a car blew a stop sign at a blind intersection. Luckily I was driving a Volvo 244 and the other driver, and his three friends, were in a VW. Turns out they were all drunk and were out running stoplights and stop signs for kicks. Luckily both my friend and I were wearing our seatbelts and were unhurt. Everyone in the VW was injured and went to the hospital with fairly serious injuries, except the driver who ran away on foot.

Accident? I think not. While I was not personally targeted I was certainly a victim of gross negligence and willful disregard for my safety. Anyone who willfully blows a stop sign or speeds through a red light is showing the same disregard for the safety of others as a drunk shooting up a bar and should be held equally responsible for the consequences. Certainly mistakes can be made and errors of judgement or perception can occur, but when a driver demonstrates a gross disregard for the safety of others, and as a consequence someone is injured or killed, they just as guilty as if they did it with a gun.

Many cities, including mine, are looking into installing red light cameras to catch runners and ticket them.

This is a subject that has been discussed here before, with most bemoaning the loss of "privacy" afforded by this action, and referring to it as "revenue enhancement".
If it wasn't a serious problem, there would probably be less of an effort to install the cameras.

The fact is that it is a serious problem as more people seem to be so self centered that they seem to think everyone else should get out of their way. They act like they have a right to run the lights.

I think any kind of negligent driving (that would be defined by law) that results in injury or death should be treated as a criminal act.

Additionally, these negligent acts when no death, injury or property damage is involved should be treated like the danger that they are.
High fines, jail time, and loss of driving privileges are just a few consequences that should be meted out.
Maybe it would reduce the number of occurrences of these asshats killing someone.

Indeed, there are accidents that happen all the time, but some things just don't fall into that category. Anything that takes a deliberate choice and endangers others cannot be called an accident.

And yes, if it was my daughter, I may feel differently. That's called being a parent. We want to protect our children. But that's why a parent wouldn't be allowed to serve on the jury in their child's trial.

Local situation here at work. Two weeks ago, a co-workers wife pulled off onto the shoulder of the road, then did a u-turn. Didn't see the bike following her (didn't look) and nailed him. He's dead and she wasn't charged with anything.

I'm sympathetic for my friend's wife and I know she's very upset over the incident. But there's one 26 y/o dead guy who leaves a wife and baby daughter behind.

The bikers (and pedalers) are lining up on one side and the cagers are lining up on the other. I'm amazed at how many of my otherwise sensible co-workers actually believe that it was the biker's fault - for riding an unsafe vehicle!

In that case she should've been charged with negligent homicide. She left the traffic flow and re-entered it without checking for other traffic. Did she even signal to give the biker a chance? A driver, bike OR cage, is supposed to be aware of their surroundings at all times. Anyone who thinks it was the biker's fault in that particular case is a piece of sh!t.

Just recently in Montana we've had a few instances of trucks turning left in front of oncoming traffic, killing motorcyclists, and walking away with traffic violations. I swear these soccer moms in their F250 pickups and Excursions aren't even trying to pay attention. Not seeing a bike coming down the road straight at you is negligence. Throw the book at them.

FJ I agree with you completely! I'm sure the lady was mortified, but it was her fault! I had an old guy do basically the same thing to me, but I was in my Veedub at the time. Got out and he said "Wonder what it costs to fix these things nowadays?". I said "You're gonna find out". If I was on my bike I may not have been hurt badly (slow speed) but I would be on the ground for sure.

Quote:

---

It doesn't look the same without the rest of my post. I did mean if you were found to be at fault as in the rest of my post. In your two example, the driver of the car or the train engineer would likely not be found at fault.

---

Now that does make sense! I think a big part of the problem with a lot of these scenerios is the "finding them at fault" part.

Quote:

---

The fact is that it is a serious problem as more people seem to be so self centered that they seem to think everyone else should get out of their way. They act like they have a right to run the lights.

---

You bring up an interesting point here Bill. People need to be held responsible for their ACTIONS, not their intentions. Like the lady someone else talked about, I'm sure she is VERY sorry, but that doesn't change the dead guy... I know its very existential of me, but people are judged by their actions, not intentions. Maybe a judge can take the intent into consideration, but it shouldn't relieve them of responsibility.

I think the everyone SHOULD get out of their way thing is important too. The focus of people during rushhour is NOT safety, it's "this is my spot in line" and I see people get boxed out onto a shoulder, cutoff, whatever. All because someone needs to be 30 feet ahead in a 2 mile traffic jam on the LIE...

I guess if some guy was shooting a rifle randomly it would be a gunshot victims fault for not wearing body armor? Certainly she did not intend to kill the guy but through her carelessness and inattention she did. A woman I worked with pulled out into a biker last year and injured him seriously. She claims it was his fault because he has speeding. The fact that she illegally turned left right into him shouldn't count. The cops AGREED! If he had been driving a Kenworth whose fault would it have been? How about if the victim had been a motorcycle cop? The district attorneys and legislators need to hear from us whenever this kind a travesty takes place.

You’re right Dwight. An experienced and alert motorcyclist will anticipate the stupidity of drivers. It’s the Old vs. Bold thing and anyone who’s ridden for any time understands it. But that does not reduce the culpability of the cager one iota. When operating a motor vehicle we take on the serious responsibility to operate it in a manner that does not endanger others. Operating a motor vehicle carelessly and with reckless disregard of others on the road needs to be treated seriously. Certainly accidents will happen and peoples judgment, perceptions and reactions may fail them. But people should be held to the same standard of accountability for their driving that we hold them to in other areas of human activity.

I propose a simple standard. If the victim had been a cop riding a police motorcycle what would the charges be?

So you're saying that it's impossible to be blindsided? The biker is always at fault at least a little bit? I find that hard to believe.

I'll give you that he probably should've slowed down. But would that have made a difference? If he slowed to 10mph, fearing that she was going to do just what she did, maybe he wouldn't have died, but it still would've been her fault.

I pride myself on being alert in traffic. Comes from driving itty bitty cars since I got my learner's permit. I've avoided countless accidents in my short 5 years riding. And Montana drivers are some of the most clueless around. But it's entirely possible that someone could blindside me one day. I watch oncoming traffic for any hint that they might turn in front of me. Is that good enough? Time will tell but I doubt it. The idea that when that day comes it will be my fault because I had a momentary lapse in situational awareness, or just simply because I was one a bike, is insulting.