The article says "At this point, no charges have been filed against the driver."
That is not the same as "no charges are expected," unless you are putting your own thoughts into quotation marks now.
The news says the driver went through a stop sign. I'd say "failure to yield," and I'm betting something more.
Unlike ground hogs or bicyclists, baby carriages mean something to politicans.
Makes me sick. I sure hope the reporter has it wrong. Blowing through a stop sign and sending 3 human beings to the hospital should be a many-years-in-jail offense.
I don't know if it was a slow news weekend, or the drivers were especially shitty, but my post-gazette RSS feed was 90% traffic fatality reports this morning. The story immediately prior to this one was about a 90 year old man who presumably failed to see the giant flashing and dinging gates of a railway crossing. If you don't see that, how would you see a cyclist or a person walking across the street with a bright yellow stroller.
Mick, they edited the story. It did say no charges are expected.
This is the PG article: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10179/1068892-100.stm
Says investigation is still ongoing.
Ah! Backtracking journalists.
Sorry asobi, for any aspersions my post cast towards you.
in the article it says 'the vehicle failed to stop' as though it actually tried to stop. which i doubt.
When SUVs are on auto pilot they sometimes fail to stop...
I love this too, the driver clearly deserves to be allowed to drive.
Cope has previously been cited for driving without a license, disregarding a traffic device and twice for speeding.
Apparently the driver is 20 years old and has had 7 citations since 2006.
"failed to stop" is just the argot for "should have stopped but didn't." It could mean "slowed down but didn't stop" or "hit the gas", but it doesn't necessarily mean "tried".
I was watching a news report on KDKA (I think?) last night discussing the crash. The reporter mentioned that while no charges had been filed the driver likely faced several charges. So, it sounds like the police are waiting to file charges until the sort out exactly what happened.
This reminds me of several incidents in Baltimore where charges were quickly filed. The defendant then pleaded guilty to minor traffic infractions and because of double jeopardy the police/DA weren't able to persue more serious charges.
The comments section of the article is disgusting.
He did not run the stop sign. He failed to make a complete stop.We do it everyday day. How about no jogging on Washington rd?
Failing to make a complete stop for a sign that says stop qualifies as running said sign, if you ask me. Banning running? This accident happened next to a park, and there are sidewalks all along the road. I guess those are for parking your deathmobile upon?
pedestrians are the problems in a lot of accidents. Maybe not in this case, but they have a "bring it on" attitude.
In what type of environment are these people raised that they can be this ignorant? Pedestrians are asking to be hit and killed? Ooh, I get it. KDKA page, comments section.. Mike P. got scolded for saying on the air that cyclists were asking for it, so he must have taken his senseless rants to the net!
Everyone blames the victim until it's their friend, family member or themselves who is the victim.
yeah everyday i walk to work im like BRING IT EVERYONE! I NEED MORE DANGER AND ADVENTURE IN MY LIFE! I AM JUST WAITING TO GET NAILED BY A CAR!
do people forget they are pedestrians every single day? even as they walk across a parking lot to their cars??! I cannot even believe this. incredible.
well, you know what they say about unmoderated public forums... oh, wait. um. nevermind.
Remind me - what percentage of automobile accidents involve automobiles?
The crazy part is that Mt. Lebanon is a community that has sidewalks on nearly every street, and in which kids walk to school instead of being bussed.
Sad news. The woman who was hit has died. The kids are (relatively) fine. Driver is to be charged with DUI, per the news tonight. He's also underage (20). If he's 20, does that mean he is not a minor? I only ask because they definitely gave his name.
I was really sad to hear the news that she died. The driver already has a horrible driving record. I fear he will drive again regardless of if he has a license.
to Swal- he's underage for drinking, but he's not a minor
I know that intersection well since i live in mt.lebanon, and anyone who doesn't come to a stop and look around is insane... turning onto a 35mph artery from a little side street. If the universe were just it would have been a speeding Humvee in his targeted lane and not a set of unarmored pedestrians (but it ain't ...)
Anyone up for putting a ghost stroller or something like that? I'll donate the stroller and paint. I too live in Mt Lebo, less than a mile from the site.
Just saw on the news that the driver has been officially charged, and that there will be a memorial at the site too that is being organized by the community.
Very sad...
That guy must have been flying. And the talking heads on the teevee say that the neighborhood is mobilizing to do something about the dangerous intersection. When will they get it? It's not the intersection's fault!
That guy must have been flying. And the talking heads on the teevee say that the neighborhood is mobilizing to do something about the dangerous intersection. When will they get it? It's not the intersection's fault!
i think a speed sensor hooked up to those retractable tire spikes they have in some parking lots/garages a few hundred feet from the intersection could make it a lot safer. wouldn't take long to get people to drive at or under the speed limit if the streets started shredding their tires if they went over...
Along the lines of the ghost stroller, I was thinking ghost sneakers hanging from the stop sign.
I knew Lisa. I used to work with her husband, Brett. When I first started at the company, she was so unbelievably nice to both myself and my wife, making us feel welcome. She was such an unbelievably nice and caring person.
The world is so much better for having known her and so much worse for no longer having her.
I could not imagine being in Brett's shoes now with the loss of a wife, family out of town and left to care for his 3 young children on his own.
So sad.
They are having a vigil on Thurs night at 7:30. I'm sure that everyone would appreciate the support.
I recall reading about a speed sensitive speed bump based on an interesting material (or rather, not a bump but a pit, more like mega-rumble strips). When interacted with at a slow speed, the material is like a solid and the car drive over it without impediment. But, when the speed is higher, the materiel sort of liquefies and it's no longer a smooth street but a hole, an inverse speed bump.
I've seen some mechanical speed-sensitive devices but haven't been able to find the link for the gooshy material article I had originally seen.
I did, however, come across a UK autodonminionist article titled: "Speed bumps kill car suspension: Easy DIY Fix"
http://www.easier.com/4398-speed-bumps-kill-car-suspension-easy-d-i-y-solution.html
"Vehicle suspension damage has increased because of speed bumps. The risk of damage can be reduced by simply adding rubbers to the suspension coil springs claims a new report – it’s a D.I.Y task that takes about 20 minutes and costs about thirty-five pounds."
Hey, here's a DIY tip that will ereduce your risk of damage instantly and cost you absolutely nothing: Slow the hell down.
Another accident caused by someone who shouldn't have been allowed to drive.
Turns out the man who was driving the truck that hit and put a wedding party in the hospital has paid $1,000 in traffic fines in the last 18 months.
Mr. Mains, who has pleaded guilty six times and paid more than $1,000 in fines for traffic offenses in the past 18 months, was in court on another traffic violation today.
"I am sorry that it happened. But it still wasn't my fault," said Adam J. Mains, 20, of West Elizabeth.
Mr. Mains said the vehicle carrying the family of the bride-to-be pulled directly in front of him.
He was speeding in a construction zone and it wasn't his fault?
What does it take to get dangerous drivers off the streets?
Kordite: It sounds like you might be talking about non-Newtonian fluids. There are two types: shear-thickening and shear-thinning. You seem to be describing the latter - the faster you agitate it, the lower the viscosity. So if you agitate it really slow, it'll be much more viscous, maybe even solid-like. Hit it fast and it softens like butter.
I don't know of any household examples of something like this, but you can play around with the opposite effect (shear-thickening) at home by mixing corn starch and water. Put it in a bowl and try punching it. It's like a solid. Then, try slowly putting your hand in it - easy. This could also be used for a "smart" speed bump, but with a bump instead of a hole. So if you drive into a pillow of this liquid slowly, you roll right through; if you drive too quickly over it, it becomes a rigid speed bump.
But really, regular speed bumps are pretty harmless when you go slowly enough over them, so this speed-sensitive sort of speed bump might not be entirely necessary.
Sorry for the science lesson. Tragic stuff, and I agree with the "don't blame the intersection" sentiment. A good driver should recognize a "dangerous" intersection and act accordingly.
I remember a car salesman I drove with complaining that "police around here don't recognize a 'rolling stop'". In the interest of minimizing conversation I refrained from pointing out that "rolling" and "stop" are actually two different things. I didn't buy a car from him.
re: rolling stops:
a cop pulls someone over, says they ran the stop sign. The motorist says, but I stopped. The officer says, no you didn't, you slowed down and rolled through it. The motorist wants to argue.
The cop pulls out his five-cell maglight and starts to tap the motorist on the forehead. The officer asks, "Now do you want me to stop or just slow down?"
surly jason - HA... I like that one. I ride in a car every week where the driver rolls certain stop signs. I call him on them. He says he stops if he sees anybody (true). I ask him about the people/cars/cyclists he didn't see. He says that nobody's there. One day I hope he'll get my point.
> One day I hope he'll get my point.
Likely the only way he'll do that is to hit someone he was sure wasn't there.
My letter to the Post-Gazette:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10182/1069533-110.stm
I got really tired of reading "the SUV failed to stop," as if the vehicle were operating itself.
Mary -- good letter. I think the reality is that a lot of people do treat cyclists and pedestrians as second-class citizens. I think there are a lot of people who are so used to driving and "having their way" that they cannot conceive that other people are entitled to use the same roads, crosswalks and sidewalks.
There was a letter to the post-gazette shortly after Donald Parker was run down and the responses in the "open letters" forum was rather astounding to me. Basically, there was no acknowledgment of cyclists' right to the roads and that if cyclists choose to ride on the road -- as opposed to the sidewalk -- they do so at their own peril.
I don't get this selfish attitude -- not because I'm a cyclist but because, in my opinion, I try to consider other people and how my actions affect them -- whether it's as a pedestrian on a trail walking a dog, holding the elevator for someone or picking up an object that someone has dropped and handing it back to them. It's a basic attitude of, I think reddan posted something yesterday, "letting us be mindful and careful" of others.
Nice letter Mary. You're exactly right. The burden is always placed on the vulnerable road user to be more safe. No one wants to take responsibility when they are behind the wheel.
Mary, awesome letter. maybe it's a hold over from ship's right-of-way rules... the onus is on the smaller, more maneuverable vehicle to avoid a collision. 'Cause all of society has a maritime background... yeah, don't make sense. 
And another thing - I'd like to see us stop using the word "accident". Oops, I didn't stop at that stop sign. Oops, I couldn't see from the glare so I turned blindly. Oops, I drove drunk. Oops, I was speeding. Whoopsy-daisy, somebody's dead.
Oops, I didn't think of the consequences of my actions, and thus acted unsafely without realizing it, and am totally surprised at the outcome.
Collision. Incident. Crash. These words don't imply a lack of responsibility like "accident."
in hospitals they dont use the word "accident" when a car is involved. they are termed "MVI"s or "Motor Vehicle Incedents". the rational being that while they are all incidents, they are almost never accidents.
Just had a conversation with someone over the coverage he read in the Almanac (free south hills paper) which went to press pre-fatality. He said it was tragic, inexcusable, but understandable. I said "we will have to disagree. " (I don't say we will have to agree to disagree anymore.) I come to an honest to God footplanted stop at every stop sign I meet and I don't even have power brakes and internal combustion... why can't cars?
I don't understand "inexcusable but understandable." Or do I? Tragic: Unquestionably. Inexcusable: yup, got that. Understandable: well, the driver was apparently intoxicated, speeding, didn't stop at the corner, and didn't see the woman in time for it penetrate his alcohol-sodden brain. Okay, I understand that. Guess I agree with him!
I think he was stoned, not drunk. Either way, he is an asshole.
@Kordite although I agree with everything being said about safe driving, the car guy in me has to point out that the link you posted is complete BS. Putting a coil spacer in does nothing to help the spring from damage. However, it can prevent damage to the dampener. Though, the possibility for twitching handling and improper weight transfer negates any positive effects from coil spacers.
Plus, on most cars, dampeners and bushings are going to go before the springs.
My only issue with speed bumps is some cars have trouble getting over poorly designed ones. I think a better solution is more serious penalties for dangerous driving.
another issue with speed bumps is it's generally an easier ride if you actually speed up to some extent.
I'm curious how well the new "active suspensions" work on speed bumps.
Allow me to tackle another difficult angle on this story. OK, the guy killed someone. No excuses, no justifying, no nothing. The proper thing to do is to put him in jail for a while, and yank his license ASAP and for a long while afterward.
He is, however, still a human being, and assuming he tries to make his life better, chances are excellent he will be getting around on a bicycle, and maybe here and there a bus. In other words, he will sooner or later be trying to do what many of us are already doing.
What can we, as a community, do to ease the forced transfer from being a driver to a non-driver?
What can we, as a community, do to ease the forced transfer from being a driver to a non-driver?
I'd suggest a mentoring program...a specific individual who is available to answer questions, provide companionship, and lead by example would make that transition much easier.
Not to diss anyone who provides ride leadership to the general public (Car-Free Friday leaders jump to mind), but it's a very different thing when you have a specific person who has promised to help you out.
what reddan said!
Lots of people drive without licenses because they think they have to. It'd be nice if part of the "no license for you" sentencing was "oh, and you're paired with a court appointed Alternative Transportation Liaison." Like a parole officer, but for vehicular habits.
I'm coming up on 20 years of riding buses, at least 15 of which I have been the go-to guy wherever I worked whenever someone had to get someplace using public transit. The amount of learning curve in just helping one person get from A to B when they haven't been on a bus in decades (or ever), is simply astounding.
Being forced to do this, by revocation of license, practically begs for some sort of help, help that I am almost certain does not exist. I know that I can get back and forth, car-less, to a good job that's devoid of transit service, but I have 20 years' training and the dogged determination to make it work.
I would be happy to help set up a training program for some sort of social counseling service for helping the newly car-less learn how to get around. It would, by necessity, involve transit, cycling and learning how to cross a street without getting killed. Would anyone care to join me in a brainstorming session, somewhere, sometime?
ejwme: that's a really good idea. And that Transportation Liason would be responsible to make sure that their charges really are NOT driving without licenses.
I wonder if we could convince people that a urinalysis could reveal whether they'd been driving a car or not.
If we really wanted to be harsh, we could develop an ankle bracelet that, via a simple accelerometer, could identify when the wearer was in motorized transportation. I haven't figured out in my head how to differentiate between passengering and driving. But that could get them picked up for motoring without permission, or however the other ankle bracelets work.
If we really wanted to be harsh, we could develop an ankle bracelet that, via a simple accelerometer, could identify when the wearer was in motorized transportation. I haven't figured out in my head how to differentiate between passengering and driving
The model I have in my head is a very long, but suspended sentence, with a parole condition being no driving.
Then, if a person is caught driving, it won't just be a simple citatioin for driving without a license, but a parole violation and completion of the long sentence behind bars.
but if they follow all the laws, the likely hood of them getting caught driving without a license is slim. granted, the likely hood of them driving and following all the rules is slim. but the likely hood of them getting caught?
http://kdka.com/local/mount.lebanon.investigation.2.1781488.html
Update on this story. So far, two counts. I'll bet more to come.
"While not a factor in this incident, Cope has four traffic citations in the past four years."
Objection!!! Directly establishes driver's own knowledge of his incompetance behind the wheel. "Good" drivers do not get a citation a year for four years.
Stu, I have no knowledge or understanding of our social safety nets concerning how to help people who have lost licenses deal with it, but I'd be up for brainstorming/researching it 
Also directly establishes the state's knowledge of driver's incompetence.
@Lyle, I worked with a guy a few years ago who had 11 points on his license, and got yet another moving violation. Apparently 11 is the limit? He was explaining the system to another co-worker who had run into the exact same problem. Essentially you have to go in front of a judge and get a stern talking to, pretty much read from a script. You sign forms, may have to attend a re-training class (I am not sure of this point), and then basically go about your business. All of this assumes you have only been pulled over, not been in an accident. There is a draw-down formula for removing points from your license, and more finger wagging awaits you if you re-cross that 11-point limit >1x/year. I don't know what fate awaits you if you've also been in an accident, but apparently it takes quite a bit to lose a license in this state.
@ejwme, PM me with any ideas you have. I'll do the same. Thanks!
Wow. Considering part of the reason I stopped driving a car ever is that I realised I was crap at it, and even crappy that I was, I never got a single infraction let alone points on my license, the amount of dangerous behaviour it must take to get 11 points must be staggering. And then those folks can get it back.
My insurance lady told me that my accident (from December 2008, spontaneous white out on highway near Buffalo) would disappear from my record this year so my rates would be lower next year. (I was told two years was normal for all accidents).
In this country (perhaps most others as well), the laws and their enforcement often belie our social norms. Our vehicular code indicates that we hold our cars more dear than most things in life, including at times life itself.
Our vehicular code indicates that we hold our cars more dear than most things in life, including at times life itself.
When I worked in Clairton workds, I walked to work. I moved to a little redneck town up the Mon, so I wouldn't be car-dependent. I talked to many of the guys about it.
A phrase I heard many times was "Taking away my car would be like taking away my legs."
Also, I was there when we had the second or third of a series of so-called "gas crises." (IMO, we have never had either a "gas crisis" nor has the price of gas ever been high).
At the start of gas price increases, I heard the sentence "If gas goes over a dollar, I'll start walking, too!" Well, gas went up to well over a dollar and guess what? I still was the only one who walked to work, except for a laborer who grew up and lived 3 or 4 blocks from the mill. (And even he started driving three blocks after a while.)
People value their cars an awful lot. I don't think many folks will ever be faced with "your car or your life."
What I expect we'll face, is a situation where every rational political candidate will say we need to severely limit gas consumption and driving. They will be running against obviously irrational candidates who claim it isn't so.
If that happened now? It's down the tubes.
Maybe not if it happens a few more decades of heavy bike/pedestrian/public transportation activism.
President Carter said those very things Mick and look where it got him.
Carter was president. I'll never be that sucessful.
He was, however, in the unfortunate political position of having to deal with a moderate, predictable gas price increase as though it was a "crisis."
He was also president when the bills for 30 years of serious US abuse of the Iranian people started being due.
Even now we are paying off what turned out to be just 27 years rent on the BP plant in Iran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
In the long run, it would have been cheaper to pay a penny or two more for gas.
Even Carter instituted things like rationing so that people never had to bear the true price of gasoline. Sure, you had to wait in line, and only on certain days of the week, but your gas was still cheap. With those sorts of disconnects, the market system fails. Every gallon should include the costs of the environmental impact of producing and burning the stuff, the geo-political costs of protecting the supply and beating down the locals who get no benefit from it, etc. Unfortunately, our taxes subsidize it instead.
glad to see they're pursuing this aggressively. it seems they take dui charges seriously, and well they should. but, as a topic for discussion, does anyone think the campaign against dui drivers championed by MADD has caused us to take other fatalities, such as those caused by driving while distracted, less seriously?
i have another question, too. from the article:
Toxicology tests revealed that Mr. Cope had marijuana in his system at the time of the crash.
have they come up with new and better tests for this, or does this just mean he smoked a joint within the last few weeks? can they pursue dui charges based on that tox screen, or is more evidence required?
This incident was in June and they're throwing the book at this kid because he had weed in his system.
Don was killed in May from, by all indications, a sober but inattentive driver. So... ?
well, all the drug/substance charges are all additional things that won't apply to the Harts Run Road kid. Also, I remember from the previous article that this young man had several previous driving citations which may or may not be playing a part in the charges. Certainly they will be brought up during a trial to show his (lack of) character and habit of breaking the law while driving.
It does seem to me that some of the charges would also apply to Don's killer such as homicide by vehicle, involuntary manslaughter and reckless driving/recklessly endangering another person. I would think he could still be charged with those even though he's a minor.
And keeping in mind that the county DA only got "the file" on the case about three weeks ago. The Mt Lebo PD might have been a little more prompt in turning over "the file" on this case than the Indiana PD.
Hopefully this is a good sign re: the weight of the charges that will be brought upon Don's killer.
as a bit of an anecdote, i was talking to an old couple who live in the mount lebanon, a few blocks from where the accident occurred, and they were pretty sure the lack of charges (this was days after it happened, mind you) were because the kid was moneyed. glad to see that doesn't play much of a role (yet).
Recall also that one of the key issues in the Dubois doctor's case is that the police DIDN'T do a sobriety check on the driver.
@Tabby - "the drug/substance charges are all additional things that won't apply to the Harts Run Road kid." That's a pretty broad assumption. I wonder if a toxicology test was even done, as Stu said, in the Dubois case. (Middle aged suburban cop would never assume that someone would be firing a spliff first thing in the am, right?)
@quizbot - It's early but, you're joking, right?
An update:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10252/1086298-100.stm
They're allowing the driver to leave his electronic house arrest, travel to a different state and attend his $46,000/year school.
However, Judge Manning imposed additional conditions, including a curfew that requires Mr. Cope be in his dorm room from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. He also is not allowed to operate a motor vehicle and must return for a drug test at least once per month.
And he has shown such good judgement in the past...
To paraphrase a song, "Nice bail, if you can get it."
HA - his bail is what he's paying for "Advent Semester" in fees/tuition/books/room&board.
Interestingly enough, from his university's own conduct page: "Students involved in misconduct (on or off campus) that leads to an arrest or citation may also be subject to penalties by the University."
(source: http://www2.sewanee.edu/catalog_student_life/student_policies )
I'm sure he's told the Dean of Students there about his conduct. Is there cooperation between PA and TN local LEOs?
Yea, being trapped in your dorm room is an awful situation. I'm sure all his pals will be greatly inconvenienced by moving the party to his room.
I am "calling BS" on the whole, "We just got the file," because in July I spoke with an assistant DA who said he tried to get on the case when it came in but he was denied.
The retribution side of me is saying "Yay, finally."
The cynical side of me is saying "What good will this do for deterrence?"
And another side of me is repeating what I said in the 2nd last post on Page 1 of this thread, that eventually this guy will be back on the street, probably w/o a license, and assuming he isn't going to live in a cardboard box behind a row of trash cans sucking down booze for the rest of his life, will be trying to get back and forth to a job, minus a car.
Taking that a step further, how many people who are living in boxes got that way because of some screw-up in their lives long ago, and didn't have a way to get to a job?
Something that's been bugging me since I saw him released from jail on bail - he did the walk out of the jail, in his nice suit, all alone. Even the slimiest scumbag criminal politician does that walk with his lawyer, somebody. Where has this young man's family been during this whole thing? No statement, nothing? Are they just too afraid to be associated with their own child, or seen in public? They just signed off, gave him his money to go off to a far away college, and that's it? This guy's a grown man and responsible for himself, but WTF? It sounds like a root problem to me. God forbid either of my children ever end up in a situation like this, I wouldn't defend them, but I would at least stand with them. The whole thing is just unbelievably sad.
It always gets to me when they call things like this a "accident". Last time I checked being under the influence and driving like a jerk is a very bad choice not a accident.
Willie, when I write about my brother I also find it difficult to call it an accident. The word just does not seem to fit, expecially if you saw where he was hit.
Scott Sago has only received a motor traffic control violation for his penalty. Now how much is that for killing my brother? A hundred dollars... two hundred dollars???
Stu, you said... "What good will this do for deterrence?"
That is my gripe..... no stiff penalty ... no deterrence factor. Even a child will steal from the cookie jar or whatever when there is no stiff penalty.
I'm not sure penalties have any real cause-and-effect relationship with deterrence. We need something else, and I'm thinking strict enforcement. I'm thinking a public education program. I'm thinking long-term projects like requiring a bicycle and pedestrian component to drivers' education courses.
To Mrs. Housewife, deterrence from a stiff fine means nothing when chasing to the mall with a crying kid in the car. If she takes out a cyclist on a turn, it's "OMG I didn't mean to do that".
Whether the fine is $100 or $100,000, I don't think it deters bad stuff from happening.
I, on the otherhand, think stiff penalties have worked for candy wrappers........Isn't there a lot less litter out there as the result of that little initiative??? I think twice about throwing paper out the window, but that is me....I think it makes some difference, even if it doesn't work for everyone. I am still all for stiff penalties!!
deterrence and strict enforcement are opposite sides of the same coin.
Weak states use draconian deterrence because they can't support the infrastructure required by a policy of strict enforcement.
the USA can support the infrastructure but lacks the will.
If he would have dropped a pen or had his flip flop get stuck he would probably still be driving.
A year or two in jail after negligently killing a pedestrian with your car is pretty much equivalent with "no criminal charges are expected". Horrible.
I disagree, I think it was fitting. This wasn't premeditated murder, the kid seemed truly sorry (at least by his words, and by the family's willingness to forgive him...which was done publicly), and probably will be a pretty attentive driver from here on out. He'll have to live the rest of his life knowing he killed a mother. And jail isn't a walk in the park. No need to lock a kid up for ever and ever, I think the lesson's been taught.
Related to what Stu said, if you could levy a life sentence on this, would that make drivers more attentive? Doubtful.
We have more people per capita in jail than any other industrialized nation, and yet we also are statistically a pretty violent place. Clearly incarceration alone doesn't solve the problem.
This may be a stupid question, but I'm hoping someone can enlighten me. In the article it says:
"was sentenced to serve from one year less one day to two years less two days incarceration.
The odd wording of the sentence allows Mr. Cope to serve the sentence at Allegheny County Jail."
Is county jail easier than state prison? Therefore, Cope's lawyer pushed for this?
@rice rocket - he's not a "kid". He's in his early twenties. Let's stop endlessly extending the adolescence of the American teenager. It's part of the problem.
And in reference to County Jail vs prison, of course there's a difference. Apparently they thought he couldn't handle life in the pen. This tells me that a white kid from an affluent suburb is probably being treated very differently. That's wrong, but hardly a surprise.
That said, never letting him drive again seems more important than a longer sentence.
Thanks dooftram! Do you know what the specific differences are between county jail and state prison? Luckily never been to either so I'm unsure of why one would be easier to do time in than the other.
We have more people per capita in jail than any other industrialized nation, and yet we also are statistically a pretty violent place. Clearly incarceration alone doesn't solve the problem.
What Brad said.
Incarceration strikes me as a pretty good idea for those who have demonstrated an inability to stop repeatedly hurting people. For those who have been 'merely' catastrophically careless, I'd prefer to leave 'em in the outside world, and simply forbid them from ever having the opportunity to be careless in that fashion again.
People who are convicted of killing others due to careless driving really need to never be allowed to drive again.
That said, not having a license hasn't prevented people from getting behind the wheel much, either.
We need a better way. I just don't know what it is, but I do know these people are going to be on bicycles and buses a lot.
@stu: Hence, my proposal for confiscation of vehicles driven by the unlicensed. Fines mean little; make the penalty for driving without a license/on a suspended license actually painful. (Regardless of ownership...make it the responsibility of the owner to ensure that any operator of their vehicle is legit.)
I have a feeling if these were pedal rather than motor bikes it never would have made it to court:
http://www.maysville-online.com/news/local/article_051d0ae6-32be-55a3-8c37-f0aee97a0bae.html
Video is here, things start about 2 minutes in: http://s306.photobucket.com/albums/nn275/eschan1/?action=view¤t=Vid00012.mp4
Yeah, because the biker totally shouldn't have tried to pass on a double yellow. It's all his fault. But seriously though, this was a deliberate attempt to run someone off the road, not an "accident."
@reddan Hence, my proposal for confiscation of vehicles driven by the unlicensed.
OR any sever enough penalty. Long jail terms might work.
On the other hand, I've long thought that you could make rules for licenses to be visible when a car is being driven. Kinda like fishing licenses. It would also be easy to set ignition locks so you needed to have a valid license to make the car go.
I've also thought that you could have an LED display of a car's speed somewhere visible. That would be a safety factor for other drivers, but it would also make speeding detection as easy as taking a picture.
Any of these things could be implemented at very little cost, but there is not the public will for it.
@Mick: Agreed, re severity of penalty being the key. Doesn't have to be confiscation.
However, I'd prefer a penalty that does not then leave me paying for their room and board. I'm coldhearted and Grinchy like that.
but there is not the public will for it.
And ^^^that is the biggest problem.
"Whaaat? Sumpin that'd reeestrict my Gawd-given right as a Murrcan to drive fast as I dampleeze after I turn 16? Can't do that, that's gum'mint interferin'."
In other words, something that might actually WORK? Nope, just can't.
There is, of course, the Spike Bike paradigm.
^ ah, interesting?!?
Except for the end, that's like all my Friday nights. Same for most folks here, I'd guess. 
This Hi-Viz Approach to Blaming/Saving Victims takes an interesting approach. The author talks about "hunting accidents", another situation in which the person who kills somebody is unaccountable because "it was an accident he shot them with a high-powered rifle" and the Common Wisdom is to blame the Dead Victim because they weren't wearing HiViz clothing.
Because it's totally your own responsibility to make sure that nobody shoots you by accident.
I thought it was an interesting parallel.
Cheers and Merry Christmas, V.
Hi viz dosnt work a mile away.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-20/amish-girl-accidentally-shot/52131964/1
Of course no charges are filed...
In hockey, if the business end of your stick contacts an opposing player above the neck, it's a "high stick" penalty and you go to the penalty box and feel shame for two minutes (Slapshot reference). If blood is drawn it is a four minute penalty. Regardless of intent, regardless of what the offending player was doing at the time. The point is they are responsible for what that stick does, where it goes and who or what it hits.
Motor vehicle -ahem- "incidents" ought to be treated the same way. If the motor vehicle that you are operating impacts another vehicle, a bicyclist, a pedestrian, a house, whatever, then you are responsible whether or not you were fixing your flip flop, texting, blinded by the sun, stoned, drunk or 79 years old. There are NO mitigating circumstances.
Sentencing starts at license suspension for incidents involving property damage only, climbing to mandatory jail time of 6 months in the case of bodily injury, and minimum 10 years in the case of death. NO possibility of reduced sentencing, but sentences could go higher if other factors are present, such as DWI, repeat offense, etc.
IMHO.
I came across this article via streetsblog: http://labikes.blogspot.com/2012/01/help-ressurect-house-bill-68-to-enhance.html (also see http://www.dukecitywheelmen.org/ )
So, what do we need to do to get a bill like this started here in PA? I'd still rather see license revocation be part of it, but it's a start.
I think its fantastic that bicycling and motorcycling organizations are apparently working together on that. We could use more of that, a lot of the issues are the same, especially when it comes to death or injury caused by drivers.
I think its fantastic that bicycling and motorcycling organizations are apparently working together on that.
I rode TOSRV in 2007 and a major throng of bicyclists were at a convenience store at about 90-ish miles. There was a tremendous roar and a club motorcycle ride, about 75 motorcycles, pulled in for fuel and drinks.
It was a funny moment. Bicyclists, Motorcyclists, Bicyclists, Motorcyclists, kind of two groups staring at each other.
I went over to one of the apparent alpha-cyclists and said, I got just one question for you.
He answered, Oh yeah, what's that?
I asked, Which one of our groups is dressed funnier? Because I just can't decide.
Big laughter from the motorcycle club, "hail fellow well met" all around. Turns out their MC, which is Ohio's oldest, started out as a bicycle club back in the day.
There's a lot of commonality in bicycle-motorcycle issues. Visibility, safety, and being perceived as legit vehicles by the "normal" people. It's a mutually beneficial alliance.
They're into equipment, rides, trips, weather, panniers, gloves, and sore butts just like we are. They've even got the same tendency to have helmet debates. They're out there having fun and trying to stay safe just like we are.
Give this guy a pair of sandals, and I would have thought he was riding a 'bent.
Ha ha.
I think there's a natural consanguinity between bicyclists and motorcyclists. We have many of the same issues with cars. I remember pulling into Hancock, MD on a Pgh-DC trip with the kids -- it was Biker Week. Motorcycles everywhere. At the hotel, I had some nice conversations with the motorcyclists.
There is definitely a lot of crossover between the two groups as well.
Though, I can't tell you how many times I've been almost by someone driving a car with a "Watch for Motorcycles" sticker
Though, I can't tell you how many times I've been almost by someone driving a car with a "Watch for Motorcycles" sticker
I've had a few close calls with cars equipped with trunk racks. Never loaded with bikes, but still...
And I agree re: most motorcyclists. I've had almost uniformly good interactions with 'em.
I cruised down 18th street with some bikers once. Everyone was amused.
I dropped them once we hit the Saturday night traffic jam.
I was buzzed by a motorcycle last week. There was an empty lane beside me yet he felt the need to pass me while in the right lane. I gave the universal arms outstreatch palms facing up WTF sign, then four more motorcycles passed me using the open left lane. I'd like to think that they said sdomething to the first guy when they caught up to him - but even this shows that at least 80% are good guys.
To generalize broadly, realizing the pitfalls that involves, MClists who ride very loud, very expensive bikes 3 miles at a time from bar to bar and put on a good show are generally butt-for-brains.
MClists who ride 1,000 miles across three states to get breakfast and a cup of coffee and then ride home are generally pretty cool.
Also V, cool Tosrv story. I probably rode that thing 10 or 12 years, back in the day.
I have had mostly positive experiences with motorcyclists... except for one incident where I was passed by one on the right at 20-30 mph as I rode up the liberty ave bike lane.
I think edmonds hit the nail on the head.
I've been passed by motorcycles in my lane while on a bicycle, and it is terrifying. Moreso than a car passing too close, for some reason. It's not that hard on a MC to give plenty of room.
There will always be the stupid outliers in both two wheeled cultures. I was passed by a motorcycle once, riding on the shoulder in excess of 80mph (speed estimated by the fact that I was driving a car about 70mph at the time).
I have had cyclists pass me close enough I could feel their breeze. Silent, and just as startling.
Kind of an on-topic article about Automotive Violence: We Need 'Broken Windows' for Traffic Crimes
The article starts with this phrase, quite similar to this thread's title: “No criminality was suspected.”
I can say, without a doubt, if there is ever one group of guys who are gonna be cool who I would never expect them to be, it is the leather clad Harley guys. No matter the size of their bike they have the same concerns. Lots of them can be idiots, but every group has that. They share the same issues and most of them are smart enough to recognize that. Often times in my encounters with them (gas stations and such) they have the bigger brother attitude but that comes with the price tag of their bike.
The issue with bikes is really the kids that get a bike that has more horsepower than most peoples first car and a top speed of 200mph with the ability to hit 100 in less than a few seconds.
interesting article, thank you for posting.
I agree with the premise that a crackdown is needed by law enforcement so that automobile crime is no longer considered "inevitable" like certain other crimes were in the 90's. When I was living in west Africa, people begging and selling on the street would run right up to and often on top of vehicles in traffic if they were going slow enough to keep up with, shoving their hands (and sometimes wares) into the occupants' faces. I never got used to it, and locals were always amazed when I explained that this was prohibited in the US, police dragged them away. They saw it as inevitable, including the pickpocketing that accompanied it.
But associating the 'broken window' campaign with anything other than changed attitudes towards crime, including a diminished crime rate, is a little far fetched. When the population at large has been taught by law enforcement to expect swift retribution from the system, the act is then seen as an actual crime, it's perpetrators become criminals. Whether or not it happens as often, that's a different issue. I hope the two would be related, but I'm not confident they are. Especially after having read Freakonomics.
We need BOTH. Changed attitudes towards traffic incidents, and a decrease in the occurance. I don't know what will encourage both to happen, but actually criminalizing it won't hurt either (if the system can hold the line long enough for public opinion to adjust to the new norm). What would be disastrous would be implementing a half-measure, then back-tracking when the populace balks.
The last line of the article is the essense:
New York councilmember James Vacca said... “We don’t accept gun violence as a way to die. We shouldn’t accept traffic deaths as a way to die either.”
It would be nice if there were crackdowns on dangerous motor vehicle violations everywhere.
NYC has a lot of pedestrians and a large population of prosperous carless people. Seems like a good place for MV traffic enforcement to start.
If you read Streetsblog, they make it seem that NYPD could give a shit about traffic related deaths which is in contrast to what the DOT is doing to try to prevent them.
I wonder what was the impetus behind strict penalties for MV infractions in work zones. Is there a difference between how police handle a vehicle hitting a construction worker versus a vehicle hitting a cyclist or pedestrian?
@chemicaldave:
The cynic in me says that it's because highway workers "have" to be in traffic, while those interloping peds and cyclists should know better, and deserve what they get if they trespass in the road.
I think that in certain narrowly defined situations, with specific priviledged constituencies, there's a nascent awareness that "vehicle violence" is unacceptable.
Kill a pedestrian while driving, it's OK.
Kill a pedestrian drunk driving, it's not OK.
Kill a person walking on the highway, it's OK.
Kill a state highway worker, it's not OK.
Kill a bicyclist, it's OK.
Kill a mom pushing an infant, it's not OK.
I'm hoping that means we're about to realize that Vehicle Violence is not an Acceptable Accident at any time, and the change is just happening in slightly irregular waves.
We kill as many people on the roads as we lose to cancer, each and every year. Our war deaths pale in comparison.
(and I guess that's another topic)
@reddan Or I'm wondering if perhaps the construction workers are effective at lobbying
re: work zones, it turns out that work zones are like accident factories, but it's fairly rarely the workers who are part of the collision. my WAG is that some reasonable person said "hey, construction areas are very dangerous for all road users. we should do something about that." and then some politician said "think of those poor workers! they're only doing their job!" and that sold the idea to legislators.
but honestly, if there was some predictable methodology by which some bills become law and others don't, i have yet to see it.
So the big news last night - two young nursing students, who stopped to help some idiot who fell asleep and rolled his car, had to jump from a bridge to avoid nearly being hit by an oncoming truck, they are now in critical condition. The "news" mentions nothing of the truck that nearly clipped them, no word of an investigation, anything, just that many people are praying for them. Yay. Our society as a whole is criminally insane.
http://www.wtae.com/news/30500731/detail.html
uggh.
How about this one? Father falls asleep at the wheel with his kids in the car, drifts into the oncoming lane and causes a head on collision. No charges have been filed.
@rsprake: so what's the suggestion here? The father did it on purpose? He wanted to harm the other driver? he's a negligent driver? What are you saying?
The event just happened. It is "still under investigation." Should they just start charging him with crimes without investigating and having all their facts straight?
For all I know the guy was DUI. OR... maybe he suffered a stroke or seizure... Point is we just don't know. That is why they investigate.
And please, spare me the predictable flip-flop boy posts. These are apples and oranges.
My suggestion is that he was negligent. The only way he gets charged with anything is if he was over the legal limit. That's the cynic in me.
Here's an Austin Tx blogger who uses almost the same persistent terminology: The Bull is Alive and Well in Austin.
I posted this article on my Facebook page, where I have a large number of non-cyclist, unenlightened friends. (If you're on my FB friend list, that would not be you.) I'm curious just what sort of response I'm going to get there. Meanwhile, perhaps, a couple of people might be enlightened.
Well, apparently there is some threshold at which justice is served. The son's comments about "accidents" are notable. Don't watch the video without some tissues handy.
http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/232409/45/Drunk-driver-sentenced-to-95-years-for-killing-judge
The threshold is your blood alcohol level.
Regarding the work zone infractions:
I was part of a project in school that looked at ways to improve worker safety (funded by msa, hence the focus). The amount of data available for worker injuries related to traffic/vehicles was astounding. Everything that SHOULD be gathered every time there is an accident actually was, and it stacked up to horrifying numbers that presented well on screen in front of an audience. Combined with the fact that it's a specific group, not just some random mom, nurse, or whomever else may test injured or killed otherwise, I think people some how empathize better. I also immediately got shot down for saying better laws and enforcement were ultimately the best way to make our construction workers safe, and would simultaneously help others as well. No money in that though, so we better keep making safety equipment instead, pretty much admitting there is a problem.
Not to sound like a jerk, but I hate those "my mommy works here" construction signs. Someone's mom works everywhere, and chances are she had to walk for some portion of that commute to get there. Why do guys (and gals) who understand how traffic works, are probably more aware of their surroundings, but happen to be near it more often get all the attention? I think they are great improvements for workers, because there ARE a lot of injuries there, but how do we spread the love.
Once again, the weather takes the blame for people driving inappropriately for conditions:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12056/1212723-100.stm
Whiteout blamed for two bad multiple-vehicle crashes
Whiteout conditions in northern Pennsylvania today led to at least two bad multiple-vehicle accidents, one with fatalities.
At least two people were killed in a multi-vehicle, chain-reaction crash on Interstate 80 in Venango County this afternoon.
People should know to 1) slow down to an appropriate speed and 2) if that speed is less tahn 40 mph, put on your blinkers.
I suppose it is remotely possible that the drivers did repond sensibly and still there was an accident. But it's also remotely posible that I will win the lotto, too. Unlikely.
To me, the kneejerk blame the weather and not the drivers is foolish.
yeah, but, to be fair, "society's collective acquiescence to danger presented by automobile use blamed for two bad multiple-vehicle crashes" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Weather conditions can and do change rapidly, but if you're driving safely before and not following too closely you have a better chance of being able to avoid such things.
"Drivers fail to slow for whiteout. Two dead."
I was in a very minor accident a few years ago. The weather was nice, etc. but the vehicle two cars in front of me slammed on his brakes. The car in front of me and I stopped without contacting anything (although we both PANIC stopped). Then a second or so after I had come to a complete stop the guy behind me slammed into me pushing me into the car in front of me. No one was hurt & only minor damage to all cars involved.
My point is that a lot of these drivers could have been driving perfectly correct for the conditions, only to be caught up in the mess by no fault of their own – especially since 18 wheelers were involved. But obviously there were others driving way too fast for conditions.
@ markko True enough.
I've been on the turnpike in storm. I've driven a faster than I felt was appropriate for the weather condition because I was worried about being hit from behind. Most of the people at my speed (under 40) did not have their blinkers on - and they seriously should have.
There were people that passed at roughly 70 mph, too.
Sadly, one of my co-workers was killed in the crash in Venango County, along with her husband. It's pretty somber around here today as the reality of a friend and colleague's untimely death sets in.
From the article about them in today's Tribune Review, it sounds like they were rear ended by a tractor trailer, which ultimately had to be removed from their car with an overhead crane.
To the extent that anyone is suggesting that the deceased were at fault, I'd respectfully say that you should reserve judgment because, among other reasons, you weren't there. I too will reserve judgment, although I must say I have a hard time understanding how a tractor trailer landed on their car without the truck driver being substantially at fault.
Jacob, I am sorry about your friend. I wasn't suggesting that it was any one person's fault, just that these things are preventable in most cases.
Most of the people at my speed (under 40) did not have their blinkers on - and they seriously should have.
There were people that passed at roughly 70 mph, too.
This is usually my experience as well and as someone who grew up in the snow belt of Erie county I have a lot of it. You have the people going below the speed limit and not letting anyone know that they are with their blinkers, and you have the people who think they are better drivers than everyone else who don't slow to assess the situation before proceeding.
Jacob, really sorry for your loss, that totally sucks.
I've totaled a car in a white out. Conditions can change from "fine and dandy" to "too dangerous" sometimes faster than one can can safely adjust (even if you were quite safe moments before), and sadly, sometimes faster than the person behind you can adjust as well.
For some reason, I find myself mentally applying two separate sets of reasoning to highway travel and non-highway travel. I find very few acceptable reasons for "accidents" on regular roads, but somehow on highways, with the higher speeds and the implications the laws of physics require, I see more room for unpredictable craziness to hit the safest of drivers. Not than an on-ramp means responsibility with caution is thrown to the wind, but somehow I can't see the situations the same.
Culturally seeing traffic deaths as avoidable AND tragic would only help users of both types of roads be safer. The "avoidable" bit is the tricky one.
Again, really sorry for your loss Jacob.
