Bobby Cann Updates: Ryne San Hamel Pleads Guilty, Receives 10 Days in Jail
Jason Jenkins at ActiveTrans is helping to coordinate community response. If there is any chance you can attend proceedings, please reach out to him:
jason@activetrans.org.
Views: 44156
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on
-
The Sun Times editorial expresses the concerns so many of us have - 10-day sentence is so low, it does nothing to discourage drunk driving and sends a message that our (cyclists) lives are not as valuable. No tolerance drunk driving laws, enforcement and sentencing is the only effective approach to stop this from happening. There are so many options to avoid driving after having a few drinks. But when drunk drivers are consistently given a slap on the wrist, there's a societal acceptance of intoxicated driving. Ryne was pulled over twice before he killed Bobby Cann and both times he managed to get off with no consequences. If he lost his license for his second offense and had to attend extensive counseling would this have happened?
A 10-day sentence when a man has been killed does nothing to discourage drunken driving. It says bicyclists are second-class citizens.
At the unveiling in October 2013 of the street sign bearing Cann’s name, his mother, Maria, remarked on IDOT’s plan to add the bike lanes. “Bobby told me that biking was very safe,” she told a TV news crew. “But no infrastructure change can make it safe to share the road with intoxicated drivers.” We couldn’t agree more.
The judge in this case blew a chance to make our streets safer for everyone.
http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/editorial-a-blown-chance-to-mak...
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Montanaro 0mi on
-
> 10-day sentence is so low, it does nothing to discourage drunk driving and sends a message that our (cyclists) lives are not as valuable.
You can easily argue (and many do) that the death penalty isn't a deterrent to those who commit murder. If that's true, it's unlikely that the difference between a potential 10-day or 10-year prison sentence will deter drunk drivers, especially considering they are quite impaired when they decide to get behind the wheel.
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Kastigar on
-
I'd have to disagree with this.
The threat of a 10-year sentence in prison would be a very strong deterrence and would give anyone even impaired some thought before climbing behind the wheel.
A 10-day sentence, not so much.
-
-
Of course, San Hamel had no way of knowing the consequences of his actions nearly four years ago. The only thing which he did know, and which probably didn't cross his mind as he turned the key, was that daddy had gotten him off scott-free a couple times before. Deep down in the recesses of his reptilian brain, maybe he figured daddy would always be there to bail him out. This time, not quite, though pretty damn near.
In addition, you and I are thinking about this as rational people, presumably with nothing impairing our minds as we consider the possibilities. I happen not to drink, so I have no personal experience to go on regarding San Hamel's true (impaired) state of mind. I was only writing by analogy with one argument made against the death penalty. If that argument is true (and not just an argument made to stack weight against the death penalty), then I find it unlikely that a drunk person considering how to get home will weight the odds of killing someone if they drive.
I hate mentioning San Hamel's name all the time, so I will balance this comment out with:
Bobby Cann, Bobby Cann, Bobby Cann, Bobby Cann.
-
-
I appreciate that we are all on the same side of the issue here - we all want to decrease DUI-related deaths from occurring. I'm not suggesting a death penalty. If we have one set of laws/rules with regards to sentencing for the well-connected, well-lawyered part of our society and another set of laws/rules for everyone else with regards to the severity of the sentence, our justice system - specifically in this case, is not just and is doing our society a disservice as a whole.
We also need to reexamine why DUIs happen as much as they do and how we can actively work on addressing the problem. By giving a 10-day sentence and a $25k fine, our justice system is not balanced and fair and is not doing enough to deter future DUIs. It just isn't a meaningful answer to the problem. Why is he not required to attend counseling? Lifetime loss of license? Meaningful community service? Having a driver's license is a privilege that shouldn't be taken lightly by driving while intoxicated or distracted (smart phones, drugs, etc.). The United States is the third worst country for DUI-related deaths (that does not include distracted driving). 31% of road-related deaths in the U.S. involve alcohol.
It does look like stiffer sentences may not ultimately deter a tragedy like this from happening but neither does a (very small) slap on the wrist. Or letting him off free twice - before someone was killed.
As Bobby's mother pointed out, no amount of infrastructure will protect the vulnerable users of the road - in a car, on a bike, or on foot from a person that is driving recklessly. If Ryne faced stricter consequences e.g. loss of a license, required counseling with education on the dangers of driving while impaired, a life could have been saved.
-
-
I asked a couple days ago, but saw no answer... Do we know what the terms of his probation are, other than "four years"? Are any of those meaningful restrictions Yasmeen mentioned in place or on the horizon?
-
-
I have tried to go through and read (and post) every article and I have not seen any mention of any restrictions.
-
Permalink Reply by mike w. on
-
Big problem is, even if there is a permanent loss of a drivers' license, many of these (ex-)drivers still get behind the wheel knowing that they're not likely to get caught.
-
Permalink Reply by Maurice on
-
Not cycling related, but this type of story stirs the same anger in me:tl;drDude runs over a postal carrier who is walking down the sidewalk. DNAInfo reporter right off the bat calls it a "freak accident," the caption-writer claims that the car "accidentally lurched forward," and the police write the guy a ticket. No evidence of any defect in the car. The man simply ran the victim over, killing her. Sure, he didn't do it on purpose, but just say that. Don't excuse his conduct by pretending that cars drive themselves. This isn't a Stephen King story.
Groups
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Wednesday Night for Mort…
1 member
-
Great Lakes Ultra Cycling
270 members
-
Major Taylor Internation…
1 member
-
Critical Mass discussion
261 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
