Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on April 8, 2016 at 3:06am

Definitely interesting. Makes me wonder a few things...

In the U.S., is that necessarily a good thing? Is this our issue with our legal system? I am thinking specifically of the recent court cases involving DUI resulting in death of a cyclist. Too many offenders are getting off with light sentences and it's the judge's decision. Also, the legal system is very slow with each court date not really getting very much done except to set the next court date. Is there anything more careless than getting incredibly drunk and getting behind the wheel of a car? Yet our legal system seems to forgive too easily when someone drives under the influence. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike w. on April 8, 2016 at 4:35am

It's almost a rite of passage to drive whilst liquored up and maybe collect a few DUI's. i often hear people bragging about how they weren't sure how they even got home from the bar, or laughing about how they dodged a breathalyzer test or fooled or sweet-talked a cop. There's a very unhealthy attitude about alcohol in this society where it's almost expected that people will get drunk and act the fool or kill or maim someone but it'll be alright tomorrow, knowing that if one gets caught, and if one has the cash for a slick attorney, one will pretty much skate. What ever happened to personal responsibility and consequences? Who will speak up for the victim of these drivers? Apparently not the legal system.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Barish on April 8, 2016 at 7:48am

I think DUI prosecutions have become tougher over the years. It leveled off but about 20 years ago and appeared to show decreases in alcohol related driving. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810942.pdf A DU  arrest is hardly a laughing matter for a driver. I think society has become increasingly intolerant of inebriated drivers. The problem appears to be that society has still not figured out that cyclists belong on the road and are vulnerable to all drivers whether inebriated, distracted or incompetent. That is where the article is provocative. Will juries recognize cyclists on the road? They will as society does. We have all been working on that. I have to hope that proper instructions will limit a jury's ability to go rogue. I would be interested to hear Mike and  Brendan's voices on this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ad on April 8, 2016 at 8:10am

I think Yasmeen alludes to it above, but the problem in many of these cases is not that the jury doesn't convict (very often they do, since it's pretty cut-and-dry in many cases), but the judge then turns around and gives lenient sentences. 

Removing the jury (which will never happen in the US considering it would take a const. amendment) isn't going to solve the real issue---that judges do not like to send first time offenders with otherwise clean (and sometimes impeccable) records to prison for large amounts of time for what they view as "reckless" crimes.  

The only solution would be mandatory minimums, but we've seen the battles over those in drug cases, and how they often get struck down years later.   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cheryl on April 8, 2016 at 8:26am

I don't know that a judge is capable of less bias than a jury, especially based on bench trial verdicts in bicyclist cases. it seems to me there needs to be a deeper, more systemic change in the laws to level the playing field - adopting vulnerable user laws, and even putting the burden of proof on the motor vehicle operator (as in the Netherlands) would go further toward more equitable results.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maurice on April 8, 2016 at 10:20am

Judges in the U.S. are insanely biased.  Almost all of them drive everywhere, and their average age makes them relatively unfriendly to cyclists.  Also, as noted, this would require a constitutional amendment in the U.S., which isn't going to happen (and shouldn't).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom A.K. on April 8, 2016 at 1:30pm

My hope for our judicial system is one that it would be fair and even-handed to all. That all would be judged impartially by a jury of his peers or an honorable judge from his bench. The reality is that biases get passed over in jury selection and judges are overly sympathetic to letting another life being ruined despite the tragedy of a lost cyclists life. Our judicial system must become enlightened that a life of another when taken away tragically must be fairly remediated.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Irvin Steinert on April 8, 2016 at 5:40pm

How would you know if they are a dangerous driver? Being accused of something does not mean it's true. It is better to let the guilty go free than to punish the innocent. It is certainly possible to be innocent even if a high probability of guilt is opined by the community of the victim. The rights of the accused are critical in a just society.

• ▶ Reply