He was charged with Vehicular Homicide[0], which is a felony. I'm curious how many years of jail he gets. Wikipedia states that in Georgia it's 3-15 years of prison, and in Louisiana it's 2-20 years. I agree it'd be nice if this was more consistent state to state though.
That man, Jerry Guy, admitted he had been drinking and taking prescribed painkillers the night of the accident, and had been convicted in two earlier hit-and-runs. He served six months in jail for the crime.
Additionally, as someone noted in the linked story, the bus stop was nearly a mile away from the crosswalk.
They ask people to use public transportation, but make it as inconvenient as possible to do so.
the fact that she was convicted at all defies logic - how would her and her children being on crosswalk have stopped the drunk driver which had 2 previous hit-and-runs ? (until of course it is a crosswalk above or below the road - not likely seeing the photographs of the road and the neighborhood). Even then, lets suppose instead of the drunk driver there were a gang shooting (or just a drunk shooting cans) and the stray bullet - would she still be convicted of the jaywalking? Dissolution/de-emphasizing of the importance of "mens rea" while increasing the punishment for just being at the wrong place at the wrong time is very worrisome tendency.
No, it makes perfect sense. She's black, and she faced an all-white jury. This is in suburban Atlanta.
This is where "jury of your peers" can be pretty useful. Apparently none of the jurors had ever ridden in a bus before.
I really also want to put the city planner up for trial, because the reason she jay walked was that the nearest legal crosswalk was half a mile away from the bus stop. In suburban Atlanta, however, I've never seen any evidence that city planners even exist.
That is exactly what cars are. They are weapons loaded with ammunition and ready to be fired. It baffles me that many people don't seem to be aware of this material reality.
Familiarity. "Hmm, I've spent thousands of hours driving carelessly and haven't killed anyone. Why start being careful now? It'll just make me late to my meeting."
(As a cyclist, I think people drive a lot better than they are made out to, however. I can't think of any time anyone's endangered my life.)
As a cyclist, I think 99.99% of people drive a lot better than they are made out to. The 0.005% that meander onto the shoulder and swerve back into their lanes, narrowly avoiding you, are scary. The 0.005% that throw empty beer cans, honk as they drive by, swerve towards you intentionally, or otherwise try to run you off the road are the ones that really get me. I can think of three times when 50+MPH vehicles have been within 6 inches or less of me or my bike. If that doesn't count as endangerment, I don't know what does. Two of my friends have been hit (admittedly, both were in 25 MPH zones, survived with minimal injuries, and the drivers were in the first category).
I've been commuting via bicycle for seven years now. The majority of my experience has been positive. But I can think of five instances off the top of my head where my life was nearly forfeit to dangerous car drivers. Two of these instances I was harassed (profanities + shouting that bicycles don't belong on the road), driven off the road, and expected to be run over. Fwiw, I live in a mid-size city in central CA.
I'm always surprised at the unmitigated hostility at cyclists on the road. Like, nasty aggressive swerving, cussing, etc., all kinds of driving that makes the car driver a far greater liability than the cyclist.
As a longtime bicycle commuter and rider I have several times been on the receiving end of aggressive driving that was clearly intended to intimidate if not outright kill or injure. It is (fortunately) rare, but there are some people who do not seem to understand the responsibilities that come with the privilege of driving a motor vehicle.
You are probably a pretty good cyclist then. As best I can tell, cyclist's opinions of me as a driver tend to be directly correlated to how far into my lane they ride.
The ones that ride smack-dab in the middle of the lane on a 2-lane highway can be counted on to shake their fist at you any time you don't use the entire other lane for passing.
As best I can tell, cyclist's opinions of me as a driver tend to be directly correlated to how far into my lane they ride.
If there are parked cars, you have to move into the lane or risk getting doored. Near intersections, you have to move into the lane or people will cut you off and turn right in front of you when you're going straight. If the road has no shoulder, you have to move into the lane to dissuade people from running you off the road by trying to pass with insufficient space (and to give yourself some margin in case someone tries). The same holds if the shoulder is full of debris. If you're descending a hill, you have to move into the lane so you can maneuver around turns.
Any safe cyclist will spend some time taking a lane of traffic.
In reply to all three of you, I know a cyclist can take a lane. I was mostly referring to the ones that half-pretend to be riding on the shoulder, not taking a lane but not doing a good job staying out of the lane. I liken it to a car using 2 lanes, which is just as frustrating.
When it comes to 2-lane highways, I realize I am a little biased but I expect some co-operation on the part of cyclists. It doesn't have to all be about "me-me-me", but I expect cyclists to work with me to allow me to pass safely, same as I do for cars when I'm cycling on a 2-lane highway.
That. I get annoyed when cyclists aren't riding far enough to the left. Don't go straight through the right side of the right turn only lane. Turn left from the left lane.
Lately I've started riding farther to the left, and I've found it to prevent a lot of annoying situations. One situation that is made much easier is where a there's a traffic light with a lane to the right, but where that right lane becomes parking after the light. Instead of stopping in the right lane, it's much easier to just stop behind the cars. Then you don't have to merge in when the light turns green and you go across the intersection; you're already merged in. And, cars can pass you and turn right on red, which people seem to like to do.
I'm convinced that staying to the right is what kills cyclists. There are doors there, there are pedestrians jumping out in front of you, there are cars turning right. Ride confidently and you avoid all that. You have as much right to a full traffic lane as any other road user.
Don't get killed because you don't want to make someone late for their meeting.
Iirc, CA law says cyclists should use the bicycle lane when safe and convenient, but should not hesitate to act like a motor vehicle in the normal lanes when needed. Like you, I've found staying to the left of right-turn-only lanes prevents a lot of cutoff situations. It sounds like obvious advice, but it can feel intimidating for cyclists not used to traffic.
In my city (at least) cyclists are entitled to a full lane, just as a car is. If there is a curb lane designated for bicycles that is preferred, but a cyclist can always take up a full lane if needed.
The number of deaths is around 90 a day in the US. That's down from like 115 a day 10 years ago. Still more to be done, but I don't think it's as high as some think.
Motor vehicle accidents kill the young (rarely); cancer and cardiovascular disease kill the old (frequently). Oddly enough, people regard a 4 year old killed by/in a car as a worse outcome than that same 4 year old growing up to be an 89 year old killed by cancer or heart disease.
