American crash cyclist gets 20 years in jail.

The article below is from the BikeBiz site. Compare the verdict with
the usual lack of action or paltry fines handed out to American
drivers who kill cyclists though wilful negligance.

I also note one the offences counting up to her 'three strikes and you
are out' sentence was a driving conviction. Does this mean drivers in
Florida can expect 20 year jail sentences the third time they commit a
traffic offence. No, I thought not...

Friday 21st November 2003

Drugged-up US cyclist gets 20 year jail term for swerving on a highway
Whilst radio-tuning, latte-slurping, cellphone-talking motorists get
little more than ticking offs for mowing down and killing cyclists, a
US judge has banged up a reckless cyclist who caused the death of two
passengers in a truck which was hit by a car swerving to avoid hitting
the female cyclist. She was found guilty of 'culpable negligence
manslaughter', a charge that is rarely enforced on motorists involved
in similar incidents. She did, however, have previous driving and drug
convictions so on a three-strikes-and-you're-out basis was handed a
tough sentence. The trial was filmed for Court TV.

The St Petersburg Times of Tampa Bay, Florida, reports that Laura
Roberts was sentenced to 20 years in prison by Pasco-Pinellas Circuit
Judge Michael Andrews.

On February 27th 2000, 40-year old Roberts took Xanax and Valium and
drank beer before riding her bicycle along US Highway 19 in Hudson,
Florida.

The effects of the pills and alcohol made Roberts "unsteady and
reckless" said prosecutors and caused her to ride into the path of a
rental car which collided with a Nissan pickup, injuring the driver
and killing his girlfriend and mother.

Before she was sentenced on Thursday afternoon, Roberts said she was
sorry for what happened and pleaded for leniency, reports The St
Petersburg Times. But in delivering the sentence, Judge Andrews said
Roberts had convictions for driving-under-the-influence in 1993 and
attempting to purchase cocaine in 2001.

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/21/Pa...cle_ride.shtml

"Howard" wrote in message
om...
The article below is from the BikeBiz site. Compare the verdict with
the usual lack of action or paltry fines handed out to American
drivers who kill cyclists though wilful negligance.

I also note one the offences counting up to her 'three strikes and you
are out' sentence was a driving conviction. Does this mean drivers in
Florida can expect 20 year jail sentences the third time they commit a
traffic offence. No, I thought not...


A very sad story for all parties I think, and another sad indictment of the
American 'justice' system. What is to be gained by banging her up for 20
years? But, that's the three strikes system for you - if it's used in that
way I don't share the view that motorists with a similar conviction history
wouldn't get similar treatment from that judge.

Interesting that in truck -v- car, it was the occupants of the truck that
came off worse...

Rich

On 2003-11-22, Richard Goodman wrote:
A very sad story for all parties I think, and another sad indictment of the
American 'justice' system. What is to be gained by banging her up for 20
years? But, that's the three strikes system for you - if it's used in that
way I don't share the view that motorists with a similar conviction history
wouldn't get similar treatment from that judge.

Also consider America's stance towards drugs, which is a bit harsher
than that over here. A recent comparison I read between computer "users"
and drug "users" didn't strike me as too bad at first, until I remembered
that it was stated in America.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twighlight Zone.

I fully support this. Of course, it should apply to everyone, regardless
of mode of transport - but if your actions on the road result in a
fatality then you should expect to be punished for it.

Rather than looking at this as the law being crackers, I would say its a
rare case of the law getting it right. So what it happened to be a
cyclist at fault in this instance?

Sad story - particularly for dead and for their loved ones and families. Sorry,
but I have little sympathy (read none) for someone who mixes drugs & alcohol
and then goes out and gets other people killed. The fact it was a cyclist who
did it doesn't mean it's acceptable and it doesn't mean the cyclist shouldn't
be dealt with seriously.

The fact that a motorists may have been treated leniently doesn't mean it's
tough on the cyclist - it means it's too easy on the motorist - which is a
whole other kettle of fish. Looking through the report, I wonder if this
particular judge would have treated a motorist more leniently, actually, and
the truth is, we don't know.

It is wrong that over here in the UK, it is acceptable to kill someone when the
weapon of choice is a motor vehicle. IMO, it shouldn't matter whether the
person doing the killing is a motorist or a cyclist, it should all be taken
seriously. The fact that motorists get away with it over here is an issue that
*needs* to be adressed, but not by saying that when a cyclist does it, he or
she should be treated leniently.

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove dependency on fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o* *l.c**$*$om$$

"Howard" wrote ...
The article below is from the BikeBiz site. Compare the verdict with
the usual lack of action or paltry fines handed out to American
drivers who kill cyclists though wilful negligance.

I recall an episode last fall in which a drunken driver in Southern
California (San Bernardino County) killed two cyclists and was charged with
second degree murder. The episode got quite a bit of attention on
rec.bicycles.misc. and (I believe) on this NG. I also recall a long thread
on this NG about the driver of a Range Rover in the UK who received a
minimal punishment after deliberately running over a small child in a
bicycle trailer, in full view of the child's father. Whose courts are guilty
of "lack of action or paltry fines"?

I also note one the offences counting up to her 'three strikes and you
are out' sentence was a driving conviction. Does this mean drivers in
Florida can expect 20 year jail sentences the third time they commit a
traffic offence. No, I thought not...

I also note one of the offences counting up to her "three strikes and you
are out" was a felony committed while using a car (DUI). Can drivers in
Florida expect 20 year jail sentences the third time they commit a traffic
offence? No. Can anyone in Florida expect 20 years in jail the third time
they commit a felony? Yes. Will the choice of machinery used in the
commission of said felony (car, bicycle, gun, etc.) exempt them from
punishment? Unlike the aforementioned driver of the Range Rover, no.

I don't support "three strikes, you're out" laws, but this time the law
seems to have been applied fairly.
--
mark

"Richard Goodman" wrote ...

Interesting that in truck -v- car, it was the occupants of the truck that
came off worse...

1. Passenger cars sold in the US must be built to absorb the impact of a
collision by allowing most of the bodywork (engine compartment/trunk area)
to crumple while the reinforced passenger compartment remains intact
(similar requirements in Europe/UK?). Trucks are not subject to this
requirement, and are often built with very rigid frames, allowing little
energy absorption by the vehicle in the event of a crash, transferring the
full brunt of the impact to the occupants.

2. The newspaper article describes the car as a Chevrolet Monte Carlo, which
in the US is classified as a "full sized" (meaning obscenely huge) car. It
probably weighs more than the smaller Nissan pickup trucks.
--
mark

The article below is from the BikeBiz site. Compare the verdict with
the usual lack of action or paltry fines handed out to American
drivers who kill cyclists though wilful negligance.


What a load of tosh. The woman was a habitual drug user with previous
convictions. The fact that her criminal actions resulted in the death
of innocent road users seems to have bypassed you in your quest to seek
(partial) exoneration because she was on a bicycle. She deserves
everything the court could throw at her. How do you define her drug
hazed cycle ride if it wasn't wilful negligence?

What exactly did you want? A supervision order? I don't detect any
injustice. She knew the rules of engagement and cocked a snook at the
law and lost.

No sympathy for her whatsoever.

I also note one the offences counting up to her 'three strikes and you
are out' sentence was a driving conviction. Does this mean drivers in
Florida can expect 20 year jail sentences the third time they commit a
traffic offence. No, I thought not...


You cant defend the indefensible. The womon committed a third criminal
act, some motoring offences ( driving under the influence) are criminal
offences. Cyclists, like the rest of the population at large are not
all pure and free of sin. Some are gits and deserve extreme punishments
for extreme acts of criminal negligence.

I suggest you adjust your grip on reality and seek to support raising
the tarrif for motorists to a similar level instead of supporting a lost
cause.

Vernon
In Leeds UK


Friday 21st November 2003

Drugged-up US cyclist gets 20 year jail term for swerving on a highway
Whilst radio-tuning, latte-slurping, cellphone-talking motorists get
little more than ticking offs for mowing down and killing cyclists, a
US judge has banged up a reckless cyclist who caused the death of two
passengers in a truck which was hit by a car swerving to avoid hitting
the female cyclist. She was found guilty of 'culpable negligence
manslaughter', a charge that is rarely enforced on motorists involved
in similar incidents. She did, however, have previous driving and drug
convictions so on a three-strikes-and-you're-out basis was handed a
tough sentence. The trial was filmed for Court TV.

The St Petersburg Times of Tampa Bay, Florida, reports that Laura
Roberts was sentenced to 20 years in prison by Pasco-Pinellas Circuit
Judge Michael Andrews.

On February 27th 2000, 40-year old Roberts took Xanax and Valium and
drank beer before riding her bicycle along US Highway 19 in Hudson,
Florida.

The effects of the pills and alcohol made Roberts "unsteady and
reckless" said prosecutors and caused her to ride into the path of a
rental car which collided with a Nissan pickup, injuring the driver
and killing his girlfriend and mother.

Before she was sentenced on Thursday afternoon, Roberts said she was
sorry for what happened and pleaded for leniency, reports The St
Petersburg Times. But in delivering the sentence, Judge Andrews said
Roberts had convictions for driving-under-the-influence in 1993 and
attempting to purchase cocaine in 2001.

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/21/Pa...cle_ride.shtml

Just to clear up some misconceptions here, I, as an American, must note:

1. This is not an example of the "Three strikes and you're out" law found in
some states. That law states that if you are convicted of a third felony, you
get a life sentence - the rest of your natural life, not 20 or 25 years. The
person here will be eligible for parole in 7 to 10 years, depending on state
law.

2. Courts in the southern part of my country have a tendency to hand out
harsher sentences than in the northern half. In Delaware or Oregon, she might
have gotten 5 years or even probation.

3. People here are getting just a bit fed up with drunk drivers and it doesn't
matter if they were driving a car or a bicycle.We don't want them on our roads
and we are not going to accept the same old excuses any more. If that bothers
you, feel free not to drive or bike under the influence in the U.S.

Chris Law
Newark, DE, USA

"Christopher R. Law" wrote
Just to clear up some misconceptions here, I, as an American, must note:

1. This is not an example of the "Three strikes and you're out" law found
in
some states. That law states that if you are convicted of a third felony,
you
get a life sentence - the rest of your natural life, not 20 or 25 years.
The
person here will be eligible for parole in 7 to 10 years, depending on
state
law.

True, but the sentence appears to have reflected the fact that the woman had
two prior felony convictions.

2. Courts in the southern part of my country have a tendency to hand out
harsher sentences than in the northern half. In Delaware or Oregon, she
might
have gotten 5 years or even probation.

3. People here are getting just a bit fed up with drunk drivers and it
doesn't
matter if they were driving a car or a bicycle.We don't want them on our
roads
and we are not going to accept the same old excuses any more. If that
bothers
you, feel free not to drive or bike under the influence in the U.S.

The regulars on this newsgroup don't strike me as the drunk driving (or
bicycling) type. Could you please lighten up on the flag waving?
--
mark
Colorado