Ottawa driver gets n2 years 4 hitting & inuring 5 cyclists & leaving scene

Here's the link:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/driver-hit-...112411742.html

He got more time for leaving the scene than he did for hitting them
whilst they were riding single file in a bicycle lane.. I wonder what
he would have got if he had stuck around after hitting them? One of
the victims said 2 years was fair. That's a little less than five
months per cyclist hit. Interesting.

Cheers

On Jan 10, 6:28*am, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Here's the link:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/driver-hit-...its-sentence-t...

He got more time for leaving the scene than he did for hitting them
whilst they were riding single file in a bicycle lane.. I wonder what
he would have got if he had stuck around after hitting them? One of
the victims said 2 years was fair. That's a little less than five
months per cyclist hit. Interesting.

Bicyclists will always be soft targets to those within a steel cage.

--
JS.

Per Sir Ridesalot:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/driver-hit-...112411742.html

"Luangpakham said he would have turned around if he knew he hit
them...".... but then there was the photo of the van's front
window smashed in.

What am I missing?
--
Pete Cresswell

On 1/9/2012 5:18 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Sir Ridesalot:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/driver-hit-...112411742.html

"Luangpakham said he would have turned around if he knew he hit
them...".... but then there was the photo of the van's front
window smashed in.

What am I missing?

This has been on the news a lot here. Most coverage points to the fact
that the cyclists were complying with all statutes - in the bike lane,
single file etc. It's good that it's clear that this wasn't a case of
riders blowing stops etc. and I'm glad that the media is making that
point. They are also calling for more driver education WRT cycling.
Another good thing.

One of the victims was saying that there's no way that he didn't notice.
Not all of the victims are as forgiving as the one quoted in the
article. He apparently took out 4 of the 5 cyclists. And like you say,
the windshield has a cyclist sized hole in it.

Apparently the issue with the sentence is that there was no alcohol or
any drugs causing the driver to be impaired. There was no evidence of
intent so they maxed him on the one provable criminal charge which was
leaving the scene. Jay can probably comment on that - IANAL but
unfortunately, I don't think that being an asshole is categorically illegal.

They say that he will face ~9 million in civil suits, which is a lot for
a law suit here. So there is that.

On Jan 10, 10:38*am, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 1/9/2012 5:18 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Per Sir Ridesalot:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/driver-hit-...its-sentence-t....

"Luangpakham said he would have turned around if he knew he hit
them...".... but then there was the photo of the van's front
window smashed in.

What am I missing?

This has been on the news a lot here. *Most coverage points to the fact
that the cyclists were complying with all statutes - in the bike lane,
single file etc. *It's good that it's clear that this wasn't a case of
riders blowing stops etc. and I'm glad that the media is making that
point. *They are also calling for more driver education WRT cycling.
Another good thing.

One of the victims was saying that there's no way that he didn't notice.
* Not all of the victims are as forgiving as the one quoted in the
article. *He apparently took out 4 of the 5 cyclists. *And like you say,
the windshield has a cyclist sized hole in it.

Apparently the issue with the sentence is that there was no alcohol or
any drugs causing the driver to be impaired. *There *was no evidence of
intent so they maxed him on the one provable criminal charge which was
leaving the scene. *Jay can probably comment on that - IANAL but
unfortunately, I don't think that being an asshole is categorically illegal.

Actually he was convicted of dangerous driving as well,but most of the
sentence was for leaving the scene,BTW he turned himself in after he
got home.

In article
,
Mister2u wrote:

On Jan 10, 10:38Â*am, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 1/9/2012 5:18 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Per Sir Ridesalot:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/driver-hit-...its-sentence-t...

"Luangpakham said he would have turned around if he knew he hit
them...".... but then there was the photo of the van's front
window smashed in.

What am I missing?

This has been on the news a lot here. Â*Most coverage points to the fact
that the cyclists were complying with all statutes - in the bike lane,
single file etc. Â*It's good that it's clear that this wasn't a case of
riders blowing stops etc. and I'm glad that the media is making that
point. Â*They are also calling for more driver education WRT cycling.
Another good thing.

One of the victims was saying that there's no way that he didn't notice.
Â* Not all of the victims are as forgiving as the one quoted in the
article. Â*He apparently took out 4 of the 5 cyclists. Â*And like you say,
the windshield has a cyclist sized hole in it.

Apparently the issue with the sentence is that there was no alcohol or
any drugs causing the driver to be impaired. Â*There Â*was no evidence of
intent so they maxed him on the one provable criminal charge which was
leaving the scene. Â*Jay can probably comment on that - IANAL but
unfortunately, I don't think that being an asshole is categorically illegal.

Actually he was convicted of dangerous driving as well,but most of the
sentence was for leaving the scene,BTW he turned himself in after he
got home.

And sobered up?

--
Michael Press

On Jan 13, 4:57*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,



*Mister2u wrote:
On Jan 10, 10:38*am, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 1/9/2012 5:18 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Per Sir Ridesalot:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/driver-hit-...its-sentence-t...

"Luangpakham said he would have turned around if he knew he hit
them...".... but then there was the photo of the van's front
window smashed in.

What am I missing?

This has been on the news a lot here. *Most coverage points to the fact
that the cyclists were complying with all statutes - in the bike lane,
single file etc. *It's good that it's clear that this wasn't a case of
riders blowing stops etc. and I'm glad that the media is making that
point. *They are also calling for more driver education WRT cycling..
Another good thing.

One of the victims was saying that there's no way that he didn't notice.
* Not all of the victims are as forgiving as the one quoted in the
article. *He apparently took out 4 of the 5 cyclists. *And like you say,
the windshield has a cyclist sized hole in it.

Apparently the issue with the sentence is that there was no alcohol or
any drugs causing the driver to be impaired. *There *was no evidence of
intent so they maxed him on the one provable criminal charge which was
leaving the scene. *Jay can probably comment on that - IANAL but
unfortunately, I don't think that being an asshole is categorically illegal.

Actually he was convicted of dangerous driving as well,but most of the
sentence was for leaving the scene,BTW he turned himself in after he
got home.

And sobered up?

Could be. But I've heard of the opposite tactic:

Many years ago, the lawyer who was iron-fisted overlord of the
locally ruling Democratic party managed to smash his car right through
the front doors of the brand new main post office late at night.

Of course, he claimed he had been perfectly sober while driving. But
it rattled him so much that he immediately hoofed it to the closest
bar and downed several drinks. IIRC, he was ticketed only for losing
control of his vehicle, or some such thing, with negligible penalty.

- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:28:15 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

Here's the link:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/driver-hit-...112411742.html

He got more time for leaving the scene than he did for hitting them
whilst they were riding single file in a bicycle lane.. I wonder what
he would have got if he had stuck around after hitting them? One of
the victims said 2 years was fair. That's a little less than five
months per cyclist hit. Interesting.

Hmmm... News clip from about a year ago. Apparently the 2 year
sentence is only for the criminal charges (i.e. dangerous operation of
a vehicle and leaving the scene). One of the victims was suing for
damages: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=457117468860
Notice how Luangpakham attempted to blame the victim(s).

I'll leave his explanation of how he didn't notice that he had hit the
riders and drove away with a severely bashed in windshield to the
apparently clueless jury.

Besides the 2 years, methinks he should be required to purchase or
borrow a bicycle, and ride the city streets and highways for a few
hours per week. If he survives, it will be a good lesson.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Per Frank Krygowski:
Many years ago, the lawyer who was iron-fisted overlord of the
locally ruling Democratic party managed to smash his car right through
the front doors of the brand new main post office late at night.

Of course, he claimed he had been perfectly sober while driving. But
it rattled him so much that he immediately hoofed it to the closest
bar and downed several drinks. IIRC, he was ticketed only for losing
control of his vehicle, or some such thing, with negligible penalty.

Ted Kennedy should have had such presence of mind.... -)
--
Pete Cresswell

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 02:21:52 +0000
Phil W Lee wrote:

Besides the 2 years, methinks he should be required to purchase or
borrow a bicycle, and ride the city streets and highways for a few
hours per week. If he survives, it will be a good lesson.

And if he doesn't, it will serve as a warning to the others.

Cyclists or cagers?




Mike