Comments on: Maureen McCormick: On the Cutting Edge of Traffic Justice

By: Settor27

Settor27 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:00:20 +0000

Indeed world hunger has to be solved. ,

By: Ramona Agricola

Ramona Agricola — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:56:49 +0000

My emphasis was mainly on the need for mandatory blood testing however I will explain further.
It was determined that the woman was already in lane and going straight. Because of the van driver's rate of speed he came upon her vehicle very fast. The road was rain soaked thereby making the speeding even more dangerous. A defensive, unimpaired driver aware of the dangerous road conditions, would have easily avoided the collision. The van driver's perception and judgment were skewed, he overreacted and lost control of his vehicle. She was wrong but this accident could have been avoided, the impairment is the main cause of the van drivers inability to respond appropriately & effectively.

By: nanterking

nanterking — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:29:21 +0000

I'm confused. You say that a woman made an illegal left turn, yet the focus of you post is on the van driver. It's almost as if you're blaming the van driver just because he was intoxicated, even though, from your description, the woman making the illegal turn was at fault. But that can't be. That wouldn't make sense.

By: Ramona Agricola

Ramona Agricola — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:30:08 +0000

First I would like to say that Maureen McCormick is a wonderful, kind and caring person. We had meeting with her last year to discuss the case against the driver who killed my son. She sat and spoke to us and with tears in her eyes she promised to do all that she could to help us find justice.
In Oct. 07 our 18 yr old son, Charlie, was killed while walking on the sidewalk at 7pm. A women had made an illegal left turn from a commercial driveway across 3 lanes, at the exact same time a van was barreling up the road at a high rate of speed. The SUV and the van collided, the van jumped the curb and took down a parking meter, a tree, the cable that was attached to the telephone pole and hit my son into a parked car that hit another car that hit another car that ended up on a side street. No charges filed, no tickets issued at the scene. Of the five people involved in the accident only my son sustained injury that led to his immediate death. He was not a passenger, he was not driving, he wasn't even in the road.
Here is where I would like to make my point...six weeks later it comes to light that the van driver had taken 15 Vicoden before he got behind the wheel and he and his passenger were passing a bong while driving down the road. There wasn't any arrest because he didn't "appear" to be intoxicated.
Before anyone could notice he managed to get a Snapple and a candy bar to raise his blood sugar and mask his intoxication. His demeanor was considered normal because of the circumstances. No blood or urine test, no proof.
We are still in litigation but the drug usage can not be brought up at trial, we only have the speed to work with. We need mandatory blood testing at the scene of all fatal accidents. Maine has determined that it is not unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment in these circumstances:

http://fourthamendment.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&title=me_mandatory_blood_testing_in_fatal_acci&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

It is essential to have these samples to prosecute these offenders after the fact. Breath-o-lizers are not enough today, drug impairment is much more difficult to detect and drug users know this.
I intend to support Maureen in her efforts to enact a law that makes this possible. She has been working on getting this bill passed for over 10 years. If she could have gotten it passed can you imagine how many lives could have been saved? Can you imagine how many families could have had justice sure and swift and not be dragged through a long trial to re-live the brutal death of their loved one over and over? We need to make the laws more astringent, we need to get it right the first time and we need the tools to help make that possible.

By: Peter Goldwasser

Peter Goldwasser — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:06:39 +0000

While People v. Cabrera, 10 NY3d 370 [2008], ruled that way, a later case (November 08) in the Appellate Division, 2nd Department (People v. James McGrantham, 868 N.Y.S.2d 219) went the other way, refuting Cabrera. Furthermore, the Court actually takes a wide swipe at what it thinks is years of misreading the case that started it all, Senisi.

By: Eileen

Eileen — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:06:33 +0000

This was a really interesting interview and she seems like a thoughtful person, but I do wonder what, if any, recommendations she has for reforming the law (or if she even thinks it's possible)? For example, why not just prescribe a jail sentence for anyone who fails to stop for a pedestrian, regardless of what their intent was with the respect to the pedestrian or whether they were criminally negligent? They intentionally drove into the crosswalk; if they intentionally didn't pay attention (or if they did and didn't care), there should be consequences beyond a fine. Let's put them in jail and take away their license *before* they actually have the chance to kill someone.

By: Rhywun

Rhywun — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:25:59 +0000

> The State of New York sent her a form in the mail.

It's interesting to note that non-driver ID's canNOT be renewed by mail. One must do it in person. This ID is also NOT valid proof of anything when trying to get a passport, despite requiring the exact same proofs as a driver's licenese.

By: JM Palacios

JM Palacios — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:48:01 +0000

I hear that in Mexico cars are treated as weapons. So if you hit someone with your car it's as bad as pulling a gun or a knife on them.

Not that I feel any safer crossing the street when I'm in Mexico, but perhaps we could learn a few things from them.

Oh, and how about gun (car) control?

By: Marty Barfowitz

Marty Barfowitz — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:29:02 +0000

My wife's driver's license just came up for renewal. The State of New York sent her a form in the mail. She got an eye test, filled out the form and sent it all back to Albany with a check. That was that. She can now legally operate a motor vehicle on New York City streets. The New York State DMV was utterly and completely uninterested in her driving skills and abilities. Is it any wonder that we have so many murderous drivers on our streets?

By: Glenn

Glenn — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:00:36 +0000

Most crashes are the result of several things going wrong and rarely have just one explanation. It seems that there is no sliding scale in automobile crashes - either they are guilty of a crime or not. I think there needs to be more intermediate outcomes that penalize drivers involved in serious crashes.

Justice to the victim and families is the first order of business. Jail time would be the preferable outcome, but even suspending a person's license for an appreciable length of time - 5-10 years - would feel like some type of justice.

But the most important part of this is the deterrant aspect. Ordinary drivers would think twice about speeding or turning into crosswalks aggressively if they knew they could face jail time or loss of driving rights for more than a few months.

Civil lawsuits would be a good stop-gap, but ultimately this is something that law enforcement, auto-insurance companies and DMVs need to coordinate better.

By: Mark Walker

Mark Walker — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:42:48 +0000

Takeaway quote: "The carelessness required for criminal negligence is appreciably more serious than that for ordinary civil negligence." I wonder if that means civil suits are a better strategy? Families of victims could sue either drivers, or sue the city for failing to provide bollards and other protections in places statistically proven to be dangerous. If someone were a recent law school grad, and looking for a way to make a difference, killer-car civil suits might become the basis for an outstanding career in public service. It would send two messages: To drivers, kill with your car, and we will mess you up. To cities: allow your citizens to be killed by cars, and you'll have to answer to the taxpayers for one whopping judgment after another.