Looks like the Tell-Tale chip WAS consulted

Well, it looks like the jury convicted Bill Janklow of manslaughter after
all. See:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/08/janklow.trial/index.html

BUT in an interesting twist - the spy chip in the car Janklow was driving
WAS consulted - and guess what, he WASN'T driving the 70Mph
that the police claimed he was on the accident report. See:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/04/janklow.trial.ap/index.html

Here's the relevant text in case you missed it:

"...On Thursday, an accident reconstruction expert testified that Janklow
was
going 63 mph or 64 mph at the time of the crash -- less than the Highway
Patrol's
estimate of 71 mph. Engineer Robert O'Shea said he used evidence from the
state and
information taken from an electronic sensing device in the car -- data that
state troopers
were not able to download. O'Shea also said the motorcyclist could have been
traveling
65 mph -- faster than the 59 mph estimated by the Highway Patrol. ..."

Now, quite obviously Janklow deserved what he got - he drove through a stop
sign, and caused an accident as a result. But, it also appears that certain
posters to
this thread the last time were a bit, shall we say, hasty, in jumping to
conclusions that
it was Janklow's speeding that was to blame.

The prosecutor and police probably were breathing a sign of relief for
ducking that
bullet - if the sensor had shown Janklow going just 8-9 Mph slower, it could
have
turned a lead-pipe-cinch manslaughter conviction into a manslaughter
acquittal.

Just goes to show that once again, cops at a collision scene always
underestimate the
contribution the victim made to the collision, and overestimate the
contribution that
the perpretrator made to the collision. Accidents are always a lot more
grey than
people want them to be.

Ted

 

Ted,
This is a tragedy to the victim's family. The fact anyone is involved in a
fatal accident is bad enough. The fact that this one happened in a cut and
dry 'someone died' case is not new. It happened to a person of stature.
There is no guessing of speed that will bring the victim back nor make the
accused feel any better. Give this subject a rest and let's move on. Feel
free to email me.

.. Accidents are always a lot more

 

Those who don't learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat
them.

I don't agree with "It's a terrible thing let's not talk about it anymore"
attitude.
I've had terrible things happen to me and I'm more than happy to discuss
them. It
helps to educate people so that others can change their behavior so that
they lessen
the risk of terrible things happening to them.

The issue isn't the fact that someone died here. Sorry you can't move
beyond that. The
issue is how the tell-tale chip in a vehicle can be used to get at the REAL
truth of why
a terrible accident occurred, not some guesstimate from a police officer who
has
a ton of bias.

In ANY serious vehicle accident someone is going to be badly hurt or killed.
Shall we
simply not study these kinds of accidents because to talk about them might
"hurt" the
victim's family? Or because pointing out that a dead person may have made a
slip-up
by accident?

For the victim's death to not be completely and totally meaningless we need
to learn
what we can from it. The one wonderful thing about this particular traffic
accident is
that because a "person of stature" was involved, the news outlets are
reporting every
tiny little detail. Thus, we as members of the general public are getting a
rare treat -
in being able to examine all the stories related to this, we can get the
true picture of
what happened and why someone was killed, instead of what we usually get on
accident cases, which is a 1 paragraph story that explains nothing. Then we
can
learn from this, and modify our own behaviors so that we have a better
chance of
not becoming another statistic ourselves. Thus, the death of the person in
this accident
may save several other people, and thus have some usefulness, instead of
being
a complete waste, shrouded in secrecy, as it usually is.

Ted

 

Did you not read where Ted wrote "Janklow deserved what he got..."

I think Ted's point is that in a hypothetical similar case, the
tell-tale could conceivably prove that the accused was not speeding and
did not run a stop sign, which would shift ALL the blame to the victim.

There are certainly cases in which the fault of an accident is SOLELY on
the person who died. We don't want to blame the survivors and hold them
financially liable in such a case, do we? Its no less a "tragedy to the
victim's family" in such a case, but the end result must be different
based on determination of fault.

 

"Always" ????

Perhaps "often" or "sometimes" but certainly not "always".

 

Hmm... Well, I've yet to have been in a traffic accident or talked to anyone
who has
been in a traffic accident who didn't tell the story with a few grey spots
subject to
interpretation. I suppose there are black and white traffic accidents out
there, but
if so they must be a tiny minority.

Hey, we have people in this group who claim it's a drivers responsibility to
look out
for other drivers who are BEHIND them - so with that logic, even a rear end
collision
means some of the blame goes on the hittee, rather than the hitter.

Ted

 

Come on Ted. It means if you see someone about to hit you from behind,
if you can you get out of the way - not intentionally sit there waiting
for them to hit you because you know it's going to be their fault. In
the insurance and legal businesses, it's called mitigation - and in some
situations, the person who has the opportunity to mitigate damages will
be penalized for failing to do so (if it's clear that they had the
opportunity and didn't take it). No it doesn't mean you get a ticket if
there was nothing you can do, but you might as well be as aware of the
surroundings so you can to take evasive action when possible to avoid
your own involvement in a time- and money-wasting mess if for no other
reason, insurance and leagl issues aside. Also called defensive
driving.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

If you live in a contributory negligence state, if you are the victim
of an accident and the jury finds that you contributed to the
accident, you are awarded nothing unless you can prove that the other
guy had a "last clear chance" to prevent the accident. Other states
use comparative negligence where if the victim is also at fault his
award may be reduced by the percentage he was negligent.

 

Hmmm.. Sounds like your _agreeing_ with my statement:

"..Accidents are always a lot more grey than people want them to be..."

I brought up the rear-ending accident because I suspected that when I
disagreed with Art Begun's statement "...certainly not "always"..."
that Art would use a rear-end collision as an example of a _common_ accident
that is never the fault of the person in the front. (in an attempt to
disprove
my statement about grey accidents)

But you (and Art) obviously disagree that rear-end collisions are such an
example.

Thanks!

Ted

 

And so here we have an example of the legal framework being adjusted
to reflect the idea that both people involved contribute to an accident.

Q.E.D.

Ted

 

It has been this way for decades. Contributory negligence was the
original system. Sometimes it was ridiculously unfair to the victim
so they came up with comparative negligence.

 

The point here that I don't see anyone making but that I think is
important is that Janklow's speed is irrelevant... lots of people
drive 75MPH every day safely. It was missing the stop sign, not the
speed at which he was traveling, that contributed to the incident.

I do find it interesting, however, that despite the protests of the
cops that frequent RAD and a.l-e.traffic, the speed estimate *was* off
by about 10%... not an insignificant amount. I'd also be willing to
bet that this unfortunate incident was categorized as "speed related"
for statistical purposes despite the fact that Janklow should not have
been moving *at all...*

This raises the question, how many incidents have been categorized as
"speed related" when the speed was mis-estimated to show a driver was
"speeding" when he really wasn't?

nate

(deliberately *not* x-posting to the other groups mentioned above, no
need to start yet another long, pointless flame war)