Is there to be no objective reasonable-person test for recklessness, but rather a random, unpredictable, “I know it when I see it” approach?
Speeding is not necessarily reckless, even at 128 mph, a judge ruled in the case of a motorcyclist who tried to flee from state troopers.With some reluctance, [Otoe County, Nebraska] Judge John Steinheider ruled last week that Jacob H. Carman, 20, was not guilty of reckless driving on Sept. 5, when he was spotted by a trooper who then chased him at the top speed of his cruiser’s odometer — 128 mph.
“As much as it pains me to do it, speed and speed alone is not sufficient to establish reckless driving,” the judge told Carman on Friday. “If you had had a passenger, there would be no question of conviction. If there had been other cars on the roadway, if you would’ve went into the wrong lane or anything, I would have convicted you.”
Then again, in an era where an increasing number of drinking-and-driving apologists insist that there is some sort of “right” to have “just one glass” and then hurl a multi-ton slab of metal down public roads at potentially lethal speeds, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised when other absurdities such as this are embraced.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.kipesquire.net/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/tweet-this-small.png)
Tweet This
9 responses so far ↓
Link Tom Chatt // Dec 8, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Wow, that's pretty astonishing. My understanding, in California at least, is that more than 20 MPH over the speed limit was *per se* reckless driving. I guess that's not a uniform code?
Link Brandon Berg // Dec 8, 2005 at 1:34 pm
Makes sense to me. If the endangerment of others is a necessary condition to establish reckless driving, then how can driving fast on an empty road constitute reckless driving? It sounds to me as though the judge very much wanted to convict him but could find no authorization in the law for doing so.
Here's the relevant law. Note the first annotation–apparently there's some precedent.
Link KipEsquire // Dec 8, 2005 at 1:42 pm
Seems to me that requiring the trooper to risk his life and public property (i.e., the patrol car) qualifies as "wanton disregard
for the safety of persons or property."
Link doinkicarus // Dec 8, 2005 at 1:51 pm
Most departments' procedural guidelines demand that a police officer end pursuit in such circumstances.
Link Tony // Dec 8, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Having owned and operated a motorcycle, 128 mph is patently ridiculous and reckless under uncontrolled circumstances (not closed-course racing). If we didn't have speed limits, it wouldn't be reckless. But we have speed limits because we've determined that there is a public safety issue involved. Regardless of whether or not other motorists are on the road, other motorists may merge onto the road. Not an unreasonable expectation.
While a motorcycle is stable at speed, particularly the model of Yamaha that Mr. Carman was probably riding, any sudden change in conditions will have a significant, immediate impact. As an example, a motorcyclist in my area sped along the highway in excess of 80mph. Not inherently dangerous, but he miscalculated the exit ramp and took it too fast. (Sense of speed fades at higher motorcycle speeds.) Police found his head still inside his helmet many yards away from the rest of his body, which was by the tree he'd hit when he was unable to hold the road.
Also, this story explains that he passed the trooper at 82mph, then sped up to elude the officer. That's not reckless?
Link Dave // Dec 8, 2005 at 3:01 pm
What's reckless is that they guy was fined for driving without insurance.
Link Tony // Dec 8, 2005 at 3:06 pm
A large percentage of motorcyclists on the roads do not have insurance or a motorcycle license. For what it's worth.
Link Dave // Dec 8, 2005 at 3:46 pm
I'm less concerned about the license than I am about the insurance. Tho as I understand it you need a license in order to get insurance (we city folk don't own cars, see, so we don't have to deal with car (or motorcycle) insurance…)
Link podraza // Dec 8, 2005 at 3:56 pm
I can't let you get away with bringing up the DUI thing again without objection. The woman in the story you linked to was found driving without her lights on. That's probably dangerous, but not sufficient to demonstrate she was impaired. I've left my lights off before by accident. If the road is well lit, it can be hard to tell sometimes.
So if we subjected this woman to an objective, reasonable person test, I don't think anybody on earth would find her guilty of driving while impaired. A DUI conviction and corresponding DUI level punishment (often severe) for the crime of no lights and a .03 BAC is not reasonable, and thus should fail your own preferred standard.
That's the issue. I don't think it has anything to do with having a right to drink and drive. I'll shut my mouth right now if you show me where anybody, victim or blogger has ever said anybody has a "right to just one glass". I've never seen anybody suggest that before.
Leave a Comment
(Comments containing links are held for moderation.)