Verdict in motorcyclist death: negligence on the roads tough to prove
Last month, members of the Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin lobbied the Legislature to enact a vulnerable user law in the state.
The law would give prosecutors a better option for prosecuting motorists whose actions kill bicyclists and others, including roadway workers and those on motorcycles.
An acquittal Thursday in the case of Robert Perkins, killed while riding his motorcycle on Highway 45 on June 27, 2009, illustrates the gap in the current statutes.
A jury found the offending driver, Centurie Baertlein, not guilty of homicide by negligent operation of a vehicle, although she admitted she swerved across two lanes of traffic and hit Perkins riding northbound near Mayfair Rd. According to the story, Baertlein and her husband were arguing at the time.
To win a conviction on the felony charge, which carries a 10-year sentence, prosecutors had to prove that Baertlein was aware she was creating an unreasonable and substantial risk.
That threshold has been a roadblock to criminal prosecution in several cases involving deaths of cyclists. Instead, the motorists received traffic citations and fines of roughly $150 to $200, even though their actions caused a death.
A vulnerable user law would provide a middle ground between the felony and the traffic ticket in cases where a driving offense kills a vulnerable user on the road. (In Delaware the list includes pedestrians, cyclists, skateboarders, those on roller skates or in line skates, scooters, mo-peds, motorcycles, farm tractors or similar farm vehicles and those riding on animals).
In other states, the penalties have varied but include some jail or prison time, fines of roughly $1,000 and required traffic school.
Marcella DePeters, the defense attorney who represented Baertlein, made the point in trial that her client was not doing anything to consciously distract herself or engage in dangerous driving.
She also wasn't doing what she should have been: driving safely and watching out for others.
7 Comments for "Verdict in motorcyclist death: negligence on the roads tough to prove"
Modra May 27, 2011 1:38 PM
you're a bad driver? In the words of every fix-it man: "Well there's yer
problem."
Guns are tools that can be used as weapons.
Knives are tools that can be used as weapons.
Primitive hand carved stone axes are tools that can be used as weapons.
Motor vehicles...(say it with me) are tools that can be used as weapons.
We wouldn't need a vulnerable road user law if we'd just accept the
obvious.
littletinyfish May 27, 2011 1:51 PM
Curmudgeon May 27, 2011 1:59 PM
actions, whether intentional or not?!
Society looks at drunk drivers as being second class citizens for getting
behind the wheel impaired (and if this woman was drunk people would
be asking for her to get lynched and am I not saying DD is acceptable
by any means). Yet excuse after excuse is made for actions like this
that result in the same result - an innocent victim dying from another
form of impaired driving.
jmfrease May 27, 2011 2:08 PM
Good points all around. I cannot fathom how this is not negligent homicide. Let's see, negligence? Yep. Someone killed? Yep. Seems to add up to me.
In this and many other cases, enacting a law does not save a person from someone else's stupidity. However, when the consequences for one's misjudgment are severe enough (drunk driving), behavior is changed as a whole.
Action on this vulnerable motorist law is one in which the leather-clad (motorcyclists) and lycra-clad (bicyclists) can and should stand together. Maybe the lobbying groups working together is what would take for this to gain traction?
(Strangely enough, I don't see the "But bikers roll through stop signs and ignore traffic laws," or the "shouldn't be on the road" folks in this thread yet.)
racerdave May 27, 2011 9:41 PM
Rocketman53 May 28, 2011 10:22 AM