"Didn't See Him" Defense Works Again

A grand jury declined to charge a driver who veered into a cyclist on an access road in Texas.

A Chevy Cobalt driven by Casey Brieghann Tyson, 20, of Early "veered into" McQuien as both traveled west on the service road...

Trooper Darin Woodson, who investigated the accident, said Monday that it was unclear why the car veered into McQuien.

Woodson said there were no apparent distractions in the area. Traffic was light, he said, and although the Cobalt was approaching a hill, the terrain should not have obstructed Tyson's vision.

McQuien was wearing a helmet, and the weather conditions were dry and partly cloudy.

Larry McQuien, was a vice president for business ventures with Lockheed Martin Aeronautics.

Comments

[Matt]

While I'm certainly sorry this happened, I have to wonder what they could/should have charged her with? Manslaughter and vehicular homicide are out - there is no indication of intent to hit him, and she didn't appear to be doing anything illegal (judging by the referenced articles). I'm guessing the worst she could be charged with was would be a minor traffic offense. Anyone else have other ideas? Would she have been charged if she'd rear-ended another car (a slow-moving one) in the same location? My guess is she'd have been "at fault" but not charged with anything in that case either.

This just serves as a reminder that while the large majority of cyclist deaths are the result of illegal actions by motorists, sometimes they are simply results of mistakes people make that aren't illegal or criminal. Cyclists are "vulnerable road users" - it's a risk we take.

[washcycle]

The DA was trying to charge her with something. Vehicular manslaughter or negligent driving could be charges depending on Texas law. In DC she could have been charged with negligent driving.
She could lose or have her license suspended. The standard in Texas is causing a "serious accident". I think this qualifies.

[JeffB]

In America a driver's license is a license to kill.

[Chris]

I would think involuntary manslaughter would apply here - not an intent to kill, but the result all the same.

[Forgiven Grace]

I am deeply sorry for the McQueen family’s loss. I know no words will ease your pain, nor bring him back. I did not know him personally, but it is evident that he was a great man and greatly loved. I, personally, have had many hours of sleepless nights. I have worried about Casey and the effects of taking someone’s life. I have worried about the McQueen family and this effects of this great loss on his wife, sons, and other family and friends.

Life gives each of us the worst consequences imaginable. And if we choose to listen to our conscience, the effects can be devastating. Casey is a kind hearted and takes things to heart, in fact too much most times. She has had many sleepless nights, nightmares, ect. I am not defending her or trying to make you feel sorry for her, I am pointing out the truth. The fact is in a blink of an eye, lives were changed forever. I can’t explain why she didn't see him. I wasn’t in the car with her. I can’t say McQueen was or wasn’t on the shoulder to close or far away. Truth is no one knows where exactly Mr. McQueen was, not even Casey.

I believe Casey and Mr. McQueen’s paths crossed for a reason. I do not know what it is now, but I will know. I would like to challenge everyone on these comment pages, regardless of which side you have taken, to do something nice for someone. Do it with love and kindness and in Mr. McQueen’s honor.

---------

Volunteer your time to a shelter or soup kitchen, volunteer at a latch key program, volunteer at church. Make a donation to a college or to find a cure for cancer. Donate to the heart association. Whatever it might be but do it in his honor. It sounds like he was a truly great man, I am sorry I didn't have the pleasure of knowing him. But many unfortunate people can be blessed because you care. AND (I am unsure of who) I would like to see everyone that has voiced an opinion, the good, the bad, or the ugly, to write someone in our government that can make a change for the bicyclists.

I don’t think its necessarily anyone’s fault, but we do need to find a solution to a problem. For everyone’s sake, it could have been me that hit him. And I would have to relive that in my head over and over again. I would be the one with the nightmares and sweats. I would be the one that couldn’t eat, due to stomach issues. I would be the one with panic attacks. I think it could have been any of us. I am not perfect, nor is she. I can not set here and say that I am attentive 100% of the time. That would be dishonest. I don’t think any of us can say that 100% of the time we are attentive. We are all human, and as humans we were created imperfect. Again my love is with the family. I am truly sorry. I do not know your pain, but I can imagine it. You have been very dignified and walked in love during this whole ordeal.

-----------------
You will be blessed. I am not sure, but I think Scott. Soon after the accident you posted something on the comments page. You will never know how you helped us cope. You are wise beyond years. You helped save Casey’s sanity. And I thank you.

Colassins 3: 12-15

[email protected]

[slaybalj]

It probably worked because she probably really didn't see him. It's a phenomenon called 'inattention blindness'. or if you want to try it yourself, there's a number of you tube videos that run a test on it.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be consequences, just that those consequences shouldn't really take the form of punishment... Hmm.. what about asking her to speak to students at drivers ed classes? When I went to school at least, most of drivers ed was all about basic skills of driving and obeying traffic laws. Nobody taught me how to look for deer at the side of the road or cyclists, or drivers that appear to be acting hinky, or kids playing with a ball near the road, yet that's what I spend most of my time as a driver actually doing.

And if you're wondering, I consider suspending a license to be consequence, not punishment.... but I doubt doing so would improve her driving once she got it back. The only way you become a better driver is by continuing to drive. (That doesn't hold true for irresponsible drivers who aren't trying to drive in the first place)

[washcycle]

What would she talk to the students about? How you can kill a cyclist and all that will happen is you'll have to Tivo Dancing with Stars so that you can talk to Driver's Ed students? I just don't think that punishment fits the crime. And I do think punishment is in order.

I know about inattention blindness. But it's not an excuse. It is a reason to be attentive while operating a two-ton vehicle. Killing someone because you were inattentive just can't be tolerated.

I've lived in Texas, and losing your license is practically a house arrest sentence, because it's impossible to walk or take transit in a lot of places.

[slaybalj]

That the most important thing about driving _is_ to keep paying attention. It's not enough to keep on the road, maintain a safe following distance, and all those other skills. It's watching for things at the sides of the roads that might change the situation.

As I said, driver's ed taught me to pay attention to my driving. Over 150,000 miles of driving taught me to pay attention to everything else.

I rather doubt a jail term would make things better for anyone involved.

[Washcycle]

There are several purposes to incarceration:

1. Retribution
2. Rehabilitation
3. Specific Deterrence
4. General Deterrence

In order to achieve these goals, you do not need to send someone to jail - but that can help. I don't necessarily believe that every driver who kills a cyclist should go to prison.

But I do think we should try to achieve these goals. A fine or forced community service would serve as retribution. A long probation period would serve the goal of specific deterrence. Loss of license and a requirement for additional and more intensive driver's education course, followed by a period of driver's-permit only driving, would meet the rehabilitation goal. And all of this would hopefully serve as a general deterrent. I had a friend get busted for drunk driving in college. He only did one night in jail, but it kept me from drinking and driving. In order to meet 1 and 4, you need it to be a punishment. That's how it goes.

If your point is that "a few dead cyclists is simply the cost of learning to drive" then I think that's an argument for more intensive education and licensing requirements, not an argument for leniency.

[SJE]

Washcycle: the reason that losing your license in TX is like house arrest is because there is no alternative, because everyone drives, because there is no alternative
....catch 22.

[JeffB]

I think we should set aside if greater punishment is needed for those who kill while driving. Rather, I'd like to see much greater emphasis on stopping the behaviors that make it possible for someone to be able to run a person down in broad daylight without "seeing him".

Punishing Ms Tyson won't bring Mr. McQuien back. But putting an end to aggressive driving, distracted driving, and speeding would do much to prevent further senseless deaths on our roads.

Here is what I'd like to see (and here I'm referring to urban and suburban areas):

1) All roads that are multi-modal or are meant to be should have a maximum speed limit of 25 MPH. Higher speed limits are only permitted when the road is adjoined with a protected cycle track or multi-use path of equal engineering as the road itself.

No 10 MPH buffer above the designated speed limit will ever be granted to motorists. Since the police have better things to do then stop speeders all day there will be plentiful use of red light and speed cameras. It will be mandatory for all new light signals to have a camera.

2) No use of cellular phones while driving - hands-free or otherwise. They are completely banned. Use of a phone will be considered a primary justification for police to stop you.

3) Infractions will not only get you a stiffer fine than today but also may be accompanied with a short suspension of your license. Suspensions can be applied immediately on the spot. If you are caught driving while suspended you immediately go to jail.

Speeding 1 - 9 MPH over will just get you a fine.

Speeding 10 - 19 MPH over is considered willful and will get you a fine as well as an immediate 1 day driving suspension on the spot. You will be directed to park the car in the first available legal spot and told to take a bus or taxi home. Your license will be taken and held by the police for 24 hours. You will then be able to pick it up at the police station and retrieve your car.

Speeding 20+ MPH over is considered flagrant and will merit a longer suspension.

Speeding caught by cameras will be noted and by the 3rd such willful or greater violation the vehicle will be booted for the period of a week.

The first time cellphone use will garner a warning in addition to a fine. The next time you get a 1 day driving suspension.

Hopefully once a driver has been "inconvenienced" a time or two by having to leave their car for a day they will have learned that we really do expect them always drive in a safe and responsible manner. And a safe driver leaves all of us safer on the road.