Cash

Tue, Dec 28, 2010 : 8:56 a.m.

aanative, So you think that regular folks, let's say moms in this lady's case with children in the car, never could look at oncoming traffic and mistakenly not see a motorcycle that may have blended in with the other traffic. You have made a mistake driving. So have I. Everyone has. It's only the luck of the draw that the mistake didn't cause an accident or worse one that ended with a death. It's foolish to think that it couldn't happen to you. Did this woman have a prior record? Was she drinking or on drugs? Or was she a mom who had kids in her vehicle and made a mistake when she looked and missed the motorcycle in the oncoming traffic as it blended in with the cars? She will be punished for her mistake. But I'd assume a jury will look at more than an Ann Arbor.com report from the prosecutor to make a fair decision on the punishment. Personally I think it's a waste of taxpayer money to give her a long term sentence. Let her go around and give talks to teens about the importance of paying attention and telling her story. That might do a lot more good than her sitting in prison and taxpayers paying for that for years as well as supporting her children. And her talks to teens might honor the deceased victim more than a prison sentence would.

Fat Bill

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 9:13 p.m.

Just to clarify my comments a little, I was speculating as to one possible reason why the charge was a gross misdemanor versus the harsher vehicular homicide charge. For the record, I have held a motorcycle endorsement for 16 years. The point is, this case may differ from a drunk driver, an aggressive driver, a felon fleeing from a crime scene, etc. What if this was your mom, daughter, wife, or sister? Yes, punishment is in order; there has to be a consequence for killing another human being even if there was no intent to cause harm. One of the reason we have people as prosecutors instead of robots is to make these sort of decisions. If this was truly simple negligence, perhaps vehicular homicide is too much. More facts would definitely be in order.

aanative

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 5:30 p.m.

Totally agree with Snapshot and others: our permissiveness is out of control if we accept negligence as something that "could happen to anyone" instead of insisting that people treat operation of a motor vehicle and adherence to traffic laws as a grave responsibility at all times.

snapshot

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 3:39 p.m.

Distracted driving should be as much a crime as drunk driving. The quote from a poster that "mistakes happen all the time" is just appalling when it comes to operating a 4,500 lb vehicle at "killing speeds". I wonder how the poster and others would feel if we transferred that attitude to commercial airlines? The earth would be littered with bodies. Driving mistakes should NOT "happen all the time" if they do, you should not be driving.

Killroy

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 9:49 a.m.

As an avid motorcyclist, I hope the courts will give her a long sentence and use this sad event to educate other cagers.

DFSmith

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 9:45 a.m.

@ Robert Granville- I complained because the news story indicates that she might end up serving only 2 years, for essentially murdering the motorcyclist with her car. Heck, I think a person would get a stiffer sentence if they were caught shoplifting or stealing a laptop.

JC

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 12:39 a.m.

A sentence of five years of riding a motorcycle or bike for every trip is a proper sentence.

Robert

Sat, Dec 25, 2010 : 7:57 p.m.

I guess I missed that she has been charged with negligent homicide. Now I'm really confused. If that's her charge what is all the complaining about?

Cash

Sat, Dec 25, 2010 : 3:50 p.m.

The woman's life is already destroyed....prison, lawsuits, the horror of it all. Her children have to live with it as well. It's nice to see posters who have little or NO information about the facts of the case,stand in judgment. Of course the man's death is horrible. But can anyone say that what happened to her could NEVER happen to them? The facts of the case will be brought to court. Hopefully none of you who read this prosecutors report and make your judgment will be on a jury...ever.

Paul Rohan

Sat, Dec 25, 2010 : 2:34 p.m.

The punishment should be the same as when someone dies in a car accident due to negligence. To say motorcyclist assume more risk and have a greater chance of death or injury doesn't matter. Whether you kill someone in another car or on a motorcycle, run over a a person on a bicycle, or run over a pedestrian, the punishment should be the same. She was negligent and someone died because of it.

Joe

Sat, Dec 25, 2010 : 1:09 p.m.

Hey Robert, I did not miss the point of that post. Bill was implying that the motorcyclist assumes more risk (true) than someone in a car, but since a person in a car (probably) wouldn't have died that the person who failed to yield and caused a death shouldn't be punished as severely. There is a person who lost a life here. Because this woman did not follow the rules of the road that life was taken. Your analogy doesn't really hold up. We motorcyclists make many choices when we ride: whether to ride at all, how much gear we wear (helmets are required by law, but many of us choose to wear armored jackets, gloves, boots, even special pants), how aggressively we ride, etc. None of us choose to be ignored because of whatever distraction is more important to a car/truck/suv driver than maintaining their situational awareness. The person on the motorcycle was not at fault in this situation, and we shouldn't be blaming the victim. If he had been in a car, maybe he would have survived... maybe she would have seen a car and not "failed to yield", maybe maybe. Bottom line is she took a man's life by her negligence and has to pay for it. The road isn't a football field. Driving is a responsibility, not a right. I don't think she should be punished any more severely than if she had killed someone in a car.

tntnewport

Sat, Dec 25, 2010 : 12:36 p.m.

It's unbelievable that some people think the motorcyclist should accept that it was his fault for riding a motorcycle. That's assine. We shouldn't have to accept people driving like idiots.

Robert

Sat, Dec 25, 2010 : 11:50 a.m.

Joe Mitchell, I'm afraid you've missed the point of the post you're replying to. The point was that this may have just been a typical accident that ends in one party being ticketed and both going home safely. If she fails to yield to a car the driver would've lived. The point is that the fact that the cyclist died isn't what determines the severity of the punishment... it's the relative severity of the crime. To throw the book at Booth because the cyclist died would be unfair to her. 2 years in prison for simple negligence is actually very severe. The cyclist assumed the risk of having zero collision protection. You can't place that portion of the blame on the driver and that is precisely what you seem to be in favor of. When you get on a bike you assume all the risks of driving on the road with cars and trucks. Mistakes happen all the time on the road and you have to understand that those mistakes are much more dangerous for cyclists than all other motorists. That doesn't mean that stiffer penalties should be handed out for accidents involving cyclists. Here's an example to make this less emotionally charged: A quarterback chooses to play without a flak jacket to increase his flexibility. A defensive tackle lays him out after the whistle and draws a late hit flag from the referee. The hit breaks the QBs ribs and punctures both lungs. The QB dies on the field before EMTs can reach him. Should the DT now be treated more harshly for his late hit because the QB choose to play without a flak jacket to protect himself from injury? Of course not.

Joe

Sat, Dec 25, 2010 : 11:31 a.m.

@Bill... so a motorcyclists life is worth less than someone in a car? Because, as a motorcyclist, I assume higher risk, the cost for taking my life should be less? I find your logic both frightening and sad. When you assume the responsibility of operating a vehicle on the road, you do so with the knowledge that you are sharing the roads with not just motorcyclists, but bicyclists, and scooters, etc. We must all be diligent and maintain an awareness of our surroundings while driving. I am sure Ms. Booth feels terrible for killing this man; in fact I hope she does. She should feel awful, and she should pay for her crime. 2 years for taking a life is a very small price to pay, and should be offensive to any rational being considering the outrageous punishments that can be handed down for "victimless crimes" (like drug possession or what have you). I hope you will reassess your cavalier attitude towards motorcycle riders, as you will offend a great deal more people than just myself with your comments.

annarborgirl77

Sat, Dec 25, 2010 : 10:05 a.m.

As usual readers are quick to assume the worst from the driver---the "News" is going to post the story in such a way that you won't know all the facts and will assume the worst. Remember, there are always two (or more) sides to a story before you crucify someone. She must feel terrible and certainly doesn't need readers creating more of a story when they don't know the facts. My heart goes out to the driver and to the family of the victim. Don't jump to conclusions.

DFSmith

Sat, Dec 25, 2010 : 9:55 a.m.

She is eligible for only 2 years in prison for killing a man? This is ridiculous. I wonder why she hasnt been charged with 2nd Degree Vehicular Homicide