The Northwest Herald is reporting that an unnamed 16-year-old boy in Lakewood was airlifted to Lutheran General Hospital on Monday evening, after he fell off his bike while "skitching." Sure glad that word was explained in the article; I'd never heard it.
According to the story, the kid was on his bicycle and was hanging onto the right outside mirror on a car driven by 17-year-old Brandon Klemm. After the 16-year-old fell off his bike, Klemm took him home. When the boy complained of head injuries, paramedics were called. And then Flight for Life was called.
Lakewood Police Chief Larry Howell is quoted as saying that he does not anticipate the filing of any charges.
Oh, really? Maybe not in Lakewood but, if this had happened anywhere else in the County, you can bet charges would be filed. Perhaps the accident didn't happen on a public roadway. If it happened in a driveway or on private property, it would be pretty hard to cite the driver for a violation of the Illinois Vehicle Code.
If it happened on a public roadway, thought, then how about charges against both the boy on the bicycle and the driver of the car?
625 ILCS 5/11-1504 Clinging to Automobiles might be a good place to start, except for the sloppiness of the legislators, who used the word "clinging" in the title but who used the word "attach" in the language of the statute. The statute reads, "No person riding upon any bicycle ... shall attach the same or himself to any vehicle upon a roadway."
Has a bicyclist "attached" himself to a car when he latches onto a mirror? A sharp lawyer would fight that one, but an equally strong prosecutor ought to prevail.
Careless Driving would be a reasonable ticket for driver Klemm. Surely, Chief Howell is not going to give both of them a pass for a dumb stunt like that, is he?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Of course only a REAL cop would know this but....Not all IVC offenses must be on a highway.
Reckless Driving, DUI and Leaving the Scene of An Accident are all offenses which are violations ANYWHERE even on private property.
Reckless driving requires the proof of willful or wanton
disregard for the safety of persons or property. Sometimes that is a tough thing to prove.
I'm quite sure that if a chargable offense was committed it will come out at a later time.
Nota, you're really a piece of work, aren't you? A champion of deflect & swerve, not protect & serve.
Did you see "Reckless Driving" anywhere in my article? You do know that Reckless Driving and Careless Driving are different charges, don't you?
Chargeable violations are obvious right now. If the 16 y/o kid has traumatic brain injury and becomes disabled, think Klemm will be cited then?
I hope both kids have learned the lesson and that the bicyclist recovers.
Gus,
Please show me the IVC citation for the Careless Driving charge you speak of.
Gus - Notawannabe is definitely a moron and a Nygren idol worshiper but there is no such charge for "careless driving" covered under the Illinois Compile Statutes. Try and learn the law before you become the law will you?
Mac, thanks for your comment. I started looking for Careless Driving about 11:00PM last night and ran out of steam.
Most states I've lived in had "Careless Driving" in their statutes. It was a notch down from Reckless Driving and was easier to prove. I'm looking now for a statute that would be appropriate for driving without due care.
One violation that could be used is the one that requires a driver to allow at least so many feet (is it three?) between his car and a bicycle.
I guess you were looking at 11:00 PM because that's when I challenged you to find CARELESS in the IVC. It's not there as I said last night, but you selectively post what you want.
Also Mac...Notawannabee is far from being a NYGREN worshiper, but rather is someone that does not like someone such as Gus, that constantly finds fault with any police investigation if it doesn't go as he sees fit.
It kind of follows the saying “Those that can do, those that can't teach." In this case they BLOG about it.
What does Lakewood have to do with Nygren?
I'm on vacation and don't have an IVC with me but fail to use due care is 6-101 (same as speeding but paragraph b, I think)
Point #2 You can't be a "sharp" lawyer in McHenry Co ... because the judge will say "close enough" and convict...thanks judges...
Another Lawyer, thanks. Enjoy your vacation.
625 ILCS 5/11-601 would work: "No vehicle may be driven upon any highway of this State at a speed which is greater than is reasonable and proper with regard to traffic conditions and the use of the highway, or endangers the safety of any person or property."
One might argue that young Klemm's operation of his car at any speed while the bicyclist was "skitching" would be in violation of this section.
The NWH hasn't reported on the bicyclist's health or any ticket(s) yet to Klemm. Either the newspaper or the police department is withholding the bicyclist's name, because he is 16. As a vehicle accident victim, his name, as a 16-year-old, could be released.
Was the accident first investigated by a patrol officer? Why didn't he or she issue tickets?
I disagree.
Under the IVC section you cite, it resides under "General Speed Conditions". The last sentence provides the 'Failure to Use Due Care' portion. That is basically failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident or traveling too fast due to other factors such as weather.
11-601(A) Speed must be decreased as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person or vehicle on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.
You can not look just at the section; you must know the legislative intent under how the law was written. You must be aware of previously adjudicated cases under this section.
You say "One might argue that young Klemm's operation of his car at any speed while the bicyclist was "skitching" would be in violation of this section."
You may argue that point, but legal precedent will side with the defense and it would get tosses on appeal.
Clearly this section does not apply. ANY defense attorney will have the charge dismissed as not being applicable under the section.
The only charge applicable would be Reckless Driving. Reckless is a Class A misdemeanor Lakewood (the STATE) would have to prove Willful and Wanton disregard. Then they would have the burden to prove that that the driver "Knowingly allowed the victim to “Skitch” and did so willfully and wantonly to disregard safety.
The victim actually is the person to which the IVC covers as 625 ILCS 5/11-1504 the at fault person…the automobile driver could be charged under the same section as a “PARTIES TO THE CRIME” Look up parties to a crime.
Would a charge of Leaving the Scene of an Accident apply here? By removing the bicyclist from the accident scene, was evidence tampered with? Was vital first-aid time and treatment time lost by transporting the bicylist from the accident scene to a home?
Post a Comment