Nebraska Judge Says 128 mph Not 'Reckless'

AP via TBO ^ | December 7, 2005

[ncountylee]

NEBRASKA CITY, Neb. (AP) -- 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, County 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."

Otoe County prosecutor David Partsch acknowledged that Carman could have been charged with speeding but, "We felt that the manner in which he was operating the motorcycle was reckless."

[Turbopilot]

Where did the three factors you cited as elements of "indifferent or wanton disregard" come from? The relevant cases seem to be State v. Howard, 571 N.W.2d 308 (Neb. 1997) and State v. DiLorenzo, 146 N.W.2d 791 (Neb. 1966), and neither mentions anything like what you posted. Your definition sounds more like negligence than wantonness.

[Turbopilot]

The Supreme Court of Nebraska.

[Turbopilot]

So counted. Nebraska's Supreme Court disagrees with you, though, and guess whose opinion Nebraska courts have to follow?

[JohnG45]

I love Free Republic because it provides so many avenues for discussion on so many different topics. But responding to your last post is simply beyond my capabilities.

I know this thread is dying but if there is anyone out there who can help me understand this mumbo - jumbo I would be happy to listen.

[Scoutmaster]

Where did the three factors you cited as elements of "indifferent or wanton disregard" come from?

I wasn't citing elements of indifferent or wanton disregard from case law; I was making things up as I went along. The factors flowed out like something created from whole cloth at 5 a.m., which they were. My post was so tongue-in-cheek that I had trouble talking the rest of the day. I apologize; I thought that was clear from my post. I REALLY apologize if it made you hit Westlaw or Lexis to find the real case law (shiver).

That was some bad karma on my part.

[thepizzalady]

"...You say that after the fact. There is no way of knowing this before the fact!..."

Of course not! There's no way of knowing much of ANY Thing for sure before the fact! I lived in that particular area for 25 years. That would be over 8,500 trips over the same roads.
A mouse could not approach the stretch of road of which I speak, without being seen.

You can fall down a flight of stairs and break your neck. Would that keep you from using the stairs? I doubt it.

I'm confident that most people go about their lives without a second thought of the potential danger all around. At least if you listen to the overcautious who would have us all living in a plastic bubble for our own protection.

[thepizzalady]

"..Traveling at that speed a stationary pedestrian would be unnoticeable...."

How can you say that? You are either blind or baiting us all. Do you drive? Speed does not cause blindness unless you have your eyes closed. Of course you can see a stationary pedestrian or a moving pedestrian or a bird or an insect for that matter.

[Smokin' Joe]

Visibility is measured in miles only at altitude and at the seashore while looking at the ocean.

And on roads in Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Eastern Montana, Nevada, and other places in flyover country.

Imagine prairie or desert, with no trees, and roads which follow section lines (East/West and North/South survey lines) and are literally straight.

Imagine houses/farms set back from the road anywhere from a couple hundred yards to a mile or more. (Partly because people out this way who farm, generally farm several square miles.)

You can see for miles on a clear day, and assessing potential hazards is a lot easier than on the winding roads and metro areas of more hilly or forested terrain.

[Smokin' Joe]

HEY! When did you guys get trees?

[JohnG45]

You CANNOT see for miles! It may appear that way to you as you look off into the distance but you are being fooled because you may be looking upward at a distant object.

If you stand at a seashore and look at the horizon how many miles away is it? For a man about six feet tall the distance is about three miles and then the curvature of the earth comes into play and does not allow you to see any farther. You are basically looking off into space.

Now lets go to Nebraska (or any other place you want to describe). Does the earth curve there? Of course! So the same physics applies. Plus Nebraska is NOT flat!!! Don't believe me?

Go to GOOGLE EARTH, focus in on Nebraska, focus in as close as the satellite image allows (you can find your own house!) and slowly drag the cursor across the picture. Look at the bottom of the image and you will see the elevation of the ground above sea level constantly changing. These undulations will distort how far off into the distance you could see. But the seashore proves to us it could never be more than three miles (for a six foot man).

[Smokin' Joe]

Go to google earth and google the Red River Ralley, Eastern North Dakota. It is an old glacial lake bottom (Lake Agassiz) from the last Ice Age and covers from roughly Fargo northward. The early microwave transmission experiments were carried out there because the plain is flatter than the normal curvature of the Earth.One thing is for certain. You have not been here. As for miles, three is plural, and that exceeds the limit for more than one, or even two.

Parts of the Earth are CONCAVE, in case you have not noticed.

[Larry Lucido]

Maybe the cop's speedometer was broken, so he used his wristwatch, waited an hour, and then looked at the odometer and saw they had gone 128 miles?

[JohnG45]

Please, let's keep this civil. I only say that because of the last two responders that I got into an exchange with, seemingly descended into madness as the exchange unfolded.

Anyway, lets get back to the issue. I don't doubt that you may find a spot somewhere on land that is amazingly flat (e.g. the dry lake bed at Edwards where the space shuttle sometimes lands). BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

We are talking about someone driving 128mph on a road somewhere near Nebraska City. I don't care how flat it appears to you or me, the point is that it is not perfectly flat and therefore someone's sight line sitting on top a motorcycle, bent over, comes nowhere reaching three miles as it would be for a six footer standing at the shore.

I believe the judge was wrong in not finding the party guilty of reckless driving. Reckless not only to himself, but to the police officer that was dutibound to give chase, or to a farm worker who was out repairing fence, or a hiker or a myriad of other scenarios one may imagine. Also, please remember that a driver of a vehicle fixates somewhere on the road somewhere directly in front of him. He does not stare at the horizon as he drives. As a result his sight line is even shorter than one staring at the horizon.

[Smokin' Joe]

As for flat spots, I have given you one of the flattest on earth. Beach ridges were discovered there from when the Ice sheets impounded the lake, and are a whopping one to two meters tall, (which really stood out to the people there). Check out the flood of 1979, where the river rose a foot and spread out two miles laterally.

Even in more rolling terrain, there are commonly stretches of highway where there is an unobstructed view of the road here for at least two miles.

As for recklessness, I cannot say how he rides, but apparently he was in control of the vehicle.

Whether he is looking at the horizon or not, he surely has enough room to either take evasive action if necessary, or shut the bike down and stop, neither of which take anywhere near three miles.

As a rule, competent motorcyle riders are continuously scanning their environment, looking for hazards as well--you will never survuive a trip across town, large or small if you do not, except by divine intervention or dumb luck.

IIRC, the important factors here are mass*velocity. The motorcycle weighs a fourth of what a pickup or SUV does, and is capable of braking or maneuvering far faster than a SUV or pickup.

It only requires a 3 foot lane of travel as well, not 7+ feet like a 4 wheeled vehicle.

Most seasoned riders recognize three 'mini' lanes within the normal traffic lane, the center of which is usually avoided because it is where most junk ends up (or off the road) and where engine/transmission/rear end fluids hit the road.

If you are going to classify driving under those conditions as "reckless", then what about the tremendous streams of vehicles driving at 70+ on freeways, bumper to bumper. Their reaction time/evasion time is even less, and they are in far heavier, far less maneuverable vehicles, with generally less room to maneuver. By this standard, half the country commutes to work recklessly.

I think the judge was correct. I could "pursue" your vehicle which was moving at, say, 30 mph, at any speed I choose, if I give you a sufficient head start, within the ability of my vehicle to go fast.

There was no speed clocked for the rider, radar or rolling, or a speeding tickett would have been issued as well.

In some jurisdictions, it is automatically assumed that a certain speed above the posted limit is, by definition, "reckless", but that is not the case in this instance.

I don't know how the setbacks/easements are in Nebraska, but here, there is a ditch which is generally the width of the roadbed or more between the shoulder and any fences. Adequate room to park a pickup or 4 wheeler completely off the road, (and flat bottomed enough to do so), so fences, livestock, or whatever can be taken care of without producing a traffic hazard.

[AmishDude]

Or western Nebraska.

[Tymesup]

Assuming the deceleration from the brakes is a constant, doubling the speed makes the stopping distance quadruple.

[Cliff Dweller]

"Without any evidence presented other than the high rate of speed, the judge was right. It's nice to see a judge who'll put a strict interpretation of the law above his own personal desire to punish. "

I was thinking I would like to have had a judge like this one on my infrequent trips into court.

[BritExPatInFla]

The fact that drivers on the Autobahn are much safer helps, as well. Ever wonder why Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, etc catch so much greif for not putting cup holders or enough cup holders in thier cars? In Germany you don't drive while eating lunch, holding a cell phone to your ear and futzing with the radio. If yo do and you cause an accident, you ride the bus. In the States, there are very few who could safely navigate at those speeds on the highways. We drive like cr@p here.

[Cliff Dweller]

A car is as deadly a weapon

It's true that if a kid stepped out in front of him...

They would both be dead.

The perp was driving a motorcycle, not a car. If it was one of those crotch rockets, they have little purpose other than GO FAST,.

[Hardastarboard]

Reminds me of one of those cop chase programs I saw on TV a few years ago, where a guy on a motorcycle had a passenger and was hitting speeds of over 100 mph running from the cops. The guy finally let his (I'm sure by then brown-stained) passenger off the bike, then took off on his own. At one point, he was even out-running the police helicopter, but then he finally ran out of fuel. The cops who arrested him said the brakes were totally fried, rotors warped. YIKES!