Two deaths and two injuries. That’s what happens when you text and drive. The punishment for such a heinous act? 30 months probation, two years paid salary and possible personal injury workers’ compensation. No, the perpetrator is not God — just a state trooper.
Former Illinois State Trooper Matt Mitchell crossed over the median and hit a car carrying four teens head-on — at 126 mph, while sending text messages to, and reading messages from, girlfriend. Mitchell pleaded guilty and only received thirty months probation. In the current system, pleading guilty to even completely obvious crimes with dozens of witnesses gets you a lesser punishment.
Because Mitchell was “doing his job” as a state trooper, he may be eligible to receive state mandated workers’ compensation in addition to two years of salary. According to attorneys, even if an accident occurs when the employee is negligent, exercises poor judgment, or even is found to have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol, workers’ compensation is in order.
Others who have texted, driven a vehicle and killed have faced much more serious consequences than Mitchell. Craig Bigos of Taunton, Massachusetts killed a 13 year old boy under similar circumstances. He was charged with motor vehicle homicide. Like Mitchell, he was sentenced to 30 months … in jail, not on probation. If anything, the circumstances of his crime were less damning than Mitchell’s: He struck the child at night in an alley, where visibility was more of an issue .
Cases involving texting and driving are not only disastrous to those directly affected, but also pose a threat to liberty and serve as an excuse for expansion of government. It only takes a few of these accidents in the news to inspire campaigns for police crackdowns and new legislation. A media hysteria campaign can make it seem reasonable for the police to level up their Big Brother status.
There are quite a few solutions to texting and driving that could exist without government. Certainly risky behavior should not be controlled due to its nature, but there are simple market incentives for indirect maintenance. For instance, with insurance in a completely free market, perhaps companies would not cover such accidents, resulting in a strong incentive to be a focused driver. It would not be advantageous to irresponsibly kill innocent people; there would be extreme costs incurred from doing so. Results would often include ostracism, public scrutiny and media attention, tarnishing the image of the reprehensible aggressor.
Want to get away with murder? Become a member of the state’s apparatus of rulership, act as if you’re doing “official business,” and then you can even get compensation for any injuries obtained! No conspiracy even required.
I see this a lot in the area of motor vehicle vs. bicyclist crashes – regardless of the occupation of those involved. Whenever a vehicle driver strikes and kills a bicyclist (happens nearly daily in central Florida), the vehicle driver gets off, usually with no charges filed at all. Homicide should be homicide regardless of the person you killed. I attribute it to our car-centric culture.
The excuse is always the same: "I didn't see him". Really? I would hope you didn't, because if you did see him that would mean you hit him on purpose.
I like the idea of the insurance companies not covering such accidents – of course that doesn't mean much in this case since the bicyclist's head likely did little damage to the car. Although, if the insurance company could drop coverage for the motorist and publish his/her name to some kind of "bad driver" list for other insurance companies, that might do the trick.
The solution is for drivers to pay more attention to their surroundings – how you actually get someone to do that is beyond me. Most proposed (and enacted) solutions involve restricting the bicyclists' ability to ride their bikes. "For their own protection" of course. Too many cyclists are getting hit by cars on road X. Hmm… better ban cyclists from road X."
If liability insurance didn't cover specific types of accidents, then it would be the victim being punished, not the driver. If an uninsured driver has a million dollar judgment entered against them, what do they care? Might as well be a billion. Chances are they'll never be able to pay it, so the victim won't get anything. Hardly seems like a deterrent for poor drivers. At least with the current system, a driver's insurance will cover a large portion of the judgment, and the driver can spend the rest of their life paying that back in their ridiculously high insurance premiums for being a terrible driver.