[bdfinally]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/06/janklow.trial.ap/index.html

 

[Guest]

always good to see a lawmaker follow the law to the letter.

as a sidenote the motorcyclist wasnt wearing any protective gear at all. No helmet, no gloves, no jacket, etc. Given the speed he was traveling the impact was horrific. Good gear might not have saved his life but you never know.

 

[Doc]

Did you see the bike?

 

[Guest]

oh yeah but i've seen a harley look like that after a minor rear end bump. Clearly Janklow has a certain amount of responsibility for this but in the end its the motorcyclist that takes all the risk. I'm not making a defence for Janklow but rather a argument that mitigating risks is the best thing. The facts presented so far was that Jenklow was traveling greater than the speed limit, approx 71mph and ran a stop sign. The prosecution has said the motorcyclist was doing 59. This all in a 55mph speed zone at a intersection with stop signs. not lights.

In the end the rider did everything wrong, at least from what I learned in my MSF class, and paid the price. Janklow might be at fault but Scott paid the price. Travelling too fast? Yep. No safety equipment? Yes. If you look at arial photos of the intersection and the crash how could Scott not have seen the potential hazard? Who knows.

The Hurt study shows that this probably would have been a fatal accident at any speed with the motorcyclist not wearing even a minimum of safety gear.

pics here.
http://www.argusleader.com/gallery/2003/janklowaccident/

 

[Guest]

Well, now he's a murderer:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=2&u=/ap/20031209/ap_on_re_us/janklow_trial