Run over a cyclist, pay $500: is that justice?
Many reckless driving cases — even those resulting in death — end with minor punishment
Fifteen weekends in jail seems a paltry price for killing someone, even accidentally. Miguel Oliveira starts his sentence this weekend. Just over three years ago, he was driving to work in the morning when his car hit cyclist Tom Samson.
Samson was ejected from his bike onto the hood and windshield of Oliveira’s car, then thrown to the ground before another vehicle, which also hit him. He died at the scene.
Oliveira didn’t stop. He drove home, parked his damaged Dodge Caravan in the garage and went to work. Only 40 hours later, by which time police were narrowing in on him, did he turn himself in.
Superior Court Justice Faye McWatt this week sentenced Oliveira to six months in jail, but credited him three months for time spent under house arrest awaiting trial. He must perform 240 hours of community service and not drive for two years.
McWatt noted the conviction was not for causing death. It was for failing to remain at the scene of an accident — important for criminal investigations and basic humanity. “There is a simple duty as a human being to show care and respect for those who may have been injured or killed — to remain until authorities determine what has happened,” states McWatt’s written judgment, quoting another case.
Cyclists across the city lamented the sentence as more proof of how little their lives matter before the altar of the car. But compared to most cycling victims in this province, Samson got justice.
Had Oliveira stuck around, called an ambulance, maybe held the teacher’s hand while he was dying, he’d likely now face a puny fine, according to personal injury lawyer Patrick Brown.
Brown has represented more than 100 cyclists in civil court, and advised another 300. He’s also a bike advocate, and was an expert panellist on the 2012 coroner’s review of cycling deaths in Ontario.
The review found 62 per cent of cycling deaths were the fault, in part or wholly, of drivers.
However, less than a quarter of those run-ins resulted in charges of any kind.
The reviewers didn’t follow the trail to see what happened in court, because that information isn’t tracked, Brown says.
Just over a year ago, he got curious, and started to dig. Once he pulled out cases of drunk driving or hitand-runs, and focused on the lesser charge of careless driving, what he found was disheartening. Most cases ended like Bruce Tushingham’s.
The 63-year-old grandfather was out for a Sunday cycle on a country road northeast of the city three summers ago, when a car heading in the other direction swerved across the middle line and crashed into him.
The driver, who said she was unhinging her sandal from the gas pedal, was first charged with care- less driving under the Highway Traffic Act — which carries a $400 to $2,000 fine and up to six months in jail, as well as a possible two-year licence suspension.
Instead, she pleaded guilty to the much lesser charge of leaving the roadway unsafely. She was fined $500.
That’s it. No licence suspension, no demerits even.
“In most cases, they charge them with careless driving, but then they’ll plead out to a lower offence — unsafe lane change, failure to yield or turn not safely,” Brown said. “It’s a slap on the wrist.”
When Samson’s father and wife stood in court to recount how his death had left their lives broken, Oliveira was there. He apologized, and said he took full responsibility.
Tushingham’s children and wife never got that closure. The woman who hit him didn’t show up to traffic court — she sent her lawyer.
That’s another disturbing trend that Brown’s digging turned up. Traffic court does not require the defendant to be present, and, in many cases they are not.
“My sons will never know their grandfather, other than from photos,” says Erinn Davis, Tushingham’s daughter.
“The charge was a joke. We lost our dad. The least she could have done is show up and listen to us.”
Davis is part of a coalition, led by Brown and fellow lawyer Albert Koehl, lobbying for a “vulnerable road user law” in Ontario, like in some U.S. states, including Oregon.
There, it means drivers who seriously injure or kill “vulnerable road users” like walkers or cyclists face extra fines and suspensions. They must take traffic safety courses and perform up to 200 hours’ community service.
Finally, motorists must attend their traffic court hearings, and face their victims’ families.
Perhaps, as Brown posits, the law would save lives, by making drivers think twice before checking their phones or grabbing their sandals. More likely, it would ease the hearts of families. They’d be less likely to feel their loved ones lives didn’t matter.
The effects of motor accidents extend far beyond the first tragic scene. If we have a legal duty to be caring human beings at first, why do our laws allow us to be callous jerks later?
Catherine Porter’s column appears on Fridays. She can be reached at cporter@thestar.ca