Fatal Nova Scotia Crash Nets Drunk Driver $700 Fine
A judge has fined a Nova Scotia man $700 for driving drunk last spring in an incident that killed his best friend. Jonathan Savoy initially faced four charges, which included impaired driving causing the death of his friend, David MacDonald.
The more serious charge was dropped in a plea bargain deal that involved Savoy pleading guilty to impaired driving, taking a car without permission and driving while suspended.
Susan MacAskill of Mothers Against Drunk Driving said she was appalled with the judge's decision.
"Somebody's dead and nobody seems to be held responsible..."
In 2004, it was estimated that 3,013 individuals were killed in motor vehicle crashes in Canada. MADD Canada estimates that at a minimum 1,157 of these fatalities involved impaired driving. Further, MADD Canada estimates that approximately 68,245 individuals were injured in impaired driving crashes (187 per day).
A $700.00 fine for a drunk driving crash that killed someone. Appalling doesn't begin to describe the situation. It appears I am not the only one that shares that opinion.
Comments
in what will likely be appealed, here are the grounds for which i would due so
1. the judges view of it being dark and lighting levels reduced are clearly wrong according to her own report and witness testimony. lights dont "warm up" everyone agrees it was pre dusk and her reference to a "dark corner" was some 20 minutes after the accident.
2. the judge seems to think since most people speed its ok that he was speeding aswell. since reasonable people speed his speeding is reasonable, therefore his murder is ok. nice judge nice. granted more should have been covered by the "expert" in the matter of vehicle speed but numerous witnesses did report high speed. 5km/hr slower and the boy would be alive.
3. i seriously doubt the experts projections of 1.8 seconds are accurate, judging from the position and angle of the bicycle by his own testimoney seems to indicate an arc of 50 feet which would allow 3-5 seconds warming.
4. the stoping distance for the speed limit is 75 feet, the judge set the defendants stopping distance at 150 feet. but from impact it should only have been 35 feet as 40 feet is what he should have had for his 1.7 seconds of notice, during which he admitely didnt brake. by all appearances he didnt brake for either 3 seconds after the impact or was speeding.
5. there is no curve or bend in the road, reference to this is very misleading and simply not true. 46d15m north, 60d 15m west. elevation is flat.
the judges job is to uphold the law, if your speeding you are breaking the law. if your drinking and driving your breaking the law. if your doing both at the same time and some1 dies as a result its murder.
the judges opinion that as most people speed its ok he did too is pretty funny.
Posted by: joe campbell | July 23, 2008 11:54 PM
2. the judge seems to think since most people speed its ok that he was speeding aswell. since reasonable people speed his speeding is reasonable, therefore his murder is ok. nice judge nice. granted more should have been covered by the "expert" in the matter of vehicle speed but numerous witnesses did report high speed. 5km/hr slower and the boy would be alive.
3. i seriously doubt the experts projections of 1.8 seconds are accurate, judging from the position and angle of the bicycle by his own testimoney seems to indicate an arc of 50 feet which would allow 3-5 seconds warming.
4. the stoping distance for the speed limit is 75 feet, the judge set the defendants stopping distance at 150 feet. but from impact it should only have been 35 feet as 40 feet is what he should have had for his 1.7 seconds of notice, during which he admitely didnt brake. by all appearances he didnt brake for either 3 seconds after the impact or was speeding.
Posted by: joe campbell | July 23, 2008 11:56 PM
5. there is no curve or bend in the road, reference to this is very misleading and simply not true. 46d15m north, 60d 15m west. elevation is flat.
the judges job is to uphold the law, if your speeding you are breaking the law. if your drinking and driving your breaking the law. if your doing both at the same time and some1 dies as a result its murder.
Posted by: joe campbell | July 23, 2008 11:57 PM