[black hills]

Thoughts on this??

Motorcyclist charged in fatal crash

By Jason Meisner
Tribune staff reporter
Published July 3, 2007, 6:12 AM CDT
A motorcyclist was charged Monday with reckless homicide and drunken driving in connection with a weekend crash on Lower Wacker Drive that killed a woman riding on the back of his bike, police said.

Edward Colby, 38, of Wood Dale, faces one count each of reckless homicide, aggravated driving under the influence resulting in death and driving under the influence in the crash that killed Florence Nicioli, 44, Chicago police said.

About 2:45 a.m. Sunday, Colby and Nicioli were eastbound on Lower Wacker on Colby's 2004 Harley Davidson when it collided with a taxi cab that was turning left onto Dearborn Street, police said.

Both Colby and Nicioli were thrown from the motorcycle. Nicioli, of Elk Grove Village, was pronounced dead that morning at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, according to police.

Colby was critically injured and taken to Northwestern, where his condition had stabilized Monday, police said. The taxi driver and a female passenger were treated for non-life-threatening injuries.

Police did not say what Colby's blood-alcohol content was at the time of the crash. Because he remained hospitalized, a bond hearing would likely be held in his absence at noon Tuesday at the Criminal Courts Building at 26th and California, police said.

 

[Venjurak]

Stupid Hurts. Unfortunately, he hurt someone else with him. There can't be anything more idiotic, irresponsible, and @assanine as drinking and driving. My thoughts and prayers go out to the woman killed by his foolishness.

 

[Mad Cow]

He should be charged if he was under the influence but after reading "collided with a taxi cab that was turning left onto Dearborn Street, police said. " it makes me think the taxi may have been at fault and his being under the influence just contributed. If thats the case it should be a lesser charge like wanton endangerment.

 

[madbull2]

About 2:45 a.m. Sunday, Colby and Nicioli were eastbound on Lower Wacker on Colby's 2004 Harley Davidson when it collided with a taxi cab that was turning left onto Dearborn Street, police said.

Sounds like the taxi could be just as much, if not more, at fault here. I'm not trying to advocate drinking and driving here, but I would be willing to bet the Taxi cut him off turning left in front of him. Just because he was drinking, doesn't automatically make the accident his fault and exonerate everyone else. My .02

-Dave

 

[Jimbo]

2:45 a.m. Drinking and riding a passenger. Caught in a common trap (left turning vehicle). Irresponsible to say the least. I'm not a "not one beer" kind of guy but, I don't ride drunk. I also try to limit the amount of riding I do after dark and, I never carry passengers. IMO passengers introduce an unnecessary variable into the equation. A passenger at night while drinking is shamefully stupid. If the woman was this cats drinking partner she's no Mensa member either.

 

[KW7DSP]

... ... Just because he was drinking, doesn't automatically make the accident his fault ... ...

Yes it does.

We all get cut off. Most of us have the skill or reflexis to survive. Sometime any of us may get nailed. Impaired and riding a Motorcycle. He is at fault.

 

[madbull2]

... ... Just because he was drinking, doesn't automatically make the accident his fault ... ...

Yes it does.

We all get cut off. Most of us have the skill or reflexis to survive. Sometime any of us may get nailed. Impaired and riding a Motorcycle. He is at fault.

...doesn't automatically make the accident his fault and exonerate everyone else.

As I said before, my point here was not to defend drunk driving, rather to point out that his drinking was only one part of the equation, but it seems that because he was drinking, all other factors get overlooked. Sure, we all get cut off from time to time, but I just think it sucks that cagers seem to be able to do these kinds of things with impunity. I didn't hear anything about the taxi driver getting cited.

-Dave

 

[dan3]

Around these parts if you are involved in an accident and have been drinking, you are in BIG trouble no matter who caused the accident.

 

[rahooh]

Who is at fault

Come on, isn't anyone going to ask if any of the parties involved was wearing a helmet? Only after we answer that question can we decide who was at fault...

 

[KW7DSP]

Never

Seems we are guessing. If the cage did nothing wrong, why would he get a ticket? I hate cages, but ...... Right is right and wrong is wrong, and drinking and riding a bike is wrong. Hell drinking and driving a car is wrong.

Just because the Taxi was turning left, does not mean he turned in front of the bike. The one thing we know (or as much as we can know) is the biker was drinking. We don’t know about helmets, sportbike or crusier, cage cutting him off, or anything else.

Given the one fact we know, he was at fault and she is dead because of it. There is never, and I don’t care how macho a biker you are, never a reason to start a bike if you have been drinking within a few hours. Period, No arguments allowed.

 

[disaster-1]

Re: Never

We don’t know about helmets, sportbike or crusier, cage cutting him off, or anything else.

I'm willing to bet that he was on a HD. From the way the story reads, I would even go as far to say that it was probably an '04.

...sorry, couldn't help it.

 

[cwtimes3]

IMO Not to offend anybody. if he was drinking and riding he needs to be punished for the damage and her death. And the bad thing she lost her life being stupid for getting on bike while he was drunk. If you drink i believe the only right you have is to walk. You have no reason to drive or get on a bike. I am sorry but i have had friends die from drunk drivers and a borhter who served time because he wouldnt listen. Whether it was his fault i dunno but she should not have gotten on that bike.

 

[Guest]

Yup, I'm an advocate for personal responsibility (not much of that around these days). She knew he was drinking and chose to ride on the back of his scoot. She could have called a cab. If you're going to blame him for driving under the influence, then you have to also blame her for getting on the bike.

Had he killed someone in the cab, then he should be charged. I would find it hard to charge him for his passenger's bad decision.

 

[black hills]

Interesting thoughts... Now with that in mind, who is responsible here:

OK then. Here's another headline from Chicago today. Reconcile that DA's decision with this one...

No charges against Illinois trucker in fatal tollway crash
July 3, 2007 ELKHART, Ind. - No charges will be filed against an Illinois truck driver who was trying to recharge his cell phone when he rammed into stopped traffic on the Indiana Toll Road, killing eight people.

Elkhart County Prosecutor Curtis T. Hill Jr. said Tuesday that Leonardo Cooksey, 32, of Mount Prospect, Ill., may have been negligent in his actions on April 26, but was not criminally responsible.
Cooksey was traveling 62 mph in a 65 mph zone at the time of the crash, Hill said. He was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs and had been on the road for less than three hours when the accident occurred.

A state police investigation showed no evidence that Cooksey attempted to brake before he struck vehicles that had stopped because of a separate crash near a construction site near Bristol.

Two of the vehicles were crushed beyond recognition -- a pickup truck carrying six people, five of whom died, and a Jeep Cherokee in which two were killed. The driver of another pickup truck that was knocked off the road also died.

Killed in the collision were Douglas and Mary Helen George of Springfield, N.H., who were in the Cherokee, along with pickup truck driver Mark Repp of Sturgis, Mich. The passengers killed in the other truck were Merle Miller, 44, of Ligonier; Lester Yoder, 36, of Topeka; and Vernon Miller, 38, Samuel Yoder, 46, and his son, Anthony Yoder, 17, all of Wolcottville.

(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

 

[Al1943]

He should be charged if he was under the influence but after reading "collided with a taxi cab that was turning left onto Dearborn Street, police said. " it makes me think the taxi may have been at fault and his being under the influence just contributed. If thats the case it should be a lesser charge like wanton endangerment.

In some states the DUI is considered the most serious of all the contributing factors and even though the other person may have done the left turn, the DUI may override that.

 

[Sioux Wolf]

Okay, as far as the taxi taking any fault in this scenario, there isn't enough info. It could be partially the taxi's fault or maybe not... who knows. But I do believe that both the biker and rider are at fault for the death to the rider. The biker was STUPID for riding a bike while drunk! The rider was STUPID for getting on a bike with a drunk biker at the controls... Gene pool filter being cleansed and all. I do believe the drunk biker should be charged because although the rider was an idiot also, the biker was in control after the rider made her stupid decision and he didn't stop her.

Now with the trucker killing eight people because of charging his cell phone, I have to go a little easier but not too much. He is still at fault and should be charged with 8 counts of accidental manslaughter. His faculties may not have been impaired but his inattentiveness in a 10 ton (I don't know how much these trucks weigh) weapon made him just as liable as the drunk biker. It all comes down to choices and they both could not predict the outcome of their choices but if they were both competent adults they should have known the possible outcome could be very bad and they didn't take the precautions to stop it.

 

[supra1]

If the taxi had not turned in front of him, would she be alive and well - probably. How can we not lay any blame on the taxi if he turns in front of a motorcycle and kills someone? If he caused the accident, then he is at fault. If he was drinking and did not caused the accident, I can't see why he was at fault. Like it was said earlier, I do not promote drunk driving but I do promote fairness.

If a car turns in front of you at the wrong time, drunk or not, you will hit it.

 

[Sioux Wolf]

If a car turns in front of you at the wrong time, drunk or not, you will hit it.

See, that's the problem though. There's not enough information; it's quite possible if the biker was drunk that the taxi may have had a green arrow and the biker a red light. Anything about the taxi in this scenario would just be speculation.

 

[madbull2]

If the taxi had not turned in front of him, would she be alive and well - probably. How can we not lay any blame on the taxi if he turns in front of a motorcycle and kills someone? If he caused the accident, then he is at fault. If he was drinking and did not caused the accident, I can't see why he was at fault. Like it was said earlier, I do not promote drunk driving but I do promote fairness.

If a car turns in front of you at the wrong time, drunk or not, you will hit it.

This is exactly what I was trying to say earlier. There was nothing said about any investigation into anything other than that the rider had been drinking. Does that mean he must have caused the accident? No. Being intoxicated, while it may be stupid while on a bike, does not cause a car to turn left in front of you.

Then again, I guess it doesn't specifically say that the taxi turned left in front of him, but I would guess that if the Taxi turned left behind him, he probably wouldn't have hit him.

Unless he was Really,Really drunk. :wink:

-Dave

 

[black hills]

So, if one drunk kills another is it just a draw??