That's why most states delineate "hands free" when referring to phone operation in their laws.
Teen son of Fran McCaffery cited in fatal crash of Iowa National Guard soldier
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
That's why most states delineate "hands free" when referring to phone operation in their laws.
Would be interesting to see the hit rate of this scenario in a driving simulator - especially if the person isn't made aware ahead of time what is being tested. I bet the collision rate would be very high.
I've got to believe with todays technology it's rather easy to determine if someone was actively using their phone while driving.
It's a sad situation but sometimes these events are truly just accidents that can not be avoided.
It's a sad situation but sometimes these events are truly just accidents that can not be avoided.
Last edited:
Well, that was certainly an unfortunate statement….but I think anyone who has driven for more than 6 months has gotten into a spot where something became exceedingly difficult to avoid. When you have multiple things moving unpredictably, sometimes shit happens. Jack hit him. Jack got cited. Investigators didn’t see evidence to warrant more, as it’s entirely reasonable that Jack had 1) no intent to hit the guy, 2) no evidence of him being distracted on a device/speeding/impaired, 3) a 4-lane road with 35 mph speed limits is a really dangerous place for one driver to wave a runner through.
I had a close call with a jogger a few years ago. I was coming home after picking a kid up from a school trip that got in after dark (probably 9-9:30 in December) and we were coming home on a 4-lane road with a 40 mph speed limit. The intersection in question has a crosswalk and a light and I had the green. Not sure how fast I was going, but I had just made a left onto this street about a block up, so I was maybe just getting up to the speed limit. I’m in the right lane and suddenly I see a flash of gray just come into my headlight beam. Jammed the brakes and the runner dove out of the street just in time. If he comes out a half-second later, even with jamming the breaks and him dodging, I probably hit him. It would be my responsibility to yield in a crosswalk, but the light was green and I had no expectation anyone was coming.
Sometimes it’s just a really bad set of circumstances.
Every person that has a phone or computer should see the output of today’s forensics tools. I think people would change a lot of behaviors! I showed it to my kids when they first got their hands on any tech and I think it still resonates…Bigly.
That’s entirely possible.
This is the part that I keep trying to explain to people. Several posters keep referring to the other driver stopping as a “courteous move” that disrupted the flow of traffic or somehow caught McCaffery off guard. The other driver stopped because state law required them to stop. It wasn’t just some old timey politeness thing.
State law requires a person to stop for a pedestrian in the crosswalk.
It is reasonable to assume that “waving someone through” means they have not yet entered the crosswalk and the waving driver is encouraging them to enter the crosswalk.
It is reasonable to assume that “waving someone through” means they have not yet entered the crosswalk and the waving driver is encouraging them to enter the crosswalk.
I may be missing something about this intersection - you do have to yield when someone is in the crosswalk and I totally get that, but by the description of the incident, it’s a 4-lane road with a 35 mph speed limit. Presumably, if there’s a crosswalk, there should be a light….the requirement to yield to pedestrians doesn’t also mean the pedestrian can just wander out at any point whenever, expecting cars getting a green light to stop on a dime. If there’s no crosswalk and no light, then again, if I see someone crossing, I need to yield, but I have to see them in order to do so.
If I’m driving at speed limit and see someone standing at the side of the road waiting to cross when I have a green light or there is no light, I don’t just automatically stop and let them go.
“Investigators have told us that it was an unavoidable accident with no evidence to suggest distracted driving,
Taken directly from the article.
Looks like that was checked out.
Here’s the intersection. N is at the top. The situation occurred going westbound on the four lane.
Not being an asshole here, but I think it's also reasonable to assume that a 45 year old jogger would bear some responsibility for his own safety,.. I'm not running blindly into this crosswalk just because some clown is waving me to go...
Ha! Nothing specific…it’s more that it’s EVERYTHING you do. Stuff you wouldn’t even think about (like the phone moving I mentioned above). Stuff you thought was “deleted.” Etc. It can be a shock to the system to see what you do on your phone all laid out in front of you. And it’s doubly fun when you’re in a deposition or in front of an agency.
Yeah, it's kinda giving them the all clear without thinking of the repercussions. Many times the people on foot are hidden by trucks/vehicles/utilities, other times, the speed limits at these are so fast that there isn't enough time to slam on the brakes if someone just walks out in front of you. The pedestrian has to know their surroundings and not just take their word for it or just blindly walk out in 45mph traffic. I'm almost always on the side of pedestrians and cyclists, just don't be a dumbass and have some situational awareness.
Wait for the crosswalk light to turn white or wait for the road and cross walk lights to blink, or just simply wait for all traffic to pass or stop.
Or in this particular case just wait until you as the pedestrian can see that the entire crosswalk is clear...
Here’s the intersection. N is at the top. The situation occurred going westbound on the four lane.
So by this, if north is the top, Jack was in the 2nd lane from the top heading to the left. There do not appear to be any lights of any kind and the speed limit is reportedly 35 mph. Is the expectation that every time someone shows up at that intersection that all cars must immediately stop or is it it that the pedestrian should look for a safe window to cross and then do so with drivers yielding to them? My life experience says it’s the latter.
Yeah, throwing a random crosswalk without lights seems like a recipe for something like this. Is this common throughout town?
Correct. And of course the latter is what happens 99.999% of the time. That’s how almost all drivers and pedestrians approach situations like this with no traffic control devices. Pedestrians don’t blindly walk into intersections just because there’s a crosswalk. Cars don’t typically stop unless the pedestrian is strongly indicating they’re going into the crosswalk. Most folks just proceed and the pedestrian crosses when it’s clear. The law is the law and that really can’t be argued that once a person is in the crosswalk they’re protected by it. But reality is that it’s a potential clusterphuck of problems and risky to do so in situations like this.
Thanks but no thanks is my response to the wavers.
Around schools, yes (West High is very close). Very poor planning, but they’re getting better with the flashing lights. They should be everywhere.
If nothing else, I’d think they were encouraged by counsel to NOT donate previously as it could be perceived as an admission of guilt.
I have no issue with Jack getting cited - as noted, once in the crosswalk, you have to yield and while maybe I wouldn’t use “UNavoidable”, that situation is pretty clearly a hard-to-avoid situation where all 3 really bear some responsibility for the outcome….but I’m with you, I’m very against the wave-in. The only time I ever do it with any consistency is in a situation where traffic is backed up and I stay back from a parking lot entrance or smaller street intersection to let in someone turning right.
AND...it is apparent that one driver SAW the jogger...as far we can tell, Jack did not see the jogger...which is very plausible under the circumstances presented.
Honestly, I don't know what the law is IF the pedestrian is on curb/sidewalk and not yet in the crosswalk. I think most everyone knows to yield when a pedestrian is IN the crosswalk...but what about when they are not in it yet and waiting there?
If there is a light at a cross walk, walkers/bikers/joggers have to yield to cars and should in fact wait for the green light AND the walk signal. The guy who would have stopped at a green light is the responsible party for this accident plus the jogger to some extent.
Given that situation, I cautiously continue driving through,.. I do not stop and encourage the pedestrian to hurry into the crosswalk in front of me.
That's what I would do too. Also, just to clarify as it relates to some other posts in this thread...there is no light present where this accident took place. There is a white, painted on the road crosswalk there, but no crossing or traffic light.
I keep coming back to this thought..."there but the grace of God go I (or my kids, or my friends, or whomever). Almost all of us would have done exactly what the young driver did there in that circumstance...even though he ended up being cited.
Last edited:
A North Liberty teenager cited for a traffic violation in a May 22 crash that resulted in the death of an Iowa National Guard soldier is asking the court to waive his personal appearance at his trial set to start next week in Johnson County.
Jonathan J.F. McCaffery, 17, waived his right to appear during the bench — non-jury — trial, which he can do for a simple misdemeanor. He previously pleaded not guilty to failure to yield to a pedestrian in the right of way, according to court documents.
McCaffery will appear next Tuesday through his attorney, Joseph Moreland, at trial, according to the motion filed last Friday.
McCaffery was cited in July for the traffic violation stemming from a crash at the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Kennedy Parkway in Iowa City. He was driving a 2022 Hyundai Santa Fe that struck Corey Hite, 45, of Cedar Rapids, who was out for a jog about 4:16 p.m. on May 22.
McCaffery, who was 16 at the time of the crash, goes by the name Jack. He is the son of the University of Iowa men’s basketball coach Fran McCaffery.
Under Iowa law, there is an enhancement for this misdemeanor when it results in a death, which includes a $1,000 fine, a driver's license suspension of up to 180 days, or both, police said.
In a statement distributed in July by an Iowa City law firm, Fran and Margaret McCaffery — Jonathan McCaffery’s parents — called the crash, which happened just after their son left school, a “tragedy” that has “devastated” their family.
“Investigators have told us that it was an unavoidable accident with no evidence to suggest distracted driving,” the McCafferys’ statement says. “The pedestrian, who was jogging at the time of the accident, was waved in front of our son’s passing vehicle by the driver of another vehicle.”
Last week, police wouldn’t fully explain why it took two months to charge the teen.
Newsletter Signup
Delivered to your inbox
“It is our duty and responsibility to conduct thorough investigations and thorough investigations — particularly those involving a death — take time. We do not identify those involved in an investigation unless that person has been charged,” police said in a statement.
Police previously hadn’t identified the driver. The Gazette had requested a recording of the 911 call related to the crash, but the request was denied shortly after the crash and it was denied again last week. Police, in the statement, said all other information related to this case is confidential under Iowa law.
Hite was three weeks from retirement with the National Guard when he died June 4, nearly two weeks after the crash.
www.thegazette.com
Jonathan J.F. McCaffery, 17, waived his right to appear during the bench — non-jury — trial, which he can do for a simple misdemeanor. He previously pleaded not guilty to failure to yield to a pedestrian in the right of way, according to court documents.
McCaffery will appear next Tuesday through his attorney, Joseph Moreland, at trial, according to the motion filed last Friday.
McCaffery was cited in July for the traffic violation stemming from a crash at the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Kennedy Parkway in Iowa City. He was driving a 2022 Hyundai Santa Fe that struck Corey Hite, 45, of Cedar Rapids, who was out for a jog about 4:16 p.m. on May 22.
McCaffery, who was 16 at the time of the crash, goes by the name Jack. He is the son of the University of Iowa men’s basketball coach Fran McCaffery.
Under Iowa law, there is an enhancement for this misdemeanor when it results in a death, which includes a $1,000 fine, a driver's license suspension of up to 180 days, or both, police said.
In a statement distributed in July by an Iowa City law firm, Fran and Margaret McCaffery — Jonathan McCaffery’s parents — called the crash, which happened just after their son left school, a “tragedy” that has “devastated” their family.
“Investigators have told us that it was an unavoidable accident with no evidence to suggest distracted driving,” the McCafferys’ statement says. “The pedestrian, who was jogging at the time of the accident, was waved in front of our son’s passing vehicle by the driver of another vehicle.”
Last week, police wouldn’t fully explain why it took two months to charge the teen.
Crime and Courts Newsletter Signup
Newsletter Signup
“It is our duty and responsibility to conduct thorough investigations and thorough investigations — particularly those involving a death — take time. We do not identify those involved in an investigation unless that person has been charged,” police said in a statement.
Police previously hadn’t identified the driver. The Gazette had requested a recording of the 911 call related to the crash, but the request was denied shortly after the crash and it was denied again last week. Police, in the statement, said all other information related to this case is confidential under Iowa law.
Hite was three weeks from retirement with the National Guard when he died June 4, nearly two weeks after the crash.
Coach McCaffery’s son waives appearance at trial
Coach Fran McCaffery’s son will not appear at his bench trial for a traffic violation that resulted in the death of an Iowa National Guard soldier.
www.thegazette.com
I'm still calling B.S. on Iowa City PD on this one. Open records laws are there for a reason.
I’m still amazed by the number of posters blaming the other driver. It doesn’t matter whether the other driver waved the jogger through. It doesn’t matter if you think it’s a good idea to wave pedestrians through. By the time JM reached the intersection the jogger was already halfway across the road, as evidenced by the fact that JM hit him in the left lane.
In addition to being common goddamn sense, it’s a state law. If a pedestrian is in a marked crosswalk then you stop. This is not open to debate.
In addition to being common goddamn sense, it’s a state law. If a pedestrian is in a marked crosswalk then you stop. This is not open to debate.
There's culpability there, why you want to deny that I'm not exactly sure. Stopping at a green light and waving through a pedestrian without assessing the safety of such a move is an astoundingly stupid display of "Iowa nice". Yet, people do it all the time.
Unless you were an eyewitness to the accident, your assessment and assumptions made of the situation at that time is nothing but sheer speculation. One thing I do know, that stretch of Melrose Avenue is a raceway and it is not unusual at all for the traffic flow to average 45+ mph in that area, it's certainly not a prudent move as a pedestrian to accommodate a wave through from a seemingly nice driver.
If I find myself as a pedestrian in a similar situation I adamantly shake my head no and motion for them to continue driving on as they should and would normally do. When we deviate from normal predictable behaviors, shit like this happens, so please folks do not repeat similarly stupid "Iowa nice" behaviors when driving.
That’s an entirely different scenario. If it’s a regulated intersection then there are lights that tell pedestrians when they can cross and when they cannot. This was an unregulated, marked crosswalk. The pedestrian always has the right of way. Always, always, always.
Regardless of whether you think it was “prudent,” 100.0% of the responsibility to not hit the pedestrian once he’s in the crosswalk is on JM.
Stopping for a pedestrian at an unregulated, marked crosswalk isn’t being “Iowa nice,” it’s obeying the law.
You are assuming that the young McCaffrey SAW the pedestrian. It is ENTIRELY plausible that he DID NOT see the pedestrian, I don't think we know that. OR that as a young driver he saw the pedestrian and thought...there is no way that dude is going to run in front of me...if so, the driver erred, per the law.
So, yes, the law does obligate the the driver(s) to yield to the pedestrian in the crosswalk, and I don't think anyone is arguing that this isn't what should have happened. I, and others, though are saying that it is STILL a stupid idea for a motorist to "wave" a pedestrian through when they really do not know if that is a safe thing to do, or not.
Multiple things can be true at the same time and it seems like that may be the case here.
Myself...I would rather not risk my life by running in front of oncoming traffic that may, or may not, stop for me. I am not going to rely on a friendly person's wave and/or a few strips of white paint on the concrete to "stop" the traffic...particularly where there could be a young, inexperienced driver, a distracted driver, etc, etc, etc,
To be avoided when necessary?
Same thing here.
Responses due in 3 days, requests are ignored, if you sue, you may win access but fees usually not awarded. And the government knows this.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,351
- 205,558
- 113
Now that I bike commute every day, I NEVER enter an intersection unless there is ZERO traffic coming. I've had people literally get pissed at me when they've waved me to "go ahead" and I just shake my head no and wait for them to leave. I operate as if every single vehicle - moving or not - is a predatory animal waiting to kill and eat me. Seems to be the most prudent way to stay safe.
It’s his responsibility to see the pedestrian and not hit him, just like it’s his responsibility to see other vehicles and not hit them.
I wouldn’t do it either. But that’s irrelevant. Regardless of how or why they got there, JM is 100% responsible for not hitting any pedestrians that are in that crosswalk.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,351
- 205,558
- 113
Yes, cars should yield to people they can see. In this case, pretty clear the jogger entered and the driver of the car that hit him did not see him. I'd put the most blame on the "waver" the second most blame on the jogger and the least amount of blame on the driver who struck the jogger, based on the known circumstances. All have some culpability for the accident.
