Teen son of Fran McCaffery cited in fatal crash of Iowa National Guard soldier

[torbee]

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.

Actually, unless we think Jack McCaffery is someone with the bloodlust to run down a pedestrian in cold blood for fun or sport, I think it's safe to say we KNOW he did not see the pedestrian.

Use Occam's razor here.

Other Driver sees jogger and decides to stop and "wave him through" not realizing that another vehicle (maybe in his blind spot?) is rapidly approaching in the far lane. Pedestrian gets past Driver 1 and WHAM is hit by Driver 2.

Pretty hard not to put most of the onus for the accident on Driver 1, the "waver through" IMO.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

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.

Can you not envision a scenario where the pedestrian was NOT visible to someone approaching in a different lane of traffic? I sure can. Do we know what type of vehicle gave the "wave through"? Might it have had a tall enough profile that a jogging man was partially, or even completely, hidden by it to someone in an adjacent lane of traffic?

You come across as someone that either has it in for a McCaffrey OR the person that did the wave through. Yes, McCaffrey is technically responsible here. But it is ALSO apparent there were other contributing factors present.

 

[torbee]

Can you not envision a scenario where the pedestrian was NOT visible to someone approaching in a different lane of traffic? I sure can. Do we know what type of vehicle gave the "wave through"? Might it have had a tall enough profile that a jogging man was partially, or even completely, hidden by it to someone in an adjacent lane of traffic?

You come across as someone that either has it in for a McCaffrey OR the person that did the wave through. Yes, McCaffrey is technically responsible here. But it is ALSO apparent there were other contributing factors present.

According to this data https://www.cbs42.com/news/national/which-states-drive-the-most-pickup-trucks/ - one out of every 5 vehicles in Iowa is a full-sized pickup truck. Very, very likely it was either that or an SUV blocking the view.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

Actually, unless we think Jack McCaffery is someone with the bloodlust to run down a pedestrian in cold blood for fun or sport, I think it's safe to say we KNOW he did not see the pedestrian.

Use Occam's razor here.

Other Driver sees jogger and decides to stop and "wave him through" not realizing that another vehicle (maybe in his blind spot?) is rapidly approaching in the far lane. Pedestrian gets past Driver 1 and WHAM is hit by Driver 2.

Pretty hard not to put most of the onus for the accident on Driver 1, the "waver through" IMO.

Mainly agree. ^^ I think the other plausible scenario is that the young driver did see the jogger, but did not understand his own responsibility to yield to the pedestrian. If so, yes, he was wrong, but he is also 16 years old and it is very possible that a 16 year old would not recognize his responsibility in this case.

I agree that there is absolutely NO reason to think that young McCaffrey saw the jogger and said, "F#$% it.". He either didn't see him OR didn't understand that the pedestrian had the right of way...IMO.

 

[SSG T]

Actually, unless we think Jack McCaffery is someone with the bloodlust to run down a pedestrian in cold blood for fun or sport, I think it's safe to say we KNOW he did not see the pedestrian.

Use Occam's razor here.

Other Driver sees jogger and decides to stop and "wave him through" not realizing that another vehicle (maybe in his blind spot?) is rapidly approaching in the far lane. Pedestrian gets past Driver 1 and WHAM is hit by Driver 2.

Pretty hard not to put most of the onus for the accident on Driver 1, the "waver through" IMO.

I'd put this as highly likely. Why? Because had I not been paying attention, I'd have been hit once in this exact scenario at Ft Leonard Wood walking to the gym.

4 lane road, guy stopped at the crosswalk (he was required to do so) and waved me through. Car behind and to the left (driver's side) didn't see me, but I saw him. He went through the crosswalk at speed (pretty sure it was a 25mph zone). If I'd have been on my phone, looking at the ground, or not paying attention, he'd have drilled me.

And no, I'm not saying McCaffery is free and clear, the onus is on him to stop. However, it's also quite possible he had no clue anyone was crossing.

 

[TJ8869]

Can you not envision a scenario where the pedestrian was NOT visible to someone approaching in a different lane of traffic? I sure can. Do we know what type of vehicle gave the "wave through"? Might it have had a tall enough profile that a jogging man was partially, or even completely, hidden by it to someone in an adjacent lane of traffic?

You come across as someone that either has it in for a McCaffrey OR the person that did the wave through. Yes, McCaffrey is technically responsible here. But it is ALSO apparent there were other contributing factors present.

I don’t have it in for McCaffery and I never do the “wave through.” I simply don’t understand why so many posters are blaming the other driver and even the victim when the law is crystal clear.

 

[hawkifann]

Mainly agree. ^^ I think the other plausible scenario is that the young driver did see the jogger, but did not understand his own responsibility to yield to the pedestrian. If so, yes, he was wrong, but he is also 16 years old and it is very possible that a 16 year old would not recognize his responsibility in this case.

I agree that there is absolutely NO reason to think that young McCaffrey saw the jogger and said, "F#$% it.". He either didn't see him OR didn't understand that the pedestrian had the right of way...IMO.

I think the distinction you draw in the beginning is mostly irrelevant and is negated by your own comment ini the last sentence - I don’t know what the legal right of way is of a dog running out into the street or a ball bouncing in front of my car or a branch falling from a tree, but generally, as soon as I see something in my path, I do what I can to avoid it. I feel pretty safe in saying that as soon as Jack saw the jogger A) that there was certainly no premeditation to hit the runner and B) No thought of “I don’t know what my requirements are, so I’ll hit the jogger and hope for the best”.

Earlier in this thread, I laid out a scenario where my wife (no pic) got some pretty significant damage on a vehicle when a nice driver waived her through some stopped traffic to make a left. She didn’t see the car that hit her (and that car didn’t see her) until it was too late. I firmly believe that the jogger was waived out and neither Jack nor the jogger saw the other until it was too late.

 

[torbee]

And no, I'm not saying McCaffery is free and clear, the onus is on him to stop. However, it's also quite possible he had no clue anyone was crossing.

Simplest way to put it, IMO, is that McCaffery is LEGALLY at fault, but ETHICALLY not.

 

[TJ8869]

Actually, unless we think Jack McCaffery is someone with the bloodlust to run down a pedestrian in cold blood for fun or sport, I think it's safe to say we KNOW he did not see the pedestrian.

Use Occam's razor here.

Other Driver sees jogger and decides to stop and "wave him through" not realizing that another vehicle (maybe in his blind spot?) is rapidly approaching in the far lane. Pedestrian gets past Driver 1 and WHAM is hit by Driver 2.

Pretty hard not to put most of the onus for the accident on Driver 1, the "waver through" IMO.

If we’re employing Occam’s Razor here then I’d say the simplest and most likely explanation is that JM just got out of school and was paying more attention to his phone than he was to the road in front of him.

 

[torbee]

If we’re employing Occam’s Razor here then I’d say the simplest and most likely explanation is that JM just got out of school and was paying more attention to his phone than he was to the road in front of him.

Nope.

You are making an assumption that he was on his phone while driving and there has been zero evidence come out to support that notion.

So no, that is not the "most likely" scenario.

Far more likely that he was cruising along at speed and didn't notice that the car to the right of him abruptly stopped for a pedestrian on the curb who was then waved in front of him.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

I'm not interested in dabbling into fault. I just think it is a crock of shit that on murder cases, we get investigations done within a day or 2 sometimes and 911 calls are released pretty damn quickly on other more serious events.

WTF did this take so long to come out. Something is not kosher IMHO

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

I think the distinction you draw in the beginning is mostly irrelevant and is negated by your own comment ini the last sentence - I don’t know what the legal right of way is of a dog running out into the street or a ball bouncing in front of my car or a branch falling from a tree, but generally, as soon as I see something in my path, I do what I can to avoid it. I feel pretty safe in saying that as soon as Jack saw the jogger A) that there was certainly no premeditation to hit the runner and B) No thought of “I don’t know what my requirements are, so I’ll hit the jogger and hope for the best”.

Earlier in this thread, I laid out a scenario where my wife (no pic) got some pretty significant damage on a vehicle when a nice driver waived her through some stopped traffic to make a left. She didn’t see the car that hit her (and that car didn’t see her) until it was too late. I firmly believe that the jogger was waived out and neither Jack nor the jogger saw the other until it was too late.

?? I am not sure I follow you. But again, if Jack saw the jogger, but incorrectly assumed that he was not about to run in front of him...that is a plausible scenario as to how this happened.

There are many places where cars proceed while pedestrians stand by and wait for the traffic to clear before crossing. Yes, in a crosswalk, the pedestrian has the ROW, but we don't know if McCaffrey knew that law OR recognized that it was an actual crosswalk.

 

[hawkifann]

If we’re employing Occam’s Razor here then I’d say the simplest and most likely explanation is that JM just got out of school and was paying more attention to his phone than he was to the road in front of him.

Except that they did forensic analysis and determined that he was not on his phone.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

Nope.

You are making an assumption that he was on his phone while driving and there has been zero evidence come out to support that notion.

So no, that is not the "most likely" scenario.

Far more likely that he was cruising along at speed and didn't notice that the car to the right of him abruptly stopped for a pedestrian on the curb who was then waved in front of him.

Torbee - we are not even sure that the vehicle in the right lane even abruptly slowed down. It is has been theorized that the right lane vehicle was slowing to turn right. Also plausible, since there is a road right there that they could have been turning into.

So even the slowing/stopping adjacent vehicle may legitimately not have been recognized as a clue that there was a pedestrian there crossing.

 

[hawkifann]

?? I am not sure I follow you. But again, if Jack saw the jogger, but incorrectly assumed that he was not about to run in front of him...that is a plausible scenario as to how this happened.

There are many places where cars proceed while pedestrians stand by and wait for the traffic to clear before crossing. Yes, in a crosswalk, the pedestrian has the ROW, but we don't know if McCaffrey knew that law OR recognized that it was an actual crosswalk.

I guess we’re quibbling over details we’ll never fully know the answer two, but I can certainly play out scenarios (especially if the waver was a truck, SUV or minivan) where he truly never saw the jogger until it was too late.

 

[beanerhawk]

If we’re employing Occam’s Razor here then I’d say the simplest and most likely explanation is that JM just got out of school and was paying more attention to his phone than he was to the road in front of him.

If he was on his phone the charges would be more significant. They check your phone history in an accident like this and you can't hide if you were on it.

 

[Bank of Hawk]

Actually, unless we think Jack McCaffery is someone with the bloodlust to run down a pedestrian in cold blood for fun or sport, I think it's safe to say we KNOW he did not see the pedestrian.

Use Occam's razor here.

Other Driver sees jogger and decides to stop and "wave him through" not realizing that another vehicle (maybe in his blind spot?) is rapidly approaching in the far lane. Pedestrian gets past Driver 1 and WHAM is hit by Driver 2.

Pretty hard not to put most of the onus for the accident on Driver 1, the "waver through" IMO.

Agree with this to a point: but I also don’t see any way the first driver is liable here but will have to defend himself. His duty of care was to ensure that there were no pedestrians walking in the pedestrian crossing and if there was, his duty as a driver is to stop for them. One can argue if a pedestrian has not yet entered the crossing, but is imminently going to be in the crossing, then there is still some duty for the driver to make an attempt to not strike the pedestrian if the pedestrian barrels out into the crosswalk even though in that scenario, the pedestrian is now bears some culpability if they are struck.

Driver 1 doesn’t have a duty to other motorists to warn them of a pedestrian in the cross walk, because for obvious reasons driver 1 has no control over what other drivers do or don’t do.

 

[Mufasa94]

Simplest way to put it, IMO, is that McCaffery is LEGALLY at fault, but ETHICALLY not.

Any operator of a vehicle should be following and be prepared to follow the rules of the road they are driving on. That is an ethical thing to do.

 

[beanerhawk]

Two things here that seem strange to me.

1. I haven't seen one person say you don't have to yield to a pedestrian in a cross walk. So that seems strange to keep coming up.

2. If you think he intentionally ignored the jogger in the crosswalk and just ran him over on purpose because he didn't know he had to stop then I don't know what to tell you, seems 100% sure it was a complete accident and there was no time to stop or swerve by the time he saw the individual. That's why they are called accidents. Terrible thing for everyone involved.

 

[hawkifann]

Simplest way to put it, IMO, is that McCaffery is LEGALLY at fault, but ETHICALLY not.

It sounds like he’s going down the appropriate legal path. He was in the wrong, but there was no intent and other circumstances contributed to it, so some kind of misdemeanor here feels more appropriate than some kind of vehicular manslaughter or something else that comes truly from negligence. Had he been found to be on his phone at the time of the accident, then this would likely be a different story.

 

[torbee]

Any operator of a vehicle should be following and be prepared to follow the rules of the road they are driving on. That is an ethical thing to do.

If he didn't see a person in the crosswalk he was not obligated to slow down. So he was following the "rules of the road."

 

[joelbc1]

Sometimes in “life” shit just happens. This might ge one of those times. There are resolutions to such matters that do NOT include “conspiracy.”

 

[Rifler]

Majority of responsibility here likely lies with the municipality,.. this is a terribly unsafe situation for anyone who encounters it.

 

[sober_teacher]

I don’t have it in for McCaffery and I never do the “wave through.” I simply don’t understand why so many posters are blaming the other driver and even the victim when the law is crystal clear.

Not sure anyone arguing the law; just seems like there’s several plausible scenarios that could offer mitigating circumstances.

 

[Titus Andronicus]

Does anyone even know who the "waver" is? This same fact set keeps getting repeated along with the laws and the controlling legal framework.

Who was the waver? a student? a drunk? a kid? an old guy? an elderly woman?

Was he on his way home from work? or on his way TO work?

Will he even be called as a witness in this upcoming trial? The guy did stop ... didn't he? Has he admitted that he waved?

................................

Could a civil suit succeed against the waver? Those courts seem to love to divide responsibility into nice little percentages.

Why wouldn't the family of the jogger sue him along with suing JM? I am sure his coverage limits are somewhat lower, but just to get everything out there, wouldn't this be a matter for a jury?

Or ... Even though, he is not "technically liable, why wouldn't his insurance simply settle for the policy limits? ... and default on any court room defense.

 

[50kWidowmaker]

If he didn't see a person in the crosswalk he was not obligated to slow down. So he was following the "rules of the road."

So if a person fails to yield the right of way in an uncontrolled intersection and they simply "didn't see" the other vehicle and caused a crash, they weren't obligated to yield the right of way?

 

[ZachJump]

Years ago I was involved in something similar....though no crosswalk.

4 lanes of road on each side...divided. Three young kids on bikes.

A van stops in the left most lane and waves the kids across...next lane stops. Third lane over hits the brakes hard...stops in time.

Right most lane....me...at this point I have what felt like a target lock on the straggler...girl that was probably 7 or so. No way I was not going to hit her....last moment, while full on brake, I swing left praying hitting the car next to me would slow me down enough.

Didn't hit the car...but was left enough that I just hit her back tire and not her leg. Threw her about 10 feet towards the side of the road.

She lands in grass....gets up like nothing happened. Her bike was destroyed.

I don't know how long it took me to move. When I did a Frito Vendor going into the gas station the kids were going to was still just sanding there. I ended up talking to him...his first comment was he knew for sure she was dead when he saw what was happening....and that there was nothing I could have done.

This was 25 years ago or so...still pops in my head what a difference a couple of inches and me making the decision of trying to hit the car next to me made.

Damn kids were laughing about it when I checked on them.

 

[TJ8869]

So if a person fails to yield the right of way in an uncontrolled intersection and they simply "didn't see" the other vehicle and caused a crash, they weren't obligated to yield the right of way?

Apparently it’s some sort of free pass.

“Sorry about that construction worker. Didn’t see him.”

 

[50kWidowmaker]

Apparently it’s some sort of free pass.

“Sorry about that construction worker. Didn’t see him.”

It's scary that some of these same people end up serving jury duty.

"I was passing on a two lane highway and hit the oncoming car head on, but officer I didn't see the oncoming car".

 

[Hawki97]

I think it’s funny that certain people in this thread can’t differentiate between the “it’s clearly the law and no one is arguing that” conversation and the “I can totally see how it could happen even to me and I sympathize with all involved” conversation. HORT is full of all kinds of specials though.

 

[torbee]

I think it’s funny that certain people in this thread can’t differentiate between the “it’s clearly the law and no one is arguing that” conversation and the “I can totally see how it could whole happen even to me and I sympathize with all involved” conversation. HORT is full of all kinds of specials though.

Very easy to spot the folks that struggle with abstract thinking.

 

[50kWidowmaker]

I think it’s funny that certain people in this thread can’t differentiate between the “it’s clearly the law and no one is arguing that” conversation and the “I can totally see how it could happen even to me and I sympathize with all involved” conversation. HORT is full of all kinds of specials though.

And in which of the two camps would you place the following statement? Or do you think you need a third option?

If he didn't see a person in the crosswalk he was not obligated to slow down. So he was following the "rules of the road."

 

[50kWidowmaker]

Very easy to spot the folks that struggle with abstract thinking.

No one is ever going to accuse you of winning an IQ contest.

 

[TJ8869]

I think it’s funny that certain people in this thread can’t differentiate between the “it’s clearly the law and no one is arguing that” conversation and the “I can totally see how it could whole happen even to me and I sympathize with all involved” conversation. HORT is full of all kinds of specials though.

I think it’s startling that people are blaming the driver who actually stopped per the law and some are even blaming the victim.

“I didn’t see him” isn’t a good enough excuse. The pedestrian didn’t suddenly appear out of nowhere in the middle of the road. Even if the other vehicle obscured JM’s view of the pedestrian in the instant before he struck him, he could have and should have noticed him earlier. The pedestrian was on the side of the road long enough that the other driver came to a complete stop and waved the pedestrian through. The pedestrian then crossed one lane of traffic before reaching JM’s lane. In the time it took for all three of those things to happen, JM probably traveled at least the length of a football field.

If he didn’t notice the pedestrian at all during that time and didn’t notice the vehicle to his right coming to a complete stop then he simply wasn’t paying enough attention.

And it’s not as if JM didn’t realize there’s a crosswalk there. He passes by there twice a day on his way to and from school.

 

[TJ8869]

Very easy to spot the folks that struggle with abstract thinking.

Lol. Does “20% of all vehicles in Iowa are full-sized pickups, so we should just assume JM’s view of the jogger was blocked and completely disregard the possibility that JM was distracted, even though 58% of all accidents involving teen drivers are caused by distracted driving” fall under the heading of “abstract thinking”?

 

[Pinehawk]

People seem pretty certain about this law and outcome. But, we will see. The trial is yet to happen. Then we’ll really find out what the law has to say about situations like this.

 

[torbee]

Lol. Does “20% of all vehicles in Iowa are full-sized pickups, so we should just assume JM’s view of the jogger was blocked and completely disregard the possibility that JM was distracted, even though 58% of all accidents involving teen drivers are caused by distracted driving” fall under the heading of “abstract thinking”?

You still are maintaining he was on the phone when that has already been disproven.

You’re flailing.

 

[RileyHawk]

Lol at another thread of "TJ being TJ".

 

[TJ8869]

You still are maintaining he was on the phone when that has already been disproven.

You’re flailing.

1) A phone isn’t the only possible distraction in a vehicle.

2) Nobody has disproven anything. No one here knows if they checked his phone. The only thing we know for certain that the police did was withhold the driver’s name for nearly two months and then reject the Gazette’s request for a copy of the 911 call.

As a member of the press, I would think that would infuriate you. But evidently it doesn’t.

 

[TJ8869]

Lol at another thread of "TJ being TJ".

Lol. Riley’s here to make sure we haven’t forgotten how much of a dumbass he is.