Agree. I hope this tragedy causes some changes to be made at that crosswalk.
Updated: Jack McCaffery Found Guilty In Fatal Pedestrian Crash
- Thread starter justinjdry
- Start date
I hope you folks out there with teen drivers use this as an example. Also, the lesson for those teen drivers is "everyone on the road driving a car is an idiot, so drive like everyone is an idiot".
Most would be. Many would not. As a runner/walker that crosses many intersections on foot every day, I am keenly aware of pedestrians/crosswalks when I'm driving and very wary of drivers when running. It's human nature that when you regularly experience both sides of a situation, your awareness of each side is increased. I'm not surprised that JM failed to exercise proper caution given his youth and relative inexperience behind the wheel. I am always surprised when an older more experienced runner fails to notice an oncoming vehicle. Now if JM was behind a slowing/stopped car and drove around it and hit the pedestrian, that's pretty careless and might explain the jogger's judgment that the path was clear. With respect to any civil judgment, that would drive up the award for sure if that's what happened.
Just a little more opinion...I can think of many pedestrian crossings that would be quite clear and likely even an inexperienced driver would recognize a pedestrian just off the driving path, etc. This one is more obscure IMO and combine that with the testimony from someone else present that they did not see the person that was tragically hit look for other traffic, etc, and you have a deadly formula, unfortunately for all, but especially the decedent and his family.
But over many, many years of experience in my life, I have found that oftentimes that the worst outcomes are realized when there are MULTIPLE things going haywire at one time. That seems to be the case here IMO.
On a multi-lane road there should be more notice to the driver than than just some lines on the ground. There needs to be flashing lights that force the drivers to stop when there's someone crossing. Had the runner been a car pulling out from a side street the runner(car) would have been at fault. That's why for cars there are traffic lights, so there should be traffic lights for people as well. Or add a stop sign to force the cars to stop.
Good points. I can't remember where...but recently I saw a pedestrian crossing where a flashing yellow light illuminated to let the drivers know that a pedestrian was in the crosswalk.
I don't know if the lights were activated by a sensor or manually by the pedestrian. But they were quite apparent and probably would have prevented this accident, IMO.
Totally agree. There was as fatal incident similar to this one at a crosswalk in my town a few years ago. Pedestrian-activated flashing lights were installed shortly thereafter. IMO, it shouldn't take people dying to initiate better safety features on a frequently used crosswalk that is not aligned with traffic lights.
There are lights at a cross walk near our house and it's pedestrian activated. The road is only single lane (each way) but they have the lights because the speed limit is 40mph.
This is just my person opinion but I feel the law, that give the running the right of way, is flawed. I don't have a solution for it other than to add lights or a stop sign, but I feel there's a flaw in it. From some of the posts, people feel it was wrong for the one driver to wave the running to cross. Isn't the law basically saying the same thing, go ahead and cross because you have the right of way. Now most people are smart enough to not step into the cross walk until they're sure the cars are stopping. But why would we have a law that puts people at risk. There's a saying, "even when you're right, you're wrong" and I think this law is a perfect example.
FWIW...you and I think alike. I don't want to blame the decedent here, but my personal feeling is that the true "fault" of what went down here is not nearly so neat of a picture as to pin it all on a 16 year old.
IMO, the person that waved the runner through is not free of any fault, nor is the decedent, who did not ascertain if there was oncoming traffic, etc. I agree that this law, pedestrian has the ultimate ROW, should be re-examined.
There just has to be a better answer to this situation rather than having a dead person and a 16 year old who has to live the rest of his life knowing he was found guilty of killing someone, along with the memories of the person after the accident. My guess is there's going to be more than one McCaffery with anxiety problems. How can he not.
I’m not stating anything further is deserved but confused as how manslaughter isn’t also a charge if he is guilty of failing to yield and it led to a death?
Hopefully this is the end to the criminal court process and they can likely move on to getting civil law suit process behind them. I would guess that takes a bit longer though.
You would be hard pressed to find too many other 16 year old drivers that could have avoided this tragedy. It’s possibly avoidable to someone that has been driving for 10 years or has greater level of caution installed due to being through an accident before.
If the man who died could come back to say anything to Jack, I doubt it would be anything beyond a display of forgiveness. He’s just a kid.
I am pretty sure 99.99% of 16 year olds past and present have never killed anyone while driving. So it can’t be too hard to avoid running over people when they are crossing the street.
I don’t know Corey Hite , but if I was run over by an suv and left to rot in a hospital as my body slowly shut down denying me the chance of retired life living with and raising a family, I wouldn’t be very forgiving. Especially after the police and media for “unknown reasons” down played everything and the McCaffery’s lawyered up and pled not guilty. This Jack is a victim narrative doesn’t sit well with me.
What a sad perspective.
There must be justice!
Let’s ruin two lives instead of one. Accidents do happen. You have google on your phone, probably a lot more pedestrian deaths than you realize. Jack isn’t the victim but do you have evidence to prove negligence, if not stop talking about wanting to see what, jail time? Jesus.
And the family deserves damages for sure. But i don’t know that you’ll be able to find evidence without reasonable doubt, that this could have been avoided. You need that in a criminal trial, but don’t in civil as I understand.
If bad intent or a trend of disregard for safety isn’t established why wouldn’t you want to forgive someone eventually. What exact good does it do to not?
CORRECT ^^.
That was a sad perspective...and it is sad because there is nothing to suggest that the young driver did anything malicious and/or reckless. He was simply driving home from school and a wild confluence of events, that included a grown man running in front of oncoming traffic, happened in front of him at a very precise moment, etc.
Yes, it is terrible that someone died, but that doesn't "convert" automatically to someone else then having their life ruined too, especially when they were behaving in a way that virtually everyone else driving through that area would duplicate as well.
My own sons drove that same route for the years that they attended West High, and without much imagination required, could have also been in the same predicament that this young man was caught up in.
A better pedestrian crossing "system" is needed IMO...the current one has a very significant flaw in it...one that was tragically "found" in this case.
The McCaffery’s released 1 statement with a lot of sentences explaining how Jack is a victim and how nothing was his fault. And yet only 1 sentence discussing the Hite family, not apologizing, but expressing sympathy. Hell, they didn’t even show up to the trial. That says a lot to me. Blame lawyers if you want, but I think this is deeper than that. A deep seated lack of accountability and shoddy personal ethics from the entire family. Very Steve Alfordish.
Despite the pleas of victimhood and not being at fault, the trial judge disagreed. Guilty! That puts an end to that , no matter what us message board plebeians feel and think.
It’s interesting that the excuse of not ruining Jack’s life seeking justice is being brought up. I don’t think a max $1000 fine and 180 day suspended driver’s license is a penalty that will ruin anyone’s life. It’s a stunningly light sentence for killing a pedestrian to be honest.
Also, forgiveness typically comes AFTER a person offers an apology to an aggrieved person and asks for it in return. I look forward to the McCaffery family’s acceptance of guilt and public apology to Hite family……
Despite the pleas of victimhood and not being at fault, the trial judge disagreed. Guilty! That puts an end to that , no matter what us message board plebeians feel and think.
It’s interesting that the excuse of not ruining Jack’s life seeking justice is being brought up. I don’t think a max $1000 fine and 180 day suspended driver’s license is a penalty that will ruin anyone’s life. It’s a stunningly light sentence for killing a pedestrian to be honest.
Also, forgiveness typically comes AFTER a person offers an apology to an aggrieved person and asks for it in return. I look forward to the McCaffery family’s acceptance of guilt and public apology to Hite family……
Apparently the trailing driver in the left lane could not see the pedestrian because the driver in the right lane who waved the man on was blocking his view. Heard that a lot. A tragedy because of serendipidy.
Jack's life is not ruined other than a nightmarish memory. He needs to admit fault and apologize whole-heartedly. He did not yield.......period. Sad situation; but, a reminder to be fully alert at ALL times.
I don’t think it really says anything. I get what you’re saying but I think you’re reading far too much into it.
Not serendipity. Poorly designed pedestrian crossing. Chalking this up to luck or driver or fault of the pedestrian will not result in changes that can reduce the frequency of this issue.
If we want to reduce these incidences then we need to find the root cause of the problem. Putting Jack in prison or collecting damages does nothing to address the underlying issue and prevent future fatalities.
Serendipity: the occurrence and development of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way
No duh, this is a civil action.
The Sad perspective is the Family not appologizing in their official statement. They instead issued a statement that they were told and agree that the accident was unavoidable. They'd obviuosly lawyered up and were attempting to minimize Jack's and their own culpability and better position themselves for the lawsuit.
Jack must have driven past that cross walk as driver or passenger a hundred times on his trips to and from the school since it was near his school. This was not new unfamiliar territory for him. Another car stops and instead of slowing down, Jack passes and makes zero effort to slow down and look for anything. If he'd onlly slowed down to under 20 mph, odds are the accident was survivable.
The AAA Traffic Foundation reports that a pedestrian who is struck by a motorist who is traveling at 20 mph has a 93% chance of survival. At 30 mph, the likelihood of surviving is reduced to about 80%, but at 35 mph, the pedestrian stands about a 50/50 chance of survival. At 40 mph, a pedestrian has a mere 10 percent chance of living through being struck by a car
Of course the accident was avoidable by the vast majority of drivers. We've all driven and come to cross walks with people or even ducks crossing and 99.99% of us haven't killled any person or any ducks.
I do think Flashing yellow lights should be put on the crosswalk..they have flashing lights out here in Oregon where I now live.
Oh get over yourself if you think you’re not capable of being involved tragic accident. Especially as a minor. And stop with all these assumption nonsense throwing out unverifiable numbers someone has driven past an intersection or vague claims about “99%”. Someone died, this is not the place for your drivel.
You were not there. You are not a lawyer. No one wants your two cents about something you have never came close to experiencing first hand.
Apologizing has unfortunate consequences in this sue happy country, not that I don’t believe the family should. You wouldn’t admit it, but if you had similar wealth and your son had this happen, I would bet anything you would take your lawyers advice. There is nothing McCaffery family can say to make this situation better for anyone.
I propose that you are a major contributing factor to why this country is the way it is.
Pushing 0 accountability
Excuses ready for every situation
Demanding of others
Deflections, fallacies , victim blaming
“No one wants your two cents ….“
Feel free to take your own advice and piss off.
Last edited:
Again big brain. What is your fn solution. What do you want aside from complaining and listen to your self pretend they’re the only thing that is good anymore in this country. I’m not using this situation to pretend I have solution, I’m just calling out bs.
Do you wantJail time? What will satisfy your appetite for justice. What you driving at? The family will pay damages. I don’t argue that is deserved. But this is crappy situation that doesn’t get a happy ending.
Only thing positive that will come from this is people hopefully appreciating how fragile life is and making the intersection safer.
There just is enough evidence for criminal charges, wait to see what comes of the civil suit before you complain about no accountability.
You can figure out the ignore options if you want to just talk to people that echo the same opinion over and over.
He wasn't saying it couldn't happen to him. You purposely mislead. We are all to drive responsibly and cautiously. If you can't do that, don't drive. Jack messed up. Trying to dismiss responsibility is exactly the wrong move. A guy was killed and you are saying, "one needs to protect our own money at all costs". Exactly what is wrong with society.
If you were put in this situation like the McCaffery's, would you NOT lawyer up?
When you grow up and become an adult hopefully you'll be able to understand there's more going on with these types of cases. Pretty much everyone is going to be told by their lawyer to plead not guilty. The lawyer is also going to tell the family (McCaffery's) to say nothing publicly as it can come back to bite them. What happened is a terrible thing and can't be taken back so at this point people are dealing with the now and these are common things that happen. My guess is the only time the McCaffery's might make a statement will be after all court cases are completed.
There is a difference between "lawyer up" and having a lawyer to make sure you get fair treatment. He pleaded "not guilty". That was not being honest nor responsible.
FYI, everyone is going to plead not guilty in this situation and you would as well. People plead not guilty because they want their day in court. That's how our country works and they have a right to it. If you don't understand how the system works, that's on you.
The situation involved a crosswalk at Melrose Avenue and Kennedy Parkway in Iowa City that did not have flashing lights to alert drivers that a pedestrian was attempting to cross. There was a pedestrian crossing sign to alert drivers that a crosswalk existed.
The speed limit in that area is 35 miles per hour. 35 miles per hour translates to 51 feet per second. I don't know the exact make/model of car driven by McCaffrey but, at 35 miles per hour, he would have been traveling approximately 4 car lengths per second.
Here are my questions and answers:
1. What is the speed limit for drivers heading west on Melrose Avenue as they approach Kennedy Parkway? ANSWER: 35 mph
2. What is the speed limit for drivers heading west on Melrose Avenue as they approach Kennedy Parkway if there is no a pedestrian standing on the sidewalk next to the crosswalk? ANSWER: 35 mph
3. What is the speed limit for drivers heading west on Melrose Avenue as they approach Kennedy Parkway if there is a pedestrian standing on the sidewalk next to - but not in - the crosswalk? ANSWER: 35 mph
4. Does the speed limit changes simply because a passenger is standing next to the road? ANSWER: No.
5. Per Iowa statute, when must a driver yield the right of way to a pedestrian at such a location? ANSWER: When the pedestrian enters the crosswalk.
6. If a pedestrian chooses to enter the crosswalk but does so oblivious (perhaps listening to a Iowa sports podcast lamenting Iowa's inability to move the ball offensively) to an oncoming vehicle less than 50 feet from the intersection and traveling 35 mph. When that pedestrian is struck by the vehicle's driver has about 1 second of reaction time, whose fault is it? ANSWER: ?? If your answer is "absolutely 100% the driver's fault," aren't you essentially concluding that pedestrians owe zero responsibility for maintaining awareness of their surroundings? That a pedestrian can completely ignore an obvious danger of oncoming traffic - no matter how close that vehicle may be - because they possess some all-powerful right of way? (FWIW, the concept of "absolute" right of way doesn't exist; if I have the right of way with a green light, I can't purposefully drive my vehicle into a vehicle that has stalled in the middle of an intersection).
There are plenty of reasons why the vehicle in the north lane may have stopped that have nothing to do with a pedestrian crossing:
1. Picking up a friend who is waiting on the side of the street (would have been a dumb move by that driver and the friend)
2. The westbound car was waiting to turn right onto Kennedy Parkway and was waiting for a pedestrian to cross. (Lots of cars don't put on turn signals)
3. The westbound car was taking the turn very slowly. (If I had a dime for every time that I saw a car turning right at a snail's pace)
Is it reasonable to anticipate that a car would stop for a pedestrian NOT IN THE CROSSWALK to "wave" that pedestrian into the crosswalk? If that pedestrian determined that it wasn't safe to cross because of oncoming traffic, then . . . call me crazy . . . a driver shouldn't "override" the pedestrian's decision process by concluding "that's OK, I'll stop and wave you by."
By all accounts, the decedent appeared from the front of the other vehicle just as McCaffrey was reaching the intersection and that the other vehicle blocked McCaffrey from seeing the decedent. It was truly akin to a pedestrian stepping onto the roadway in the path of a vehicle going the speed limit immediately before impact.
As I've written many times before, truly an unfortunate set of circumstances all the way around. From a civil law perspective, fault likely lies with all three participants.
The speed limit in that area is 35 miles per hour. 35 miles per hour translates to 51 feet per second. I don't know the exact make/model of car driven by McCaffrey but, at 35 miles per hour, he would have been traveling approximately 4 car lengths per second.
Here are my questions and answers:
1. What is the speed limit for drivers heading west on Melrose Avenue as they approach Kennedy Parkway? ANSWER: 35 mph
2. What is the speed limit for drivers heading west on Melrose Avenue as they approach Kennedy Parkway if there is no a pedestrian standing on the sidewalk next to the crosswalk? ANSWER: 35 mph
3. What is the speed limit for drivers heading west on Melrose Avenue as they approach Kennedy Parkway if there is a pedestrian standing on the sidewalk next to - but not in - the crosswalk? ANSWER: 35 mph
4. Does the speed limit changes simply because a passenger is standing next to the road? ANSWER: No.
5. Per Iowa statute, when must a driver yield the right of way to a pedestrian at such a location? ANSWER: When the pedestrian enters the crosswalk.
6. If a pedestrian chooses to enter the crosswalk but does so oblivious (perhaps listening to a Iowa sports podcast lamenting Iowa's inability to move the ball offensively) to an oncoming vehicle less than 50 feet from the intersection and traveling 35 mph. When that pedestrian is struck by the vehicle's driver has about 1 second of reaction time, whose fault is it? ANSWER: ?? If your answer is "absolutely 100% the driver's fault," aren't you essentially concluding that pedestrians owe zero responsibility for maintaining awareness of their surroundings? That a pedestrian can completely ignore an obvious danger of oncoming traffic - no matter how close that vehicle may be - because they possess some all-powerful right of way? (FWIW, the concept of "absolute" right of way doesn't exist; if I have the right of way with a green light, I can't purposefully drive my vehicle into a vehicle that has stalled in the middle of an intersection).
There are plenty of reasons why the vehicle in the north lane may have stopped that have nothing to do with a pedestrian crossing:
1. Picking up a friend who is waiting on the side of the street (would have been a dumb move by that driver and the friend)
2. The westbound car was waiting to turn right onto Kennedy Parkway and was waiting for a pedestrian to cross. (Lots of cars don't put on turn signals)
3. The westbound car was taking the turn very slowly. (If I had a dime for every time that I saw a car turning right at a snail's pace)
Is it reasonable to anticipate that a car would stop for a pedestrian NOT IN THE CROSSWALK to "wave" that pedestrian into the crosswalk? If that pedestrian determined that it wasn't safe to cross because of oncoming traffic, then . . . call me crazy . . . a driver shouldn't "override" the pedestrian's decision process by concluding "that's OK, I'll stop and wave you by."
By all accounts, the decedent appeared from the front of the other vehicle just as McCaffrey was reaching the intersection and that the other vehicle blocked McCaffrey from seeing the decedent. It was truly akin to a pedestrian stepping onto the roadway in the path of a vehicle going the speed limit immediately before impact.
As I've written many times before, truly an unfortunate set of circumstances all the way around. From a civil law perspective, fault likely lies with all three participants.
If a pedestrian steps onto a crosswalk into the path of an oncoming vehicle and the oncoming vehicle is too close to stop in time, is the driver "guilty" of failing to yield the right of way? Do you believe that the right of way is absolute and the passenger can enter the crosswalk no matter the circumstances?
The trial is over and Jack was found guilty.
That’s not what happened, at least in the view of the court, so why throw out hypotheticals?
Let it go… Jack and his family will need to address civil liability and then move on with their lives. Which is something the deceased cannot do.
What's with the "let it go" lecture directed at me? 37 posts after the verdict was entered with numerous people "chiming in" with their opinions . . . then I posted last night. And I'm the one who needs to "let it go?" Give me a freaking break.
I didn't raise the issue. I'm responding to others. Plenty of people are castigating McCaffrey for fighting the charge in court by pleading "not guilty" and supposedly not taking responsibility.
He was sober. He wasn't on his phone. There was no evidence of speeding. The pedestrian "ran" in front of McCaffrey's car after being waved into the crosswalk by another vehicle.
Testimony at trial suggested that McCaffrey's ability to see the pedestrian was inhibited by a mail truck.
I'm not commenting on whether I agree with the trial judge's conclusion. I'm commenting on the criticism of McCaffrey for exercising his right to defend himself under a set of circumstances that were largely not in dispute. This is definitely one where I see two sides to the argument.
