No Charges for Either Party in Police Crash That Killed a Six-year-old Child

Jack Baruth
by Jack Baruth

If you’ve been reading this site for a while, you might recall the incident nearly four years ago when your humble author managed to collect a Hyundai Sonata in the B-pillar. Both I and the woman in the front passenger seat were nontrivially injured in the crash, but the months and years of pain and surgery afterwards were made considerably easier to bear by the fact that my son, who was sitting in the right rear seat, escaped injury. I cannot tell you what I would have done or how I would have felt if he had been injured or killed.

Five months ago, a woman in Albuquerque made a left-hand turn across a busy urban intersection. As she did so, her Ford Escape was struck by a police car traveling at nearly 70 miles per hour. The six-year-old boy in the right rear seat was killed.

After a comprehensive investigation, the county sheriff has recommended that no charges be filed against either the driver of the Ford Escape or the officer who struck the vehicle. Their rationale for that recommendation is easy to see and there’s no reason to Monday-morning quarterback a crash with a result this tragic. We should, however, be talking about the circumstances that made that crash not only possible but likely.


In 2012, I suggested that police cars be governed to a safe and legal speed. My concern at the time was with reckless behavior on the part of police, particularly with regards to speed enforcement. If you’ve ever been buzzed by a state trooper doing 110 mph to catch a “danger to society” who is doing 85, you’ll have an idea of why I don’t think we need those dangerous, risky interactions between police and civilian vehicles on America’s freeways.

In the case of this Albuquerque incident, however, the officer wasn’t displaying his narcissism or his addiction to personal power. Rather, he was making the maximum possible speed to respond to a situation where a “teen” was threatening employees at a grocery store with a machete. That’s the kind of situation where you’d like police to show up as quickly as possible, although here in concealed-carry-crazy Ohio I suspect anybody who waved a machete around at my local Kroger would be the recipient of more incoming ordnance than the HMS Hood within seconds.

I think that Keisean Anderson, the machete-waver in question, should have manslaughter added to his remarkably short and mild list of charges. Regardless of that fellow’s eventual disposition, however, the fact remains that police do occasionally have a need to respond quickly to violent situations. So how do you handle this? Do you make them slow down for every intersection, the way I’ve seen ambulances do in Texas and other Southwest states? Do you limit their permissible speed to a multiple of the speed limit, which in this case was 40 mph?

Furthermore, how much duty does a citizen have to look down the road before making a left turn? If the speed limit is 40 mph, should she look down just far enough to ensure that there is no 40 mph traffic heading her way? 60 mph traffic? 70 mph traffic? Why didn’t she see the lights and hear the sirens? The officer in question had both activated.

I’ve argued on this site before that passive safety, not driver training, is what truly saves lives on American roads. After reading about this incident, however, I have to wonder a bit about that. We don’t need to turn everyday drivers into Nico Rosberg or Sebastian Vettel. We just need to educate them in the proper use of vision. Keeping your eyes high and alert will make it possible for you to see things like a police car approaching nearly twice as quickly as you might expect. And it will save you from ever having to mourn the avoidable death of a child. I was almost in that situation and I can tell you from experience. There is nothing worse.

Take a moment to look around before you make a choice on the road. The life you save might not be your own. It might be more important than that.

Jack Baruth
Jack Baruth

More by Jack Baruth

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 68 comments
  • Shortest Circuit Shortest Circuit on Sep 26, 2017

    I suspect with the B&B, you are preaching to the choir Jack. Yes every driver should receive proper training on how to operate a motor vehicle. Failing that, just good ole' dumb common sense should be advocated. "Is it a good idea for me to drive this 5000lb piece of steel 75mph while texting?" "I'm about to join a highway, should I accelerate from 35mph or just throw the indicator and hope for the best?" etc,etc....

  • Erikstrawn Erikstrawn on Sep 26, 2017

    Man, excellent comments! My take after reading all this: 1) No matter how you slice it, he police officer was going way too fast through the intersection. He also has a history as a low-performing driver. 2) The intersection was too complicated and busy for the driver who was hit to quickly sort out what was happening, especially with how quickly the police car arrived. 3) Cars today are far too insulated from the outside world. Drivers should be engaged, not cocooned. 4) Mr. Machete was seen as such a threat to public safety that officers felt obliged to ignore their safety protocol, to an extent that should not have been possible (80mph through an intersection in a 40mph zone). Mr. Machete is most culpable in causing the situation, but if he's waving a machete in a grocery store, no law or threat of punishment is going to change his behavior. He needs a lot of time in an 8x8 cell to think about the consequences of his actions, but he also needs a lot of counseling. The officer needs to be taken out of his car. If he would like to reaccomplish driver's training and the police driving course, he could eventually return to a car - but on probation for a long while. The police department needs to try to make things right with the family who lost their child. Check in on them every now and then. The mother should consider taking a defensive driving course and take a self-conscious look at how she drives. Is the stereo at a reasonable level? Is the cell phone out-of-sight and out-of-mind? The lesson for the rest of us is that driving is a performance art, but most of us aren't artists, and many of us have a Nero complex when it comes to driving.

  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next