Driver in fatal bicycle crash ordered to stand trial
A driver told police he had about two seconds to react after he saw a bicyclist on a dark street in Northfield Township in June and swerved his car, but was unable to avoid the collision.
But a judge found there was enough evidence that 23-year-old Joshua Hidey acted negligently that night and ordered him to stand trial on a high-court misdemeanor today.
Hidey, of Whitmore Lake, faces up to two years in prison if convicted of negligent homicide in the death of 53-year-old Duane West of Whitmore Lake. West died June 5 of multiple traumatic injuries at the scene of the 10:50 p.m. accident on Seven Mile Road.
Hidey was driving a Pontiac Grand Prix behind a Ford Bronco as it passed a slower-moving car, authorities said. As it completed the pass, the Bronco quickly veered to the right to avoid the bicyclist, who was traveling in the opposite direction, investigators said.
Hidey veered his car to the left to avoid West, but struck him, authorities said.
West had traces of marijuana in his blood, but a forensic pathologist testified today she didn't think it impaired his ability to operate the bicycle.
Hidey said he was traveling west when his car caught up with two other cars, township police Officer Richard Paquette testified during a preliminary hearing today at 14A-4 District Court in Saline.
Hidey was driving about 45 miles per hour in the 55 mile per hour zone, Paquette said. Hidey told police the first car was traveling between 25 and 30 miles per hour, Paquette testified.
Hidey decided to also pass the slower car along with the Ford Bronco as it moved west in the eastbound lane, Paquette said.
The Bronco "suddenly veered back," and Hidey saw the bicyclist and attempted to "veer left" to avoid the head-on collision, Paquette testified.
Hidey told police he saw no lights coming from the bicycle, said Paquette, noting the bicyclist was wearing dark clothing.
Hidey told Paquette the accident was "sudden." During a second interview, he said he saw the bicyclist for two seconds before impact, Paquette said.
Forensic pathologist Dr. Yung Chung, who works for the Washtenaw County Medical Examiner's Office, testified West had a "very minimal amount of marijuana in his system."
In general, marijuana can be detected in the blood if it's been ingested anytime within the past three days, she said. She also testified that West was wearing a brown jacket, blue jeans, black gym shoes, white socks and a black glove on his left hand.
Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Deputy Robert Losey, an accident reconstructionist who responded to the scene, testified the car had damage to its front passenger side hood. It also had damage to the front fender and windshield, he said.
The bicycle was "wedged into" the front of the vehicle between the fender and hood, Losey said. There were marks on the road, indicating the vehicle had veered to the left, he testified.
Losey said he couldn't determine the point of impact of the collision on the vehicle or in the roadway. He also testified that because of the damage, he couldn’t determine whether the bicycle had proper equipment, including a front white light that was required for that time of night.
Losey said when he responded to the scene about 40 minutes after the accident, there were no problems with visibility. There are no street lights, he said.
The shoulder is packed gravel 6 to 8 inches in width, he said. Beyond that, it drops off into a ditch, he said.
Asked by county Assistant Prosecutor Dianna Collins whether the driver committed any civil infractions, Losey said improper passing. Asked by defense attorney Erik Mayernik whether the bicyclist committed any civil infractions, Losey said he did not.
“He’s allowed the whole lane like a motor vehicle,” he said.
Mayernik argued his client shouldn't be held responsible for the death of a man riding a bicycle with no headlights, using marijuana and possibly riding in the center of the lane.
“We have an individual that placed himself in harm’s way in may different ways," he said.
Hidey works full-time as a welder and has no criminal record, court records show.
A pretrial hearing is scheduled for Dec. 17.
Lee Higgins covers crime and courts for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at leehiggins@annarbor.com or 734-623-2527.
Comments
DeadHead
Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 8:44 p.m.
Incorrect information!! Marijuana can be detected for up to 30 days.. The Reefer madness continues, even though the movies' "facts" were debunked in the 1930's. Yet law enforcement uses it as their playbook.
john
Wed, Dec 16, 2009 : 10:13 p.m.
sorry peregrine, that was meant to be said to carfan
john
Wed, Dec 16, 2009 : 10:12 p.m.
Peregrine.. i happen to live on the road that this happend on.. the accident occurred in a passing zone, there are actually alot of passing zones down this road.
Carfan
Fri, Dec 11, 2009 : 9:58 a.m.
I happened to drive past the accident a few minutes after it occurred. Police were already on the scene and indicated "the head on collision was relatively high speed with horrific results". The whole stretch of the road is a double yellow, no passing zone.
Peregrine
Sat, Nov 14, 2009 : 7:56 p.m.
I think commenters here have missed something important. Hidey, driving a low Grand Prix, decided to follow a Bronco, an SUV, across the center line as it passed the slower car. He could not have seen what was coming down the road in the opposite direction, because his vision was blocked. That was a very dangerous move. This is why Washtenaw County Sheriffs Deputy Robert Losey asserts that Hidey broke the law by improperly passing. He should have let the Bronco pass, see what was going on, and then pass only when it was safe. Who here defends passing at night, close behind an SUV, with such limited ability to see what's going on? Too many drivers make too many poor assumptions that cost too many lives.
Hemenway
Tue, Nov 10, 2009 : 10:19 a.m.
What was the compelling need for Hidey to pass?
Lily Guzman
Tue, Nov 10, 2009 : 9:38 a.m.
My heart goes out to the family and friends of the bicycle rider who was killed in this incident.
CycloChemist
Mon, Nov 9, 2009 : 7:37 p.m.
I'm glad this case is going to be pursued for negligent homicide. Regardless of the actions of the bicyclist, the driver of the automobile, a potentially lethal weapon, is what caused the death of the more vulnerable road user. Drivers need to be made aware of the tremendous responsibility they assume when they put the keys in the ignition. In my opinion, there is the law, and then there is practical good sense. To ride a bicycle at night on a dark county road (I confess I'm not real familiar with the accident site), a road with no paved shoulder, is pretty risky. In dark clothing - even riskier. The legal headlight would be absolutely minimal safety gear under these conditions. I highly recommend very serious headlights if you anticipate riding under such conditions, as well as serious tail-lights. I am a tax paying licensed motor vehicle driver who prefers to ride a bicycle wherever and whenever I can, but I don't know if I'd feel safe on any outlying roads in Michigan at night.
movingontoarealpub
Mon, Nov 9, 2009 : 4 p.m.
EDIT ABOVE: There is no such law that states a specific MPH on roads without a *minimum* speed limit.
movingontoarealpub
Mon, Nov 9, 2009 : 3 p.m.
"A car is expected to drive no slower than 15mpg below the posted speed limit, that is the law. Your logic is flawed." There is no such law that states a specific MPH on roads without a speed limit. Cases of law enforcement actually issuing an "impeding traffic" citation on a rural road are extremely rare. It's only a myth which you perpetuate. To further point out the flaws in your logic, the person who was driving slowly (and that you would like incriminated) most likely slowed down while passing the hard-to-see bicyclist. When someone slows down, you are required to check for possible safety reasons, rather than react in haste or anger. Both of the drivers that passed were reckless, and the driver that followed immediately behind should be prosecuted.
treetowncartel
Mon, Nov 9, 2009 : 9:41 a.m.
I think i would have been on the shoulder, and if not once I saw headlights coming at me I would have veered off to the shoulder. I remind my kids to always pull off to the side of the road when a car is present and they are not on a sidewalk. Oh, and I would put this out there. If gas taxes are used to pay for roads, and bikers use the roads, shouldn't we look to taxing those bikers who claim an equal right to the road? just saying is all.
thinking
Sun, Nov 8, 2009 : 6:15 p.m.
As someone concerned about this summer's other headline making accident involving driver Nick Wahl and bicyclist Tim Pincikowski, I have learned some things about the charge of negligent homicide. I'm told the charge predates current drunk driving and construction zone laws. Previously, a fatality in either of those instances would have resulted in a charge of negligent homicide for the driver. Since those newer laws came into effect, neligent homicide has remained on the books. If there is no other offense with which a driver involved in a fatality can be charged - regardless of fault or extenuating circumstances - the charge of negligent homicide will be considered against the driver. And the burden of proof to go to trial (not to convict, but simply to go to trial)is exceedingly low. The prosecution must prove little more than the fact that a.) someone died in this accident and b.) the driver was behind the wheel at the time. That's it. The rest will be considered at trial, where the burden of proof is considerably higher. Just because these cases are going to trial does NOT mean there will be a guilty verdict. In the end, there may not be enough evidence of wrongdoing to convict. Not because law enforcement didn't do their jobs, or because the system's corrupt, or because we don't value the life of bicyclists, but because some things are truly an accident.
Billy
Sun, Nov 8, 2009 : 5:15 p.m.
"Umm, obviously the bicyclist would have been traveling very slowly too. So maybe both of their offenses are a draw in your book?" A car is expected to drive no slower than 15mpg below the posted speed limit, that is the law. Your logic is flawed. "Your road rage over slow drivers/bicyclist doesn't justify your reckless driving." Nice job on the straw man there, I said none of that, not even close, again your logic is flawed. "Unless there's a posted minimum speed limit, the urban myth of "impeding traffic" is just that -- a myth." You are wrong. Glad you think it's a myth, you must be one of those bad drivers. Slow drivers cause problems on the road every day, especially the ones driving so slow it's illegal...as they were in this case. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO THE ROADWAY, so don't drive like you do. Intentionally not following the rules and interfering with other people driving makes you a BAD DRIVER.
tracyann
Sun, Nov 8, 2009 : 3:39 p.m.
KJM: first, don't make assumptions about me when you don't even know me. We are all just stating our opinions here. If it's dark out, with no street lights, and this guy is wearing dark clothes while riding his bike who is going to see him ahead of time?
KJMClark
Sun, Nov 8, 2009 : 11:02 a.m.
Terrin, I think you are confused about my status. I'm not on the jury, and I wasn't speaking as a member of the jury. I was writing as a member of the public. As someone who is not a member of the legal profession, it sounds to me as though you have a strong negative opinion about judges and the legal profession in Michigan, which I don't agree with. I know from personal experience that, "For a prosecutor in Michigan, every case is a good case." is incorrect. I also find it hard to believe that the courts are supposed to assume that everyone else was breaking the law around someone, though I certainly agree that the person being accused must be presumed innocent. Could you point to something I could read that would agree that other parties are supposed to be assumed to have been breaking the law, as you say in writing, "So, in the absent of evidence either way, the presumption should be that the bicycle rider did not have a light because the prosecution needs evidence to prove the driver of the vehicle was negligent."? I look forward to reading that, and until then I see no reason to believe you. I would say, however, that if I were on the jury, and weren't instructed otherwise, I would have to ask whether it's possible that the cyclist didn't have a proper and functioning headlight. Of course, it is possible, since the evidence was destroyed in the crash. So then I would say if the cyclist didn't have a headlight, would that make a difference to me? The problem in this situation is that from the article it sounds as though Mr. Hidey pulled behind the Bronco to pass the other motorist, so that there were two vehicles simultaneously passing the first vehicle. It seems to me that Mr. Hidey should only have done that if he had first reasonably determined that there was nothing in front of the Bronco he would have to avoid, even though the Bronco probably obstructed his view of the road ahead. In daylight, I think that's possible, since you can see far ahead by looking between the Bronco and the vehicle being passed. At night, even if you have high beams on, that seems like too much sight obstruction to be sure there's nothing dangerous ahead. Since a bike light isn't always a large, obvious light in that situation anyway, it wouldn't make much difference to me whether the cyclist had a light or not. For me the question would be whether Mr. Hidey could have seen far enough ahead to avoid problems when passing. Really, the problem was that he didn't wait until the Bronco driver had completely past the other motorist. Had he waited, he would have had a good chance to see the road ahead in the oncoming traffic lane that he was pulling into. Whether that was the situation and whether that rises to a misdemeanor level of negligence would be the question for me as a juror.
Terrin
Sun, Nov 8, 2009 : 12:19 a.m.
As a legal professional, I can tell you that when the law is involved nothing is clear. In my opinion, many (but not all) Judges disregard the law all together. They often make decisions based on mere personal opinion. The fact is there is very little real oversight of criminal judges. For a prosecutor in Michigan, every case is a good case. Unlike some other places in the Country, in our State, people tend to think that if a person is being tried with something that person must be guilty. They disregard that whole presumption of innocent thing. They expect the defendant to prove his or her innocence. KJMClark writes, "Clearly the judge looked at the law, looked at the evidence presented, and decided a jury should hear the case. Clearly the prosecutor decided that a good case could be made that the motorist broke the law."
Terrin
Sun, Nov 8, 2009 : 12:06 a.m.
KJMClark I think you are confused about our Constitution and the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence applies only to the person being accused of a crime. In this case, that would be the driver of the car being accused of negligent homicide. A jury is not to presume the victim was following the law as he is not being charged with anything. It is to presume the driver of the car was following the law. So, in the absent of evidence either way, the presumption should be that the bicycle rider did not have a light because the prosecution needs evidence to prove the driver of the vehicle was negligent. KJMClark writes, "So we have the word of the motorist that the cyclist didn't have a headlight. Not a particularly reliable witness, since he has a big vested interest in the outcome. Without good evidence either way, we have to assume the cyclist had a headlight. We assume that people are following the law unless proven otherwise, and there's no other indication the cyclist did anything wrong."
KJMClark
Sat, Nov 7, 2009 : 10:24 p.m.
Jcj, it's illegal for someone to sit in the road. The Deputy Sheriff said the cyclist didn't break any laws. You really don't see any difference there?
KJMClark
Sat, Nov 7, 2009 : 10:20 p.m.
Bill, if two cars collide head-on at night, can we then assume that neither of them had their headlights on? After all, the headlights were destroyed in the crash, so there's no real evidence that they had them on or even that they were working, right? Why is it that logic flies out the window when people talk about bikes on the road? The Deputy said the cyclist didn't do anything wrong, but you've manufactured the "fact" that the Deputy Sheriff is wrong? However, it really doesn't make any difference, since the prosecutor will probably make it clear to the jury that there's no evidence either way as to whether the cyclist had a light on, and the jury should stick to whether Mr. Hidey made sure he could safely pass before he started. Clearly the judge looked at the law, looked at the evidence presented, and decided a jury should hear the case. Clearly the prosecutor decided that a good case could be made that the motorist broke the law. When I'm driving our car or truck, I follow the rules spelled out in Michigan's "What every driver must know": "Passing another vehicle on the left is prohibited when:... Oncoming traffic is close enough so you would interfere with the safe operation of the approaching vehicle or the vehicle being passed... You cannot see clearly ahead." I don't want to be responsible for hitting someone who might be approaching, whether it's someone's daughter who forgot the headlights, or a motorcyclist heading home late from work, or a guy biking home from a friends house. If I can't see enough to make sure it's safe, I don't pass until I do. Bill, jcj, stunhsif, wlkate, zulu, tracyann, and stan may be OK with killing someone because they're in a hurry and it's just a cyclist, but I wouldn't sleep well at night if it were me.
jcj
Sat, Nov 7, 2009 : 8:30 p.m.
KJMClark Lets just suppose someone sits in the middle of the road at 10:50 pm with dark clothes on. Now along comes a car that in a legal passing zone passes a car and hits the person sitting in the middle of a dark street with dark clothes on. Do you suppose that the driver would be charged with neg homicide? NO WAY! And this is pretty much what this cyclist did!
tracyann
Sat, Nov 7, 2009 : 12:10 p.m.
I understand that bicyclists have a right to ride in the road but why are they allowed on a road where the speed limit is 55mph? I'm sorry but bikes cannot go that fast. If I'm driving slower than the speed limit in my car, I can get a ticket for impeding traffic. Why don't the rules of the road apply to everyone? Also, why on earth would anyone wear dark clothes when they are riding their bike at night, with no street lights? If he is doing that I'm almost certain he didn't have a light either.
Bill
Sat, Nov 7, 2009 : 10:49 a.m.
I, for one, hope the outcome turns in favor of the driver. With no evidence of a headlight, dark clothes, and no streetlights, the cyclist made some tragic mistakes that he, and now the driver, are paying for. I'm all for bike rights too, but cyclists can't be handed no-fault passes just because they're the little guy. And, KJMClark, I don't care who is on trial, you can't assume facts when there is no evidence supporting them.
stan
Sat, Nov 7, 2009 : 9:50 a.m.
Should have stated this: "The driver is a victim, since his vehicle (through no fault of his own) ultimately caused the death."
stan
Sat, Nov 7, 2009 : 9:49 a.m.
Clark, they're putting the victim on trial. Based on the facts, the bike rider was a marijuana user. It seems clear to most that his irresponsibility for his safety is to blame for his demise. The driver is a victim, since his vehicle ultimately caused the death. The contributing bike rider negligence needs to be strongly considered.
KeepingItReal
Sat, Nov 7, 2009 : 9:39 a.m.
While I am sorry that someone had to lose his life in such a horrific manner, I am mystified as to why the Judge decided that there was cause enough to bound Hidey over for trial. I have found myself in situations with bikers where I could have easily been in the predicament of Mr. Hidey. 10:50 at night, either low or no visibility by the biker, traces of marijuana in his system and you can see how the biker may have put himself in harms ways. While I truly believe that bikers should enjoy the road just like a motorist, it stands to reason that a 35-40 bike is no match for a 2-3,000 pound vehicle so bikers should always ride their bike with this in mind.
wlkate
Sat, Nov 7, 2009 : 9:35 a.m.
I could not agree with you more stunhsif.
KJMClark
Sat, Nov 7, 2009 : 9:35 a.m.
Stan, I would guess that it was because you accused me of being an organized crime boss. I would hope they question your insults to the victim too, but that's their call. I don't think I tried to insult anyone - my apologies if I did. stunhsif, you should take that up with the Deputy. I would think he would be plenty capable of looking for a bracket. My bike light brackets are plastic, so I wouldn't be surprised if a head-on collision like that would mangle things enough to destroy plastic. Bill, the victim isn't the one on trial. You're putting your opinion above the Deputy's. He didn't think the cyclist had done anything wrong.
wlkate
Sat, Nov 7, 2009 : 9:31 a.m.
I live in the area of Seven Mile Road in Northfield Township. My questions are what time did the accident happen? West died June 5 of multiple traumatic injuries at the scene of the 10:50 p.m because Loses said when he responded to the scene about 40 minutes after the accident, there were no problems with visibility., with no street lights how and the hell was he able to see anything? Wasnt the bicycle at the scene? No one could tell if it had a headlight or not. I am very confused.
Bill
Fri, Nov 6, 2009 : 11:19 p.m.
@KJMClark If there is no evidence of a headlight, then one can not assume he was using one.
KJMClark
Fri, Nov 6, 2009 : 10:59 p.m.
JCJ, it would probably help to read it again. Mr. Hidey hit an oncoming cyclist, so he did cross the center line. Mr. Hidey says the first motorist was traveling between 25 and 30 mph, but why should we believe him? Everyone who wants to go faster thinks the other traffic is moving ridiculously slowly. Besides, he's facing up to two years in jail, of course he wants to make his story sound reasonable. I can't even see how Officer Paquette could tell how fast Mr. Hidey was traveling. It's not like Grand Ams have black boxes. If the Bronco driver had hit the oncoming traffic, yeah, he or she'd probably be the one facing negligent homicide charges. It's like we learned in driver's ed - don't pass unless you know it's safe and legal.
KJMClark
Fri, Nov 6, 2009 : 10:46 p.m.
Wow, this is really confusing. I don't see anything in this article that says which way the cyclist was going. Oh wait, buried in the middle it says, "to avoid the head-on collision". So it sounds like what happened was, there were three motorists traveling in one direction, and a cyclist heading in the other direction. The second and third motorists decided to pass the first motorist. The third motorist ended up crashing into the cyclist. "[Deputy Losey] also testified that because of the damage, he couldnt determine whether the bicycle had proper equipment, including a front white light that was required for that time of night." So we have the word of the motorist that the cyclist didn't have a headlight. Not a particularly reliable witness, since he has a big vested interest in the outcome. Without good evidence either way, we have to assume the cyclist had a headlight. We assume that people are following the law unless proven otherwise, and there's no other indication the cyclist did anything wrong. So we have a motorist, the second in line passing a slower motorist, who didn't make sure there was no oncoming traffic when he pulled into the oncoming traffic lane behind the other motorist. That explains why the judge decided he should stand trial for negligence. He decided it would be OK to pass at 10:50pm, behind a Bronco that he probably couldn't see around, when he hadn't checked to see that there was no oncoming traffic? Let's try the standard test. If someone had pulled out of a driveway, headed the same direction as the cyclist, that the Bronco driver had seen and decided was far enough away to pass safely, the second motorist would have head-on collided with them as well. He would probably claim that he never saw them, but he should have waited to pass until he could see.
jcj
Fri, Nov 6, 2009 : 9 p.m.
Another example of a bicycle rider putting himself in harms way just because he "has the right". Was Hidey speeding? Apparently not! Was there a yellow line he crossed? Apparently not! Did the bicycle rider have a headlight? There is no evidence that he did! Someone is riding in the middle of the road on a bike apparently without a like dark clothes and the judge thinks there is evidence of negligent homicide? If the Bronco had hit the biker would he have been at fault? I suspect that the Assistant Prosecutor is a bike rider. Why is the judges name a secret?
movingontoarealpub
Fri, Nov 6, 2009 : 8:01 p.m.
"A driver being inconsiderate and driving WELL below the the speed limit is now at fault for the death of someone." Umm, obviously the bicyclist would have been traveling very slowly too. So maybe both of their offenses are a draw in your book? Your road rage over slow drivers/bicyclist doesn't justify your reckless driving. Unless there's a posted minimum speed limit, the urban myth of "impeding traffic" is just that -- a myth. Wait until you can safely pass, then do so -- and let it go.
Billy
Fri, Nov 6, 2009 : 6:42 p.m.
"Hidey was driving about 45 miles per hour in the 55 mile per hour zone, Paquette said. Hidey told police the first car was traveling between 25 and 30 miles per hour, Paquette testified. " A driver being inconsiderate and driving WELL below the the speed limit is now at fault for the death of someone. You are not the only person on the road, you have a responsibility to NOT interfere with other drivers on the road. Driving is a privilege NOT a right.