Run a red and its $88. Get caught speeding 10 over and its $168.

Unbelievable! Or is it in a state where you don't see jail until you're caught drinking and driving for the 7th time? I'll bet had the cyclist been killed, that they might even have doubled the fine!

I agree with you 916WI, it was an accident.

But the "perfect" people out there just don't want to acknowledge that.

Truth....gross negligence is defined as follows....

gross negligence n. carelessness in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil.

I would hardly call this a "CONSCIOUS violation of other peoples rights" and as far as being shy of being intentionally evil, there is no possible way. The guy spaced out and it resulted in an accident. I'm sure it has happened to 99% of us at a point in our life--luckily the vast majority of those situations don't end in an accident. Nothing has come out with regards to him being drunk, talking on his cell, reading the sports section, or eating a 5 piece from Micky D's. You can continue to be dramatic and petition for the guys crucifiction or just accept it for what it is....an unfortunate accident:)

Based only on reading this article, I think a fine of $10000 -- payable to the victim -- plus all medical costs and compensation for any time off work and other miscellaneous expenses incurred by the victim, and 5 to 10 years of prison time for the offender might have been more in line. Penalties to those in government, law enforcement or the judiciary, should be HARSHER, not more lenient as is obviously the case more often than not. Those with special powers, granted by the people, need to be held to a higher standard. Disclosure: I am also a biker.

I agree with you, justaguy, but it was really a lot more than just "stupidity", too.

I don't see "gross negligence", nor "reckless disregard for life" within that definition of "accident", 916WI.

916wi: You can paste and copy all you want but this guy new he was behind the wheel of an auto, you take your eyes off the road or don't pay attention it's not an accident it becomes stupidity. What if he was on a cell phone and this happened, you still going to call it an accident or just not paying attention?

Truth--read the definition of accident I posted below. This situation definitely falls into this category. Every car accident is subject to an illegal act--speeding, inattentive driving, failure to yield, driving too fast for conditions, etc. The end result is that they are all ACCIDENTS:)

Reckless driving is also an illegal act, drunk driving is an illegal act...Results of those acts are not "accidents".

This person hurt the cyclist while committing an ILLEGAL ACT as do most peole who hurt others with motor vehicles, drunk or not drunk..An ILLEGAL ACT is not an "accident".

Runnoft.....Definition of accident:

* Main Entry: ac·ci·dent
* Pronunciation: \ˈak-sə-dənt, -ˌdent; ˈaks-dənt\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin accident-, accidens nonessential quality, chance, from present participle of accidere to happen, from ad- + cadere to fall — more at chance
* Date: 14th century

1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : chance <met by accident rather than by design>
2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought

This situation applies--there was no intent to hurt this guy. Cyclists have to be extra careful as do motorcyclists--but the laws should not be tailored to specific groups. If this would have been a fender bender with two cars getting damaged the $88 fine would have been appropriate, as it is appropriate in this case.....

I'm sure most of those in the defense attorney profession insist on calling stuff like this an "accident" and I suppose there are some others that convince themselves of this too....Its NOT just an "accident" when through gross negligence you run a light!!
I wish people would just STOP throwing around the word "accident" and THINK more.

$88! I got a ticket for more than that for having plates that were expired by 2 weeks. And no one was nearly killed.

916wi: Your making it sound like the guy on the bike was partly at fault, he had a GREEN light and most likely had nowhere to go with this guy running a RED light. This guy needs to keep his eyes on the road and on the lights, they should also check out if he was on a cell phone, something was more important then his driving and peoples safety.

88 bucks not just for running a light or not paying attention but also hitting a person, what a joke.I'm not the "sue at the drop of a dime" kind of person but I hope the injured person sues his a@@ off.

The rules and penalties are always regarded differently for a legislater, and not in just this state.

It would have been reckless endangerment if he had tried backing over him to finish the job......He didn't--it was an accident--plain and simple. This probably happens quite often(cars running stop signs/lights and hitting other cars) I would be willing to guess that the fines passed down in this case are in line with those other ACCIDENTS........

How in the heck do you run a red light and hit someone and get away with an $88. fine?!!! This guy must fit nice under the desk of the prosecuter.

Sannio--Because it wouldn't be an ACCIDENT in that case! It's not like the guy took off after hitting the cyclist. I'm surprised how quickly the cyclist shot into that intersection as well--I realize he had a green light, but in an intersection like that I would have been extremely cautious.

As a cyclist I would prefer a reckless endangerment charge at the minimum in cases like this, but the law seems to consider red-light running a "whoopsie".

Why hasn't anybody told me I could hit someone I didn't like with my car for only $88? That's a lot less than punching them in the face.

A politically correct weapon(motor vehicle) strikes again........wrist slap, if that..

This shows yet once again how you can get away with reckless violence with a deadly weapon if the weapon you choose is a politically correct one.

I think the injured party should have the right to pee on the offenders shoes. That would teach him a lesson he wouldn't soon forget, by golly.

I wonder if the cyclist will sue for medical bills? I hope he/she does.

Interestingly, I think $88 is the same amount that Rep. Clark would receive in per diem for showing up at the State Capitol that day.

The law is the law people, he got a ticket and paid the fine now leave the guy alone. I sure would hate to have some of you people as judge. Stop and take a look at yourselves I'm sure some of you have done things and got away with them. People are quick to cast stones even I have thrown some but we all need to just live life and not worry so much about what others do and what punishment has been placed on them

After watching the video, it wasn't just running a red light, it was anticipating a green light. $88 seems like a kiss on the wrist compared to what the cyclist had to deal with. No one is perfect, but he was seconds late into that intersection. Rep. Clark is regretful because he got caught in every way possible. I doubt if he did not hit anyone after running the red light, he would have walked into MPD and requested a ticket. Fortunately, the innocent cyclist was not killed, I hope he does not have any permanent damage due to this reckless act.

Its all about who you know...............sad. Hope the injured is ok..