A Stitch in Haste

Is there to be no objective reasonable-person test for recklessness, but rather a random, unpredictable, "I know it when I see it" approach?

Speeding is not necessarily reckless, even at 128 mph, a judge ruled in the case of a motorcyclist who tried to flee from state troopers.

With some reluctance, [Otoe County, Nebraska] Judge John Steinheider ruled last week that Jacob H. Carman, 20, was not guilty of reckless driving on Sept. 5, when he was spotted by a trooper who then chased him at the top speed of his cruiser's odometer — 128 mph.

"As much as it pains me to do it, speed and speed alone is not sufficient to establish reckless driving," the judge told Carman on Friday. "If you had had a passenger, there would be no question of conviction. If there had been other cars on the roadway, if you would've went into the wrong lane or anything, I would have convicted you."

Then again, in an era where an increasing number of drinking-and-driving apologists insist that there is some sort of "right" to have "just one glass" and then hurl a multi-ton slab of metal down public roads at potentially lethal speeds, I guess I shouldn't be surprised when other absurdities such as this are embraced.