1. Thankfully, sound minds prevailed in dismissing this case. Trying to find a criminal element where one does not exist (high blood glucose may be bad for the driver's health, but there is little if any evidence that it impairs a person's ability to drive an automobile) is never justified. Using the sympathy as a grieving parent doesn't justify it, either.

Posted at 12:04PM on Aug 22nd 2007 by Scott

2. It's OK Diane......All types of habits are hard to change, but not impossible.

The accident that you describe is Sad and has resulted in a Loss of Life. Tragic!! Where all become Losers and Justice becomes "Mute."
Everyone is left with the 3 Horsemen of Despair: Grief, Anger, Sorrow.........Life
changes for All involved.

Posted at 12:29PM on Aug 22nd 2007 by BetterCell

3. I followed the link to her page. She is wanting to charge the driver for high blood sugar but most of the page is about driving a non-handicapped car with one hand, the driver only has one hand.
Is there not a audience out there who want to charge one handed drivers? Is there anyone above the age of 16 who drives with 2 hands anyway? To me she is grasping and upon learning the driver was high blood sugar went for driving impaired. My experience with high blood sugar is having to pee really bad would be the only impairment you could charge and there are many who suffer that impairment on long drives.
Sorry to the family, I'm going to say diabetes wasn't the cause.

Posted at 12:39PM on Aug 22nd 2007 by jb

4. Most of all, I feel sorry for the mom that she is so focused on retribution. While I can only imagine how much hatred you would naturally feel towards the person who killed your child, the accident was five years ago now. I suspect most moms would have, by now, tried to work towards acceptance, peace and forgiveness.

Posted at 12:50PM on Aug 22nd 2007 by Diane Rixon

5. "I suspect most moms would have, by now, tried to work towards acceptance, peace and forgiveness."
Diane....in Death, there is no acceptance, peace and forgiveness.
Just ask around..........................
People's Lives are never the same and there is not a formula or way to restore what once has been.

Posted at 1:07PM on Aug 22nd 2007 by BetterCell

6. Diane: First of all, thank you for posting the story of the death of my daughter. Please remember,this woman's driving was so unsafe that she caused a head-on collision,a three-car pile-up, my daughter's death, and injury to seven others--one being my 10-year-nephew who was seriously injured. She did all this while she had an A1C of 12.8, a blood sugar reading of 541 only a few days before--her medical records show that. Her husband told the owner of the towing yard when he went to get the tires off of her car just four days after his wife caused my daughter's death that he had "to get her back on the road" and that she "just had a little diabetic reaction." In addition, she was not driving a handicapped-equipped car in violation of her driver's license restriction and she was not wearing a seat belt. She drove across the line of a two-lane highway with traffic going both ways by 10 feet. We do know her blood sugar was severely out of control. She made the choice to drive during this episode. Had she done what a reasonable person would have done and slowed or stopped the car because of her declining ability to control the car, Cady would be here today. Her driving deviated grossly from the safe driving practices of a reasonable person, as the outcome proves. Would you expect a parent of a sexually abused child to forgive in five years? If Cady could come back after five years, I would forgive. If the driver had ever apologized for what she did, that would have helped greatly.

Posted at 12:51AM on Oct 20th 2007 by Cady'sMom

7. Scott: Driving through a red light is a crime. How could you think that crossing the center line of a blind curve of a two-lane highway by 10 feet and causing the death of a child and three-car pileup is not? Add to it while driving in violation of her license restriction to drive a handicapped-equipped vehicle? Again, if YOUR child had been killed, I believe you would want the dignity of justice for your child, or at least for the responsible person to have to explain her actions.

Posted at 1:09AM on Oct 20th 2007 by Cady'sMom

8. BetterCell:
Thank you! Your words show intelligence, empathy, and valuing of each human life. Wanting justice is about--never sympathy--requiring the person at fault to explain what happened in a court of law, a place for my child at least in case law, to use the information from a thorough investigation (which wasn't even done in our case) for deterrence and prevention, and getting the driver who defined our lives from that moment on by a senseless, so preventable act off the road. Yes, Grief, Anger, and Sorrow are intensified without society at least saying what she did was wrong, so very wrong.

Posted at 1:31AM on Oct 20th 2007 by Cady'sMom

9. jb:
What I want her charged with is killing my daughter. The precise cause at the moment of impact is immaterial. She drove into oncoming traffic and caused a PASSENGER side to PASSENGER side head-on collision. A head-on collision at highway speed almost always results in death and the safe driver doesn't have time to react defensively. Driving on the wrong side of the highway violates the most basic rules of the road. When the result is death, the offense is very serious and must be treated as such by the state. This driver happened to have an A1C of 12.8 when she caused the head-on, a few days before her blood sugar was 541, her FASTING levels during this episode were 250, 300, even 350, she'd had a high carb meal two hours before, AND she was driving 10 feet in the wrong lane of a blind hairpin curve, AND she caused a head-on collision, AND she was driving in violation of her driver's license restriction to use a steering knob, AND she was likely on cruise control on a narrow, treacherous mountain road. If she had been driving safely, Cady would be here today. To not charge her with anything and let her walk without even a traffic citation violates the most basic of human rights: my daughter's dignity. Perhaps you could empathize if you imagined for a moment she had caused the death of your child. Can you say her diabetes WASN'T a factor?

Posted at 8:21AM on Oct 20th 2007 by Cady'sMom

10. Diane:
After five years, "acceptance, peace and forgiveness"? Acceptance and peace NEVER. Cady's life and therefore my life were defined by that driver's killing act on August 15, 2002. Forgiveness? This driver has never apologized. If she had, that would be different. I suspect if the state had told her she had done something very wrong, she would be very apologetic. I have heard of cases in which the driver at fault sends cards on the birthdays and anniversaries of the death of the person whose life was robbed. If she were doing that, that would be different. But real forgiveness for taking my daughter's life? No. All I have to do is think of my daughter's beautiful eyes and no there isn't forgiveness for that. I believe that when the consequences are so heinous, so great to a person, trying to turn the horrible loss into a benefit for humankind is a form of forgiveness, and for some, the most appropriate that can be expected in this life.

Posted at 9:01AM on Oct 20th 2007 by Cady'sMom

11. BetterCell:
"People's Lives are never the same and there is not a formula or way to restore what once has been." Beautiful. Thank you. And there is no way to restore the lost potential of a child's life unlived.

Posted at 10:36AM on Oct 20th 2007 by Cady'sMom

12. jb:
I neglected to add that on July 25th, 2002, the driver's FASTING blood sugar was 391; on July 26th, 2002, it as 415; and on the 27th it also was 415. To rule out diabetes as a factor is to ignore the facts. And you don't know that road. It's an unforgiving road. She should have had her passenger drive that stretch of highway, as he did earlier for other difficult stretches of their trip. He admitted she was driving only because he was tired. If she had driven safely and competently, Cady would be here. Because she obviously wasn't driving safely or competently on August 15th, 2002, the two issues identified in the Montana Highway Patrol investigation report, and told to me were the buzz at the scene--her diabetes and driving in violation of her driver's license restriction--should have been cited as probable causes for the negligent homicide she committed and she should have been charged. She would then have been correctly put in the position of being forced to explain why she took someone's life. Would you want this driver on the highway facing your daughter's car???

Posted at 2:24PM on Oct 21st 2007 by Cady\\\'sMom