Fatality accident on K-10 diverts traffic
A fatality accident left two dead and three seriously injured Saturday afternoon. The accident on K-10 near Eudora caused traffic to be rerouted through the town. Enlarge video
A Kansas Highway Patrol trooper said Tuesday that drug use and driver inattention would be listed as contributing factors as to why a 24-year-old Eudora man crossed a median in a deadly April 16 accident on Kansas Highway 10.
Troopers have said an eastbound car driven by Ryan Pittman crossed over into the westbound lanes and struck a minivan near the Church Street interchange. Cainan Shutt, a 5-year-old Eudora preschooler who was riding inside the van, also died, and his 23-month-old sister Courtlynn Shutt and their grandparents were injured.
“We’re not going to know a specific cause of why he went into the median. We have contributing circumstances of why the accident happened but no cause,” Trooper Casey Simoneau said Tuesday.
Coroner’s officials said two weeks ago a preliminary autopsy report indicated Pittman had marijuana, benzodiazepine, which is a depressant used in drugs to treat insomnia and anxiety, and methadone in his system.
But the full autopsy, including a detailed toxicology report, is not yet complete, and Simoneau said if new information comes out of the final autopsy report it could change details in his accident report.
Simoneau also said the accident report would note Pittman’s license was suspended. According to state records, Pittman’s license was suspended Jan. 25 for failing to maintain continuous liability insurance or file evidence of insurance.
Simoneau said Tuesday that troopers had been operating LIDAR check lanes, which incorporates a laser to check for speeding vehicles. That was also happening on Monday and Tuesday. Technical Trooper Don Hughes said the highway patrol has used the tactic periodically on K-10.
“It’s a priority road for us. It has a high volume of traffic. The guys are consistent with working it,” Hughes said.
The aftermath of the April 16 crash has spurred a call — including from Cainan Shutt’s parents and about 4,000 people on Facebook — for the Kansas Department of Transportation to re-examine whether it should install a cable barrier in the median along K-10 from Lawrence to Interstate 435 in Johnson County to stop cross-median crashes. After a 2008 study, KDOT officials said K-10 did not qualify for a cable barrier.
But Gov. Sam Brownback last month directed KDOT officials to reopen the study and work with local officials after receiving a letter from Eudora Mayor Scott Hopson. KDOT officials are scheduled to meet with city officials, including those from Lawrence and Eudora, on May 12.
Comments
Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 1 month ago
I have an opinion:
The state of Kansas is entirely to lenient with drivers who are caught driving with a suspended license. Usually, but maybe not always, your driver's license is suspended for a good reason, and that's to keep dangerous drivers off the road.
I know of one person that was caught driving while suspended for (I think) the third time when he was finally taken off the road by the reality check of driving off the left side of the highway. Fortunately, no one was coming the other way at the time.
And this really bothers me: The first two times you are caught driving with a suspended license are only misdemeanors!
none2 2 years, 1 month ago
A suspension is simply that. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being dangerous.
Years ago I got a ticket just before I took a trip to Europe. I asked my lawyer to take care of it. When I got back, I got pulled over and told my license was suspended. It turns out that he forgot to take care of it. Needless to say, that was the last time I ever used that particular lawyer's services.
The only danger I posed was that I hadn't paid into the Kansas coffers for the ticket yet.
Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 1 month ago
In other words, you were summoned to court and you didn't go.
hitman33 2 years, 1 month ago
In other words, he had a suspended license, but is not a dangerous driver.
xclusive85 2 years, 1 month ago
What did he get the ticket for? Maybe he is a dangerous driver. How do you know?
none2 2 years, 1 month ago
Obviously you must not know how traffic court works.
For serious traffic violations ( ie DUI, road rage, 20+ miles over the speed limit, arguing with the officer, etc), you cannot just plead guilty on the ticket, pay the fine, and skip court. You better have a good lawyer, and I seriously doubt you could tell the clerk of the court you want to reschedule the court date -- unless something serious has come up like a death in the family.
For minor traffic violations: a) You can pay up, plead either guilty or no contest, and skip court. (It affects your insurance.)
b) You can try to get it reduced to a non-moving violation. (Then it doesn't affect your insurance.)
c) You can contest it in court.
My lawyer never called the prosecutor's office nor ever called the clerk of the court to requested a later court date. He simply blew it off, and I didn't find out until I got back and drove and got stopped during a routine tag check.
Now, if you want to imagine that I was DUI, running down children in school zones, running down seniors near nursing homes, running down bicyclists, and in a road rage doing crop circles in the median of K-10 at 90 miles an hour, and in between tickets I was part of the jet set crowd running off to party in Europe, be my guest. It might make for a funny short story, but it couldn't be further from the truth.
jafs 2 years, 1 month ago
What was the ticket for?
none2 2 years, 1 month ago
I could have just paid the fine and skipped court all together. In other words, there was no mandatory court appearance as there are for major moving violations. I simply didn't want to have it on my insurance record.
I visited with my lawyer, gave him the ticket, discussed with him the court date and the time period for which I would be out of the country, and he said he would take care of it. ("Take care of it" to me meant that if I needed to make an appearance he would make sure it was rescheduled for a date when I was back.) He did absolutely nothing. He didn't even show up on the original court date to say I was out of the country.
As to the moving violation, I'm not looking for a jury trial on ljworld.com. I'm simply pointing out that a suspension doesn't mean that something horrible happened on the road and that you went to court and the book was thrown at you. It can also mean that you missed your court date for a minor offense. In my case, I had a lawyer who forgot to do something as simple as talk to the prosecutor about a diversion and talk to the clerk of the court to change the court date.
xclusive85 2 years, 1 month ago
I kinda said that in jest. I know that sarcasm doesn't come over well.
none2 2 years, 1 month ago
Oh, I kind of thought your post may have been done in jest. However, RonH was trying to make a big deal out of something that isn't always a big deal.
Yes, there are some very dangerous drivers that have had their licenses suspended. However, you cannot make a blanket statement about suspensions. Even if this guy had always been an alter boy on the road, he may very well not have been able to afford liability insurance. Insurance isn't free, and it definitely isn't cheap for young people -- especially young men. He could have been pulled over at some time for something as innocent as a headlight being out and they found that his insurance had expired.
I think some of the people pushing for cable should consider redirecting their energy towards seeing that the K-10 corridor has alternatives to cars. A cable may have prevented this particular accident, but does nothing for the fact that this guy probably had a legitimate place he had to go, but was in no condition to be on the road and had no alternative to driving. What if he had caused an accident involving others on the same side of the road? No cable would have stopped that.
I don't think any sane person perceives him as some evil individual out to purposely kill children. There should have been alternatives available to him. The existing bus stopping in Eudora could have been one such alternative.
none2 2 years, 1 month ago
While we seldom agree, I am shocked that neither the mayor of Eudora nor Lawrence bothered to ask the Johnson County Transit if they might consider adding stops in Eudora on their K-10 Connector route.
From reading their website, DeSoto (like Spring Hill) is served via a shuttle. So if they absolutely, positively cannot modify the K-10 Connector route, they could consider expanding that shuttle to include Eudora.
Regardless if one believes the guy had a drug problem or not, the fact is he couldn't even afford to properly insure his vehicle. What are the odds that every place he needed to go was in Eudora where one could argue a bicycle might suffice? I think someone said he had or was attending JCCC for which no one could realistically expect him to get their without a car. A bus stop would have given him options.
I myself have considered taken the K-10 Connector, but from my stand point the other problem is that the JO needs to work more towards more east west routes once you get to Johnson County. Not everybody is headed to northern JO county nor on to KCMO. For those interested in their routes, you can see a map at:
http://www.thejo.com/pdf/JCTSystemMap.pdf
Here is an interesting (big pdf) that describes their thoughts on the future of transportation in the metro area. They do mention about expanding inter county transportation with Douglas in the future, but there aren't a lot of details. The document has some interesting maps showing the flex service to DeSoto as well as in flows and outflows from Johnson County.
http://www.thejo.com/pdf/resources/StrategicPlan2010.pdf
sallyone 2 years, 1 month ago
Well, I guess pot does kill, but then all of us who are smarter than 2nd graders already know that of course!
kantubek 2 years, 1 month ago
And prescription medications don't? The combination of drugs in Mr. Pittman's system was a contributing factor, but so was the amount of sleep the night before, and many other seemingly arbitrary conditions. No one single variable caused the accident, don't try pinning it on marijuana because you disagree with its usage. Have some compassion for the families involved.
gorilla10 2 years, 1 month ago
It's always sad to hear that illegal drugs(such as marijuana) were a contribution to an accident. It doesn't matter if it was the single factor or multiple factors. These drugs are illegal for a reason.....
GardenMomma 2 years, 1 month ago
Just as it is always sad to hear that alcohol (a legal drug) was a contribution to an accident.
I'm very saddened by this whole affair and my heart goes out to the affected family and friends. My thoughts and prayers have been with you. May you find peace and begin to heal soon.
none2 2 years, 1 month ago
Have you ever heard ANYBODY say that they were happy to hear that alcohol contributed to an accident?
On the other hand if there is even the SMALLEST mention of pot, and the pro pot crowd comes out stating that it had little to no affect on the accident. It was always something else.
Remember driving is a privileged, not a right. Pot users are not exempt from that fact.
GardenMomma 2 years, 1 month ago
Actually, my point was that the legality of the drug isn't the contributing factor but rather the poor choice on the part of the driver to get behind the wheel.
kantubek 2 years, 1 month ago
Don't worry, none2 has a habit of misconstruing just about everything.
none2 2 years, 1 month ago
Not really.
I just see your agenda of making sure to minimize any possible affect from pot because you want it legalized because of some idea that we all innately want to get high -- or "altered state" as you like to call it.
You will single out speed as bad driving. You will single out texting and talking as bad driving. However, you refuse to include drugs as anything more than a "contributing" factor.
There should be ZERO tolerance for mind altering drugs on the public roads. Period.
kantubek 2 years, 1 month ago
Okay, so I think marijuana should be legal, yet I still haven't endorsed driving while intoxicated on any type of drug.
Swing and a miss.
none2 2 years, 1 month ago
... Spoken like a true pro-pot supporter. If he had been texting or talking on the phone, you would damn him. If he was speeding, you would damn him. If he were drunk, you would damn him.
You are not interested in compassion for the family, you simply want to defend pot usage on the road.
kantubek 2 years, 1 month ago
Where in my post did I endorse the smoking of marijuana? Where did I say that marijuana doesn't impair driving? Nowhere.
What I was trying to illustrate that no exact cause can or ever will be determined. I'm not blaming any one factor, you are. If you want to take that down a slippery slope be my guest, but that is not what I meant. Do not put words in my mouth.
I do have compassion for the families, I was a good friends with someone who died in somewhat similar circumstances. I know the feeling of having someone close to me lose their life in a head-on collision. It is tragic, and I can only imagine how it would feel to be a parent of one of the victims.
none2 2 years, 1 month ago
If he had been talking on the phone or had alcohol in his system, would you be so kind to diminish its affect to being only a contributing factor and that we will never know for sure what happened?
Just so you know, not ALL of us have an innate need to "alter our state of consciousness" through chemicals (legal or illegal) -- let alone do so when we have responsibilities such as driving on shared public roads. Drugs have a place in society for dealing with pain or addressing other medical needs. However, even in those situations, if your doctor and or pharmacist says you should not drive or operate machinery with certain drugs, then that is what one should do.
kantubek 2 years, 1 month ago
You're still be disingenuous with my post, I have yet to see where I said that marijuana isn't impairing and safe for consumption on the road. I'm not advocating the usage of legal or illegal drugs while driving so unless you have something different to say, goodbye.
none2 2 years, 1 month ago
Your whole purpose for posting in the first place is you didn't like the fact that someone dared single out pot. You simply want pot legalized and that means keeping a positive PR to the point of minimizing any affect it may have had on an accident such as this one.
You have singled out speed in the past for accidents. You have singled out testing and talking in the past. You refuse to blame drugs beyond it being a "contributing factor".
Also, no one said he was CONSUMING or using pot while he was on the road. There been no reports that pot was found in the vehicle. The fact is he had enough of it in his system that they bothered to mention it as a contributing factor as they did with the other two drugs.
nut_case 2 years, 1 month ago
Not to play devils advocate, but it's important to remember, the levels of all these drugs has not been mentioned, simply 'in his system'. With modern technology, drugs can be detected in exceedingly small quantities. A person can test 'positive' for marijuana for 90 days or more after smoking - which is probably about 89.5 days after any effects have worn off. Detection levels are probably similar for the other drugs mentioned. It would not be uncommon to detect them at 1/1000th the level any 'effect' would even be felt.
LadyJ 2 years, 1 month ago
Was it ever said who the car he was driving belonged to?
KEITHMILES05 2 years, 1 month ago
More than likely the offended family can no take civil action against the driver and insurance company and rightfully so.
KEITHMILES05 2 years, 1 month ago
"can now"
akt2 2 years, 1 month ago
If he had a suspended license for no insurance how will civil action against an insurance company happen? The driver is dead, how will the ofended family take civil action against him?
none2 2 years, 1 month ago
The purpose of liability insurance it to protect "you" against loosing your assets should you cause harm to someone on the road. Without the insurance, they can directly come after you. The fact that he was only 24 years old means that he may not have very many assets in his "estate", and I doubt they can go after his parents since he was over 18. So unfortunately, they won't get a dime.
I am curious how he was able to have a valid license plate on the vehicle if he didn't have insurance when he paid his yearly fee. If there is anything they can crack down on the insurance issue, it would be to require proof that the insurance is paid up front for a YEAR.
LadyJ 2 years, 1 month ago
That is why I wondered who owned the car. If he was driving somebody else's car, they may have had insurance.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.