Truck runs over cyclists, no charges filed

[scr4]

No charges for driver in teen's bike death (http://www.topix.net/content/kri/0273865326058437329935056005651001855873)

...
The Charlotte Country Day School freshman was killed during a multiple sclerosis charity bike ride Sept. 16 near Society Hill, S.C., after a pickup truck hauling a trailer collided with the tandem bicycle she and her older brother, Tommy, were riding.
...
Investigators determined that the bicycle Rachel and Tommy were riding fell as the pickup truck passed them, Howard said.

He also said the truck 'was passing a little too close, and the results were tragic.' Speed was not a factor, he said.
...
Solicitor Jay Hodge Jr. did not find malicious intent on Robinson's part, so he didn't file charges, Howard said.
...
Rachel's parents ... said Monday that the Highway Patrol's account doesn't match what some witnesses told them. ... Four or five witnesses reported seeing the family riding upright as the truck approached...
(emphasis mine)

I'm not even sure which part of the story to get outraged over. Do they honestly belive the cyclists just happened to fall down towards the truck as the truck was passing them? It's highly unlikely a bike would just fall down on the road, especially where it's straight enough that a truck could pass the bike safely. And especially for experienced cyclists, which they apparently were.

And even if they did fall, they admit the truck was passing too close. Why is this not grounds for at least pressing charges for negligence??

Does this imply that I can run over a cyclist at will, and if nobody can prove I did it on purpose, I get off scott free??

[Jodi]

I'm not even sure which part of the story to get outraged over. Do they honestly belive the cyclists just happened to fall down towards the truck as the truck was passing them? It's highly unlikely a bike would just fall down on the road, especially where it's straight enough that a truck could pass the bike safely. And especially for experienced cyclists, which they apparently were.

People fall off bikes. It happens. Just because something is "highly unlikely" to happen doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The article says the highway patrol investigated the accident for over three months. I can certainly understand that the parents would have trouble agreeing with the HP's conclusion, but that doesn't mean the HP is wrong. Sometimes accidents do happen. But people in America have trouble accepting that -- there must be a reason for everything, and for every bad outcome, someone must be at fault.

And even if they did fall, they admit the truck was passing too close. Why is this not grounds for at least pressing charges for negligence??

Apparently not. Mere negligence generally isn't grounds to press criminal charges against someone. There is a difference between violating the duty you owe to someone -- the basis for negligence -- and commiting a crime. The difference in many cases is intent -- or conduct so grossly negligent that the failure to take care can is akin to intent. Without intent, most crimes are hard to prosecute. Although I don't know SC law, the article indicates the attorney declined to file charges because he did not find the requisite criminal intent.

Does this imply that I can run over a cyclist at will, and if nobody can prove I did it on purpose, I get off scott free??

Well, once you talk about running over someone "at will," you've pretty much copped to having done it intentionally -- that's what "at will" means, in this context. But where a crime is concerned: if there is not evidence, and enough to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, that you did it intentionally, or grossly negligently (with a complete want of care), then no, you probably cannot be convicted of a crime. I would not assume, however, that such a person gets off "scot free." They are subject to being sued in civil court for their negilgence, and the emotional cost to a person who unintentionally takes the life of someone else should not be dismissed either. it's a tragic situation, and one for which the trucker probably bears fault. It was the conclusion of the investigating agency, however, that he does not bear enough fault to be charged with a crime. There's nothing in the article to indicate that was a wrong decision.

[scr4]

Mere negligence generally isn't grounds to press criminal charges against someone.
If a conscious and ill-advised decision leads to a fatal "accident," is that still not grounds to press charges? We're talking about a truck attempting to pass a bicycle. The truck driver should have ample opportunity to wait for a break in traffic, and then pass with a safe margin. How can you neglect to do so and still avoid all responsibility for the accident?

Well, once you talk about running over someone "at will," you've pretty much copped to having done it intentionally --
OK, I realize that. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the case implies you can drive recklessly and not suffer any consequences. What if I pass every cycliest with 1/2 ft clearance until I hit someone?

[NurseCarmen]

As a regular bike commuter, let me just say this: People who pass too close should be strung up by their naughty bits.

[RiverRunner]

Do they honestly belive the cyclists just happened to fall down towards the truck as the truck was passing them? It's highly unlikely a bike would just fall down on the road, especially where it's straight enough that a truck could pass the bike safely. And especially for experienced cyclists, which they apparently were.


Sure, why not? It happened to me, and it was my own fault. A truck driven by a truck-driving school student passed me, I moved over too close to the edge, caught the edge of the road, overcompensated, and bit the pavement. (Bent my front wheel, too.) The driver stopped to check on me, but I told him it was my fault and not to worry about it.

That said, there is way too little consideration given to bicyclists on the roads, which is one reason I no longer ride.

RR

[Jodi]

If a conscious and ill-advised decision leads to a fatal "accident," is that still not grounds to press charges? We're talking about a truck attempting to pass a bicycle. The truck driver should have ample opportunity to wait for a break in traffic, and then pass with a safe margin. How can you neglect to do so and still avoid all responsibility for the accident?

Because "ill-advised" is not the same as "criminal." Maybe the driver thought he had left enough room to pass safely, but he was simply wrong. Maybe, as it sounds like was the fact, the poor girl fell off her bike into the truck -- not an impossibility. You are assuming that the the driver "had ample opportunity to wait for a break in traffic" -- by no means a given during a charity bike ride with Lord knows how many bikes on the road -- and you are assuming that the driver neglected to leave a safe margin AND that was a cause of the accident. Again, this does not seem to jibe with the article you posted.

Further, I don't know SC law as I said, but the article does say that the solicitor did not charge the guy because he didn't find "malicious intent." If there is not sufficiently egregious behavior to meet the definition of the crime -- which apparently includes as an element, "malicious intent" -- then you can't charge it. So maybe your true complaint is that SC doesn't criminalize all fatal accidents involving bikes?

OK, I realize that. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the case implies you can drive recklessly and not suffer any consequences. What if I pass every cycliest with 1/2 ft clearance until I hit someone?

There is no indication from the article that the truck driver was driving "recklessly," which has a specific meaning under the law. If you pass every cyclist with 1/2 foot clearance because you think that's a safe distance until, oops, you hit someone -- you're still not guilty of a crime. So again, maybe your argument is not that the wrong decision was made in this case under the law as it exists, but that the law should be changed.

[you with the face]

I'm not even sure which part of the story to get outraged over.

What I don't get is why average everyday people who A) have absolutely no connection to any of the people involved in accidents like these, B) did not witness a damn thing, and C) live hundreds of miles away from where the accident took place would even feel it is necessary to vent outrage over something like this. Save outrage for something that could possibly effect you. This does not, not even remotely. At least from what I can tell.

Regardless of whether the bike fell down as the truck passed (which is possible...I could see someone losing their balance if they looked over their shoulder to see a truck coming behind them) or whether it didn't, it was an accident. If the people paid to investigate the situation didn't determine negligence was involved, I fail to see how you're in a better position to argue that they are wrong. And I also fail to see why the mere possibility that they are wrong warrants a Pit thread.

[scr4]

Save outrage for something that could possibly effect you. This does not, not even remotely. At least from what I can tell.
If people can (or feel they can) drive with little regard to other people's safety, and not be held responsible for any accidents they cause, then it does affect me.

... or whether it didn't, it was an accident. If the people paid to investigate the situation didn't determine negligence was involved...
But the article didn't say negligence was not involved. It just said there was no intent, and therefore no charge.

And if I drive, say, 55mph on a ice-covered road, slip and kill someone, shouldn't I be held responsible?? I can't claim it was "just an accident," if I was driving in a manner that endangers others. At least I don't think I should be able to.

[CarnalK]

If people can (or feel they can) drive with little regard to other people's safety, and not be held responsible for any accidents they cause, then it does affect me.


So a traffic investigation in another state concluding no criminal charges are warranted affects your safety. That's not crazy at all. Nope.

[Jodi]

And if I drive, say, 55mph on a ice-covered road, slip and kill someone, shouldn't I be held responsible?? I can't claim it was "just an accident," if I was driving in a manner that endangers others. At least I don't think I should be able to.

If you don't know you are driving in a manner that endangers others, and you didn't intend to drive in a manner that endangers others, and your actions are not so completely stupid/outrageous/fuckwitted that you should have known you were endangering others, then arguably you have not acted in a way that justifies being charged with a crime.

You might contrast this thread with this one (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=406283), which talks about Brandy being charged with involuntary manslaughter in California for unintentionally causing the death of someone else in a traffic accident. (She rear-ended a car and knocked to sideways into the divider, where it was hit broadside by another car, killing the driver of the car Brandy hit.) Apparently, California law allows for people to be changed with involuntary manslaughter, which doesn't require that the person intend to cause the harm -- indeed the "involuntary" nature of it indicates the person did not indend to cause the harm. But your article, and the attorney's failure to find malicious intent, would indicate that sort of "intent-less" charge is not available in South Carolina. I have not reviewed either South Carolina or California law; this is my assumption based on the linked articles alone.

[Gangster Octopus]

If people can (or feel they can) drive with little regard to other people's safety, and not be held responsible for any accidents they cause, then it does affect me.

I missed the part where the truck driver caused the accident.

[Waverly]

If you pass every cyclist with 1/2 foot clearance because you think that's a safe distance until, oops, you hit someone -- you're still not guilty of a crime.Unless you want to clarify that you are using a little bit of hyperbole, you might want to double-check this. I think this extreme example would involve misfeasance, or a failure to foresee avoidable dangers which one would expect of a reasonable person. I think that is the very definition of criminal negligence. One might further argue that passing within reach of the extended elbow of a cyclist illustrates malfeasance, where the recklessness takes place with malice of forethought.

[Seven]

Do they honestly belive the cyclists just happened to fall down towards the truck as the truck was passing them? It's highly unlikely a bike would just fall down on the road, especially where it's straight enough that a truck could pass the bike safely. And especially for experienced cyclists, which they apparently were.

It happened to my old boss. She was on a road she rides about once a week. One moment she's upright on the bike, the next she's wandering down the street on foot.

It seems she took a spill and hit the street with her forehead (she had a helmet on) and it knocked her loopy. The kindness of strangers helped her and her slightly bent bike home.

To this day she doesn't know how she hit the road, but it sounds to me like her front tire got caught in something and she went end-over.

Had a car been behind her, she may not be walking and breathing today.

[scr4]

I missed the part where the truck driver caused the accident.
And I guess I missed the part where it was proved the driver's actions did not contributed to the accident in any way. Oh well.

[Stonebow]

I'm going to assume the family still has civil recourse- something like a 'wrongful death' suit. Given the details I've read, I fully support the driver not having any criminal responsibility, but still having to pay some sort of compensation to the family.

[Rysto]

And I guess I missed the part where it was proved the driver's actions did not contributed to the accident in any way. Oh well.
Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

[Doctor Who]

I really don't understand the outrage. So there's no criminal liability because the truck driver didn't meet the elements of the crime? BFD - happens all the time. If the truck driver was negligent - then they can sue the shit out of him. Oh, I see on preview that people are touching on this point:
Given the details I've read, I fully support the driver not having any criminal responsibility, but still having to pay some sort of compensation to the family.
I'd say it's really up to a civil jury. And the families have that civil option - that's the beauty (and sometimes the curse) of our legal system.

[Gangster Octopus]

And I guess I missed the part where it was proved the driver's actions did not contributed to the accident in any way. Oh well.

Becaue that's what I said. Not really.

[Jodi]

Unless you want to clarify that you are using a little bit of hyperbole, you might want to double-check this.

Yes, it should say both that you think it's safe, and that is objectively not reckless or willfully indifferent.

I think this extreme example would involve misfeasance, or a failure to foresee avoidable dangers which one would expect of a reasonable person.

I can't tell if I'm supposed to parse this sentence with the clause after "misfeasance" being a definition of misfeasance, or it being an alternative to misfeasance. If it is the former, you are conflating misfeasance and negligence, and they are not necessily the same.

I think that is the very definition of criminal negligence.

Well, it's not. The definition of criminal negligence varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiciton, and turns more on being willful, or so wanton or flagrant or reckless as to amount to willfulness. It is more than failing to avoid a foreseeable danger that a reasonable person would foresee. That is mere negligence.

One might further argue that passing within reach of the extended elbow of a cyclist illustrates malfeasance, where the recklessness takes place with malice of forethought.

One might argue that, but it would be a tough argument. How would you prove malice aforethought if the driver didn't intend the harm? And how would you show malfeasance if the action is not a crime?

Misfeasance and malfeasance are not generally terms that are employed in the criminal law, BTW. They deal with a distinction -- doing that which is legal, but doing it negligently or wrongly, versus doing something that is clearly illegal -- that is not of much help under the criminal law. All crimes are malfeasance. Misfeasance is generally not a crime.

[Jodi]

I just saw a Wiki article on criminal negligence that depends heavily on the old common-law definitions of malfeasance and misfeasance. Perhaps that's what prompted the malfeasance/misfeasance discussion? It's worth noting that in most -- AFAIK, every -- American jurisdiction, common law crimes have been superceded by criminal codes. Thus, when determining what crimie to charge a person with, or whether to charge a crime at all, the charging authorities will be attempting to identify and be able to prove every element of the crime, as defined in the statute. They are not looking for mis- or malfeasance; they don't care about either. The Wiki article is IMO very deficient in not clearly explaining that it deals only with the common-law definition of criminal negligence, which has been superceded throughout the States. Maybe the article is of more use in Britian or Canada? I don't know commonwealth law.

[Bricker]

And I guess I missed the part where it was proved the driver's actions did not contributed to the accident in any way. Oh well.

OK, basic civics refresher course time:

In a criminal case, does the accused have to prove he's innocent, or does the government have to prove the accused is guilty?

[Waverly]

I can't tell if I'm supposed to parse…Jeebus. I don’t want to get into a formal parsing war. I hung up my parsing saber long ago. Let’s just say that by textbook, if not lawbook, definitions I made distinction between misfeasance and malfeasance. The former is negligent, but involves failure to recognize the dangers; the later is reckless and failure to avoid recognizable dangers.The definition of criminal negligence varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiciton, and turns more on being willful, or so wanton or flagrant or reckless as to amount to willfulness.Are you sure about this? Just as the term implies in plain English, I understand negligence to be a fault of omission (not willful.) Reckless, I believe, has a specific definition where there may not be an intent to cause harm, but behavior presents an easily recognizable danger to others. How would you prove malice aforethought if the driver didn't intend the harm? And how would you show malfeasance if the action is not a crime? In neither example am I saying the driver needed to intend harm to be guilty of a crime. In the first instance, it is negligence, in the second recklessness. I haven’t brushed up on my Matlock in a while, but I’m fairly sure that not every crime involves intent.

[Doctor Who]

OK, basic civics refresher course time:

In a criminal case, does the accused have to prove he's innocent, or does the government have to prove the accused is guilty?
Ok, I'll play. The government has to prove the accused is guilty. Now, Bricker, what standard of proof do they have to meet?

[MsFancyPlants]

If a motorized vehicle runs over a cyclist, whether or not the cyclist has fallen, the vehicle was either following too closely, passing too closely or not paying attention - reckless endangerment any way you look at it. Hopefully, the victim's family will find a lawyer that will bring this truck driver to his just deserves and when they're through with that they should sue the truck driver stupid.

[Doctor Who]

If a motorized vehicle runs over a cyclist, whether or not the cyclist has fallen, the vehicle was either following too closely, passing too closely or not paying attention - reckless endangerment any way you look at it. Hopefully, the victim's family will find a lawyer that will bring this truck driver to his just deserves and when they're through with that they should sue the truck driver stupid.
I disagree - and I doubt that's the law anywhere in the country. When you pass a car, you allot a reasonable distance between your car and the other car. Could be a couple of feet - could be an entire car width. When you pass a motorcycle, you allot a reasonable distance between your car and the motorcycle. Could be a couple of feet - could be an entire car width. Same thing when you're passing a bicycle. You allot a reasonable distance.

If you alloted a reasonable distance and the bicycle rider negligently turns into your path - that's no different from a car you're passing swerving in front of you. Not your fault; No liability.

Look, I ride a bike. I'm sensitive to the fact that people drive like maniacs and will do insane things to ensure that they don't get slowed down by some spandex-wearing weekend Armstrong. But it is completely WRONG to say that there is some sort of automatic liability because you hit a biker with your car. If there was, then I imagine the public outroar would have banned them from the roads years ago.

[Miller]

If a motorized vehicle runs over a cyclist, whether or not the cyclist has fallen, the vehicle was either following too closely, passing too closely or not paying attention - reckless endangerment any way you look at it. Hopefully, the victim's family will find a lawyer that will bring this truck driver to his just deserves and when they're through with that they should sue the truck driver stupid.

So, what you're saying is that in any sort of a collision between a car and a bike, it is always, no matter what, without exception, because the guy driving the car was at fault?

Are you on drugs?

[Waverly]

I just saw a Wiki article on criminal negligence that depends heavily on the old common-law definitions of malfeasance and misfeasance. Perhaps that's what prompted the malfeasance/misfeasance discussion?Nope, it's just me with a simple layman's understanding of the law and perhaps a modicum of logic. I’m not so malicious as to ask you to answer for wiki. ;)

[Spoons]

I just saw a Wiki article on criminal negligence.... The Wiki article is IMO very deficient in not clearly explaining that it deals only with the common-law definition of criminal negligence, which has been superceded throughout the States. Maybe the article is of more use in Britian or Canada? I don't know commonwealth law.In Canada, criminal negligence is codified in the Criminal Code of Canada. Here's (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_219//en#anchorbo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_219) a link to sections 219 through 221, the Criminal Negligence sections.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

If a motorized vehicle runs over a cyclist, whether or not the cyclist has fallen, the vehicle was either following too closely, passing too closely or not paying attention - reckless endangerment any way you look at it.
That's bullshit and you should know better.

I was an eyewitness to an accident a few years ago in which a hatchback slammed into a cyclist with enough force to break the windshield, but it was the cyclist who was traveling too fast and too reckless for conditions. This crazy long haired white boy college student lost traction on a steep downhill and a hard right turn. Attempting to regain his balance on a wet road, the cyclist straightened his line, causing the idiot to veer into the path of some poor Indian post-doc driving an ancient Datsun. Smack! Total damage: Broken windshield, dented corner panel and hood, snapped off mirror, and one seriously screwed up bicycle.

Luckily, the cyclist wasn't severely injured. Though I was an eyewitness, I can only tell you exactly what happened up the point where the car and the cyclist collided. After that, I was too busy bouncing off the poor guy's windshield as my bike flipped over his hood to give you much of a play by play. It was my insurance that had to pay to fix the guy's Datsun - the driver's insurance didn't pay me a dollar. I (the crazy long haired white boy) was operating the vehicle at fault.

The point of my story is this: Bicycles can be, and not too rarely are, the vehicles at fault in traffic accidents. As far as the tragedy in question, we don't actually know what caused the accident. And because we don't, there is absolutely zero reason to believe that the driver of the pickup was at fault based on the available information. Even the simplest of bicycle wrecks can throw a human body about the entire width of a road lane in only a second or two - even at slow speeds. If a rider hits a pot-hole and flips over his handlebars while only traveling at 10 mph, how many feet do you think his body is going to travel before it comes to rest? It is quite possible that the tandem bicycle (which, by the way, isn't the most stable of platforms due to the two riders not balancing perfectly in sync) encountered something on the road surface that threw the girl into the path of the driver before he had time to react. It still might have happened even if he had given the cyclist more room as he passed. We just don't know.

Some people in this thread are too quick to draw conclusions based on the very little information we have.

[Jodi]

Jeebus. I don’t want to get into a formal parsing war. I hung up my parsing saber long ago.

What? :confused: I don't know what a "parsing war" is; I was indicating my willingness to read the sentence as you meant it, because I didn't understand it.

Let’s just say that by textbook, if not lawbook, definitions I made distinction between misfeasance and malfeasance.

There's a distinction between misfeasance and malfeasance in every book; they aren't the same thing. But I don't know what "textbook" you're referencing that isn't a law book. You said that misfeasance is the very definition of criminal negligence; in many jurisdictions, it isn't. You also are the one who introduced the concepts of misfeasance and malfeasance which, outside the realm of discharge of a public duty by an official, doesn't have much application in American law, and zero application in a case like this that involves application of state criminal law.

The former is negligent, but involves failure to recognize the dangers; the later is reckless and failure to avoid recognizable dangers. . . . In the first instance, it is negligence, in the second recklessness.

You are reading from an outdated playbook.

It used to be the common law scheme in both England and the States to divide negligence into three species: "mere" negligence, "gross" negligence, and recklessness. The problem was that it was extremely difficult to distinguish between gross negligence and recklessness, both of which depended on "wanton" or "indifferent" conduct, the only difference between one of degree. And "recklessness" was deemed to be akin to intentional conduct, not gross negligence, which, when you think about it, didn't make a whole lot of sense, since "intent" (or the absence thereof) is easily distinguishable from any other kind of conduct.

By statutory scheme in many states today, "recklessness" has been subsumed into "gross negligence" and the distinction between "gross negligence" and "recklessness" is not commonly drawn.

I haven’t brushed up on my Matlock in a while, but I’m fairly sure that not every crime involves intent.

Who said that it does? I honestly don't know what you're talking about at this point.

[Rick]

I disagree - and I doubt that's the law anywhere in the country. When you pass a car, you allot a reasonable distance between your car and the other car. Could be a couple of feet - could be an entire car width. When you pass a motorcycle, you allot a reasonable distance between your car and the motorcycle. Could be a couple of feet - could be an entire car width. Same thing when you're passing a bicycle. You allot a reasonable distance.

If you alloted a reasonable distance and the bicycle rider negligently turns into your path - that's no different from a car you're passing swerving in front of you. Not your fault; No liability.

Look, I ride a bike. I'm sensitive to the fact that people drive like maniacs and will do insane things to ensure that they don't get slowed down by some spandex-wearing weekend Armstrong. But it is completely WRONG to say that there is some sort of automatic liability because you hit a biker with your car. If there was, then I imagine the public outroar would have banned them from the roads years ago.
I ride and I agree with this 100%.
I would just like to add, if you have never seen a MS ride, it is you and 2,000 of your closest personal friends all on bicycles going down the road. Anybody driving a car nearby would have to be nuts to get within a few feet of that peleton.
These people may think they are Lance Armstrong, but trust me they aren't.
Not having seen the evidence, I can't comment further, but it is possible that it might have been another rider that bumped them and caused the fall (I have seen this happen on a group ride).
Anyway if the PTB believe that there is not enough evidence to bring it to trial, what are the chances of a conviction? Slim? None?
Anyway without more info, I can't support this pitting.

[Princhester]

What Rick said. scr4 you know I've normally got your back on this sort of thing, but as a wise man once said, you've got to pick your battles.

[Bricker]

I haven’t brushed up on my Matlock in a while, but I’m fairly sure that not every crime involves intent.

Almost every crime involves intent.

Crimes may be specific intent, where the accused intended to perform a criminal act, or general intent, where the accused's mental state is culpable even if the specific result was not intended.

There are very very few crimes that require no intent at all - statutory rape is one of the rare exceptions. Sex with someone underage is often a strict liability crime: you did it, you're guilty, regardless of any mistake of fact that would ordinarily negate criminal intent.

[Chasing Dreams]

Bicycle racer chiming in.......

The story the OP provided doesn't give me enough information to provide an opinion. There are some major blanks here.

The Rachel girl and the Tommy boy were both riding on the same tandem bicycle. Rachel got killed but Tommy did not. What injury caused Rachel to die? Was she wearing a helmet? What injuries did Tommy get? Was Rachel in the captain's position (front) or stoker (rear)? Were they used to riding a tandem bicycle? Did Tommy see anything? Were they riding in the center of the road? Were they riding erratically? How experienced are they really in riding a bicycle on the road? It's not as easy as some people think.

The story mentions that Rachel is only 15 and when I was at that age, I was still developing some of my finer bike handling skills. Inexperience could be a factor in why she fell. The article mentions: "He and his wife have biked 5,000 miles in the past two years, and their children often rode with them, they said." 5000 miles in 2 years is a decent amount of mileage for recreational riders but I wonder just how often their children rode. I also wonder how much time they've spent developing their bike handling skills and how to work together on a tandem bicycle.

I ride on roads and highways all the time. I also do recreational rides and races. I see all types of riders regardless of age. Some people can't hold a straight line and make drivers nervous and some drivers are just jerks. You really have to spend quite a bit of time on the bike to be able to stay relaxed and counteract sudden wind loads without falling over.

Perhaps the truck was driving by just a bit too close and the sudden wind caused by the truck coupled with Rachel's inexperience caused her to fall over.

[Princhester]

Almost every crime involves intent.

Crimes may be specific intent, where the accused intended to perform a criminal act, or general intent, where the accused's mental state is culpable even if the specific result was not intended.

There are very very few crimes that require no intent at all - statutory rape is one of the rare exceptions. Sex with someone underage is often a strict liability crime: you did it, you're guilty, regardless of any mistake of fact that would ordinarily negate criminal intent.

There are various environmental strict liability crimes, too. I once went to a lunch with the lawyer who defended the master of the Exxon Valdez and he gave this somewhat farcical example: he said that in the US if you are driving and accidentally run off the road and hit a man carrying an albatross killing them both, you will go to jail for killing the albatross but not the man. He was a funny guy: I never was quite sure how much his tongue was in his cheek when telling us this.

[MsFancyPlants]

So, what you're saying is that in any sort of a collision between a car and a bike, it is always, no matter what, without exception, because the guy driving the car was at fault?

Are you on drugs?
OK. I admit that this thread is far too personal for me to be able to state an unbiased opinion. I have 30 years biking experience and ride daily. I ride a tandem. I have been hit by a car while I was riding a bike and lived to tell about it. The car that hit me was driving recklessly. Until you've been through something like that personally, you have no idea how it changes your general attitude of cyclist vs. vehicles. :(

[Waverly]

Who said that it does?I believe you did when you stated, “Mere negligence generally isn't grounds to press criminal charges against someone. There is a difference between violating the duty you owe to someone -- the basis for negligence -- and commiting a crime. The difference in many cases is intent -- or conduct so grossly negligent that the failure to take care can is akin to intent.” There is some room for interpretation, since you aren’t talking in absolutes when you state “generally” and “in many cases.” But remember, I was asking specifically about the example you gave later in the thread when you stated, literally I presume, because I did ask, that a driver could pass within 6 inches of cyclist and not be guilty of a crime. I am telling you that I believe this extreme example illustrates a crime of negligence that does not include intent.I honestly don't know what you're talking about at this point.Well, I’m glad you feel you can be honest with me. I wasn’t about to accuse you of insincere misunderstanding, but it is good to get that cleared up.

Allow me to drop misfeasance and malfeasance from my explanation. I was unaware that these were terms used in common law definitions and this is causing confusion. I was not attempting to use any terms of art.

Whether you deem it recklessness, gross negligence, or criminal negligence, I do not believe you can take an action a reasonable person would consider unsafe, and pass within a half foot of a cyclist, and not be guilty of a crime if this results in injury or death. Please be clear that I have no reason to believe that this is what happened with regard to the OP. I am referring only to your example.

So why do I care? I am not a regular cyclist, but I do run 30 or 40 miles per week. With such distances, it’s more interesting pick long routes and avoid the tedium of dozens of circuits around a track or multi-use path. I have been amazed. Astonished. Excuse me: Honestly amazed and astonished at the malicious disregard many drivers have for pedestrians on the shoulder or crossing a side street from sidewalk to sidewalk. I have had to jump out of way on many occasions to avoid being hit. I understand that there is a wide gulf between behavior that should be illegal and behavior that is indeed illegal. However, I read with interest stories such as one which took place near hear last year. A driver was convicted of criminally negligent homicide for making a legal right hand turn which just so happened to be over the top of a cyclist continuing straight through the intersection.

I’m sorry, but I can’t find a link to the story which helps form my opinion, but I can find many such similar stories. Here is an example: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635171062,00.html. Note that Utah, at least, doesn’t think 6 inches is such a hot idea.

[Count Blucher]

Because "ill-advised" is not the same as "criminal." Maybe the driver thought he had left enough room to pass safely, but he was simply wrong.

I wasn't there, I can't say, but Jodi may have something there. It's very possible. There was a cyclist out this morning, on icy roads, that I couldn't pass safely. Most cyclists I see steer their bikes smoothly and straight. This rider was jerking his wheel left and right much more rapidly, possibly to keep his balance, possibly because he was inexperienced, possibly because it was snowy/icy out. He was also driving 15-20 feet away from the curb, making the room between him and the center divider line less than optimal for passing.

While watching his antics, I wondered what would have happened if someone had tried to pass him, assuming that he would steer straight, but he instead jerked his wheel left directly into the side of the passing car. I imagined that the morning would have ended badly for everyone involved, had it happened that way. In the end, I ended up giving him an obscene amount of extra room (the room I'd normally give drunk-drivers) and thanked Og when he eventually turned right onto another road.

*slight hijack*
PS- I seem to remember that years ago you could only ride motorcycles in my state legally from spring to fall. While I know that times/technologies change, I don't remember bicycles ever being safe to operate on snowy/icy roads. Please fight my ignorance: What has changed?

[Jodi]

Waverly, let's review. You said, "I’m fairly sure that not every crime involves intent." I asked, "Who said that it did?" Now you say:

I believe you did when you stated, “Mere negligence generally isn't grounds to press criminal charges against someone. There is a difference between violating the duty you owe to someone -- the basis for negligence -- and commiting a crime. The difference in many cases is intent -- or conduct so grossly negligent that the failure to take care can is akin to intent.”

But this statement clearly references either intent or conduct so grossly negligent that the failure to take care is akin to intent. So tell me again where I said every crime requires intent?

There is some room for interpretation, since you aren’t talking in absolutes when you state “generally” and “in many cases.” But remember, I was asking specifically about the example you gave later in the thread when you stated, literally I presume, because I did ask, that a driver could pass within 6 inches of cyclist and not be guilty of a crime.

And I clarified my position immediately by replying "Yes, it should say both that you think it's safe, and that is objectively not reckless or willfully indifferent." The latter obviously encompasses reckless or grossly negigent conduct, where the driver may legitimately believe it's safe, but that belief is not reasonable.

I am telling you that I believe this extreme example illustrates a crime of negligence that does not include intent.

You are assuming it is a crime, and I will not necessarily agree with you there. Reasonable conduct, the lack thereof, recklessness, wantonness, are all very situation-specific. What if the truck is within six inches of the bicycle because they are in a very narrow alley, or crossing a narrow bridge, or in a construction zone, and in every case the cyclist made the decision to ride that close to the truck (for example, if the truck were three-fourths or more past the cyclist, who therefore should yield the narrowing road to the truck but does not)? It may well be a crime, IOW, but it is not a crime in every case.

Well, I’m glad you feel you can be honest with me. I wasn’t about to accuse you of insincere misunderstanding, but it is good to get that cleared up.

Your sarcasm in the light of my intentional civility strikes is unaccountably and unnecessarily bitchy.

Whether you deem it recklessness, gross negligence, or criminal negligence, I do not believe you can take an action a reasonable person would consider unsafe, and pass within a half foot of a cyclist, and not be guilty of a crime if this results in injury or death.

Sure, because you have added the key element, which is that under the circumstances (whatever they may be) "a reasonable person would consider the action unsafe." That is in most cases gravamen of recklessness (or gross negligence or criminal negligence) although, again, the elements will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Please be clear that I have no reason to believe that this is what happened with regard to the OP. I am referring only to your example.

My example was not specific enough as to fact for you to declare that it must in every case represent a crime.

I have been amazed. Astonished. Excuse me: Honestly amazed and astonished . . . .

Ah, more unnecessary bitchiness. I think I'll leave you to it.

[Waverly]

Ah, more unnecessary bitchiness. I think I'll leave you to it.Jodi, that was sarcastic, yes, but it was intended to be good natured. I’m sorry if it didn’t come across that way. I always find that turn of phrase somewhat funny, rather like, “OK, I haven’t been honest with you yet, but I’m going to be honest with you this one time.” I know you didn’t mean it that way.

Clearly my opinion must exclude cases where it is the cyclist’s choice to come within 6 inches of the vehicle. Otherwise there would be NO safe way to drive anywhere near a cyclist. I am speaking about when it is the driver’s choice to become that close, including proceeding over a bridge, entering an ally, etc. where a cyclist is already visible and there would be no way to pass without coming in close proximity.

I believe there is a common assumption that if the bicycle is present in an area of neck-down, it must be the rider’s choice to be there in close proximity to an automobile – and the driver is under no special obligation to alter speed or change lanes. More likely, the rider is pretty damned hopeful that this will not happen, but has no way to undo it when much faster moving traffic arrives. This is akin to the unsuccessful defense of my right-turn homicide… The driver thought he had time to turn ahead of the cyclist, and for whatever reason it just wasn’t worth it to him to wait the few seconds to be absolutely sure of the cyclist’s safety.

[DrDeth]

Generally, I think that Criminal charges should be filed against a driver who causes a death only if:
The driver is clearly negligent or
Booze or drugs are involved.

In other words, if it is an "accident", I don't think Jail is a right solution.

However, just becuase the driver isn't going to jail, that doesn't mean he won't be sued for everything he is worth and then some, or even lose his drivers license.

I have no problem at all with that family suing the driver.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

I have no problem at all with that family suing the driver.
Hmm. We still don't know all the facts.

Here's a possible scenario as to how this happened:

The driver is passing a long line of cyclists. He slows down to well below the speed limit. Due to oncoming traffic, he must maintain his lane the best he can, without hitting the large amount of cyclists to his right. So he drives slow. But he's towing a trailer......

As he passes, at a reasonable speed, the wind shear from the trailer pulls the two on the tandem cycle toward the trailer. It's a tandem bicycle, so the balance isn't great. Maybe there's a hiccup on the road surface which causes the balance to get even more out of line. One falls off the bicycle as it tips to the side, and she tumbles under the right rear wheel of the trailer. There's the tragedy. There isn't much the driver could have done.

The above is just supposition and guess work, but it provides a possible reason why the driver wasn't charged and possibly shouldn't have to defend himself in court against civil charges. It's my guess that nobody is at fault in this one. Just a guess though.

Let's face one fact. The roads in the U.S. are built for cars and trucks only. I wish they weren't, but that's the way it is. I like riding my bike, but I know which roads can accommodate such a slow moving vehicle and which can't. I'm not convinced, with the information given, that the driver of the pickup deserves punishment in any shape or form. That includes a civil suit.

Sometimes shit just happens. And sometimes nobody is to blame.

[DrDeth]

Hmm. We still don't know all the facts.

I'm not convinced, with the information given, that the driver of the pickup deserves punishment in any shape or form. That includes a civil suit.

Sometimes shit just happens. And sometimes nobody is to blame.

I didn't say "win a big settlement", I said "sue". If the facts are such that the jury awards a fat settlement, then I am fine with that.

[Chasing Dreams]

*slight hijack*
PS- I seem to remember that years ago you could only ride motorcycles in my state legally from spring to fall. While I know that times/technologies change, I don't remember bicycles ever being safe to operate on snowy/icy roads. Please fight my ignorance: What has changed?

Bicycles travel much slower than a motorcycle wood so there is less chance of injury or crashing. You can safely ride a bicycle on snowy/icy roads if you have the right clothing and biking equipment. I would definitely recommend studded tires for a bicycle if it is ridden regularly in winter conditions. If all else fails, the cyclist can hop off the bike and run the sections that are really tough.

You don't want to ride a motorcycle in winter conditions because if you crash with a bicycle, you got hundreds of pounds of metal that will come down on you. A bicycle is much lighter. Also, how many motorcyclists are willing to limit their speed to around 30 km/h at all times? The windchill will get pretty horrendous when you are up around 100 km/h. Maybe you could get studded motorcycle tires but that may not be legal because it will do much more damage to the road than a bicycle tire.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

I*slight hijack*
PS- I seem to remember that years ago you could only ride motorcycles in my state legally from spring to fall. While I know that times/technologies change, I don't remember bicycles ever being safe to operate on snowy/icy roads. Please fight my ignorance: What has changed?

It was never really a big problem. (http://www.icebike.com/)

I bike pretty much year round. I use the trains more in winter but I still need to get to the station.

[Gatopescado]

Go here: www.AMADirectlink.com/justice

Kill people for less then the fine of a speeding ticket.

Hey Jodi! Want a free bicycle/motorcycle? Ignore the transponder under the seat............

[Count Blucher]

It was never really a big problem. (http://www.icebike.com/)

I bike pretty much year round. I use the trains more in winter but I still need to get to the station.


Fair enough. And I did give him plenty of room. FTR- He scared the hell outta me, as I honestly thought his tires were going to slip out from under him any second. I gave him so much room because I wanted to make sure that, if he did wipe out, I could brake in plenty of time. Rolling over a fallen cyclist was never even a fraction of a possibility.

[Waverly]

Hey Jodi! Want a free bicycle/motorcycle? Ignore the transponder under the seat............So you feel so strongly about the safety of cyclists that you’d like to run down someone who just isn’t getting it? I’m not sure if that makes you a mere idiotic, or a hypocrite.

[zenith]

The trouble with these kinds of threads is that the self-righteous exercise freak bicyclists will almost never admit that their ranks include incompetent drivers as well. In my experience,although there are fewer bad cyclists, it's only because ther are fewer total cyclists. Both groups' percentage rates of bad drivers are probably equivalent.

But to the self-righteous "I'm gonna live to 150 if one of you jealous fat slobs doesn't mow me down out of spite" crowd, the decadent motorist is ALWAYS to blame.

I'm glad sometimes that bad genes mean I'll probably be dead of cancer or a heart attack before I reach the rest home. Hell On Earth would be spending one's dotage hearing conversations centering on self-righteous competition as to who's got the best LDL, BMI, who can still do the most reps on the exercise machines, etc. The only way I want to spend my 90s with aged Yuppies is with profound and and incorrectable hearing loss.

[Ponder Stibbons]

The trouble with these kinds of threads is that the self-righteous exercise freak bicyclists will almost never admit that their ranks include incompetent drivers as well.You have a good point there. There are incompetent or simply foolishly risky cyclists out there. Several years back I heard of someone who had only been riding for a few months who was out riding in a bicycle rally and got to taking hills waaaay too fast, missed a turn, and died after slamming into a tree.

A while back in the local news there was a story about a cyclist who got killed by running head-on into a vehicle. The cyclist was apparently passing another cyclist and went over on the wrong side of the road without bothering to, you know, look up to see if a car was coming. Unlike the previous story this guy was a long time cyclist and apparently quite skilled -- he just apparently had a brain fart and it cost him his life.

Those stories are tragedies, where you can clearly place blame on the cyclist, although I'm not sure "blame" is the right word.

But where a cyclist is riding along the side of the road, obeying the law, and a driver mows him down from behind ... calling that a "tragedy" and saying "no one's to blame" makes me very angry.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

The trouble with these kinds of threads is that the self-righteous exercise freak bicyclists will almost never admit that their ranks include incompetent drivers as well.

Certainly they exist. Hell, a small but signifigant number of my encounters maybe caused by poor cyclists.

The thing you fail to realise, or rather do and rationalize with statements like above, is that it is very, very hard far an incompetent cyclist to damge much beyond himself and may a small dent in a car. A cyclist caused the death of a pedestrian last year and it was such a rare event that it made the CNN scroll.


In my experience,although there are fewer bad cyclists, it's only because ther are fewer total cyclists. Both groups' percentage rates of bad drivers are probably equivalent.


Maybe, maybe not. In any case I will major cause of problems with auto drivers is distraction...a rare thing for a cyclist to experience, but often the cause of many a non-drivers death. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=347787)


But to the self-righteous "I'm gonna live to 150 if one of you jealous fat slobs doesn't mow me down out of spite" crowd, the decadent motorist is ALWAYS to blame.


As opposed to the reality of our courts and enforcement of laws that ALWAYS assumes the cyclist is to blame.*

*Unless the driver is drunk. Don't believe me? OK, find me a few cases were a driver killed a person not in a car, was not drunk (pedestrian, cyclist) was actually tried and convicted


I'm glad sometimes that bad genes mean I'll probably be dead of cancer or a heart attack before I reach the rest home. Hell On Earth would be spending one's dotage hearing conversations centering on self-righteous competition as to who's got the best LDL, BMI, who can still do the most reps on the exercise machines, etc. The only way I want to spend my 90s with aged Yuppies is with profound and and incorrectable hearing loss.

I don't bike for my health, at least not my physical health (Although I won't deny its benefits). I bike because I didn't like myself when I drove everywhere. I see a lot of people having the same problem and extending it with impatient and poor driving.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Fair enough. And I did give him plenty of room. FTR- He scared the hell outta me, as I honestly thought his tires were going to slip out from under him any second. I gave him so much room because I wanted to make sure that, if he did wipe out, I could brake in plenty of time. Rolling over a fallen cyclist was never even a fraction of a possibility.

It takes some getting used to, and it is not for every cyclist. You did as much as you could, from what you say. No one could ask for more. Just keep in mind that winter biking is on the increase, especially in the cities (there was a time when I nary saw another cyclist on the road when the temp dropped below 60, now...its downright crowded!). Too many drivers think they don't have to keep a lookout for bikes in colder weather.

[DrDeth]

The trouble with these kinds of threads is that the self-righteous exercise freak bicyclists will almost never admit that their ranks include incompetent drivers as well. In my experience,although there are fewer bad cyclists, it's only because ther are fewer total cyclists. Both groups' percentage rates of bad drivers are probably equivalent.
.

Down here we have a lot of urban cyclist's at nite. Far too many ride with dark clothes, no lights and no reflectors- and you know , if a driver hit's one, the cyclists are up in arms, proposing silly-assed passing rules and shit. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever not to have lots of relective material on your bike. :mad:

[Chasing Dreams]

Down here we have a lot of urban cyclist's at nite. Far too many ride with dark clothes, no lights and no reflectors- and you know , if a driver hit's one, the cyclists are up in arms, proposing silly-assed passing rules and shit. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever not to have lots of relective material on your bike. :mad:

Those are not likely serious cyclists. If they are smart, they will have some sort of LED flasher on the bike. Any cyclist that spends a decent amount of time on the bike will have the common sense to make drivers see them.

[Richard Pearse]

Sure, why not? It happened to me, and it was my own fault. A truck driven by a truck-driving school student passed me, I moved over too close to the edge, caught the edge of the road, overcompensated, and bit the pavement. (Bent my front wheel, too.) The driver stopped to check on me, but I told him it was my fault and not to worry about it.

That said, there is way too little consideration given to bicyclists on the roads, which is one reason I no longer ride.

RR

A very similar thing happened to me. I heard a truck approaching from behind and moved over to the side of the road to allow it some room to pass. I didn't look behind me because that tends to make you veer in the direction you look. If I had, I'd've seen that it was a road train (http://www.ausfuel.com.au/images/Volvo%20cruising.JPG).

Unfortunately, although the road had two lanes when he started passing me, it narrowed to a single lane with a traffic island on one side preventing the truck from giving me adequate room, and a curbed footpath on the other preventing me from getting off the road.

I got increasingly nervous as each trailer passed and in my effort to stay as far awy from it as I could, I clipped the curbing with my front wheel and went over the handlebars. Luckily I didn't fall into the truck.

Who's fault was it? Technically the truck probably should've slowed right down and waited till past the traffic island before passing me. Self preservation should've dictated that I had a look at what I was dealing with and got off the road while I could.

[DrDeth]

Those are not likely serious cyclists. If they are smart, they will have some sort of LED flasher on the bike. Any cyclist that spends a decent amount of time on the bike will have the common sense to make drivers see them.

"No True Scotsman" fallacy. :rolleyes:

[Gatopescado]

So you feel so strongly about the safety of cyclists that you’d like to run down someone who just isn’t getting it? I’m not sure if that makes you a mere idiotic, or a hypocrite.

:confused:

How the did you get that out of my post? Maybe you are the idiot. I've always thought so.

[Waverly]

:confused:

How the did you get that out of my post? Maybe you are the idiot. I've always thought so.Even when I was a little child, just brimming with potential and curiosity?! *sob* It's no wonder I turned out to be bad.

You know what you said. You can back pedal, play it off as a joke, or grow a pair and be proud of your idiocy. I don't care. Now get back down there and suck my cock.