On August 24, 2012, bicyclist Alex Motsenigos was struck and killed by an 18-wheel dump trailer driven by Dana McCoomb. This article gives some background and also contains links to the police report, which is accurately described as “graphic and upsetting.”
Following an investigation of the incident, McCoomb was charged with
[ul]
[li]M.G.L. c90§24G (b) Motor Vehicle Homicide by Negligent Operation[/li][li]M.G.L. c90§14 Precautions for the Safety of Other Travelers[/li][li]M.G.L. c89§2 Unsafe Overtaking of a Bicyclist.[/li][/ul]
However, a grand jury did not return a true bill on any of these charges.
There were multiple eyewitnesses who observed McCoomb overtaking Motsenigos including one who witnessed the moment of impact. By his own admission, McCoomb was familiar with the road and was aware that it narrowed at the point where the incident occurred. The travel lane was 10.65 feet wide with an additional 1.7 feet to the curb. There was oncoming traffic visible so McCoomb knew he would not be able to cross the center line. McCoomb admitted passing Motsenigos at the location of the incident.
Given that he was operating a 42-ft long x 8-ft wide vehicle in a 10.65 foot wide lane at the time he chose to pass Motsenigos, why wouldn’t he at least be indicted on the “unsafe overtaking of a bicyclist” charge?
That makes no sense. There was a definite unsafe overtaking of a bicyclist, if nothing else. And bicyclists have a right to be on the road. There should have been a conviction. The trucker should have slowed down and sounded his horn to alert the cyclist that he/she needed to pass.
The impression I got is that he got off because of lack of proof that he hit the bicyclist. So the jury wasn’t saying “He hit him, but he’s not guilty of any of these things”, the were saying “We can’t say for sure that he hit him, therefore he’s not guilty.” Maybe I didn’t read the link carefully, though.
Not in the article, but from the police report, investigators matched distinctive tire impressions from the truck to impressions on the victim. The driver admitted driving that truck at the time of the incident, but has not yet admitted to any knowledge of the incident, as far as I have seen.
Or maybe they just thought it was a tragic accident and not a deliberate move on the part of the trucker?
If the vehicle is 8’ wide and the road is 10’ wide, it wouldn’t necessarily take negligence (on either side) to cause an accident. Perhaps they should ban trucks or widebodies vehicles on that road? Or maybe at certain times? Maybe create a better cyclist network of roads where it’s safer to give them their own lane.
The fact that the accident happened doesn’t not necessarily mean that either person was doing anything unsafe. On paper, anyway.
I don’t know. Maybe? The police report says it’s “impractical” for any vehicle to attempt to pass someone there. The Grand Jury apparently disagreed.
Do bikes and trucks regularly use that road together? Are bicyclists frequently run over on that stretch of road? If bikes & trucks pass each other all the time on that stretch of road, that would argue that it’s not, in fact, impractical. And either way, “impractical” is not “illegal”. Again, the fact that there was an accident there is not, in and of itself, proof that either party screwed up.
I would guess that the truck probably drifted right a little, which, given the small margin of error, ended catastrophically. But perhaps the bike drifted left, maybe pulled a little by the truck’s draft. Or maybe the cyclist drifte right and hit the curb, falling into the truck. Who knows.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the truck driver’s account, where he claims he saw the cyclist in his rearview, thought he was passed him and sort of mentally dismissed him after that and drifted a little. But that’s just speculation. And even if it happened that way - it would be a judgement error, not negligence. Not every judgement error or accident is caused by negligence.
What I’m mostly trying to say is - there’s no question that the truck hit the cyclist. Without knowing how the truck came to hit the cyclist, there’s no way to say who, if anyone, is at fault.
The grand jury got facts that we didn’t get, and some of the facts we got may not be true. The grand jury decided, and that’s that, it’s their decision (not yours) that matters. It’s fairly useless to try and second guess them given what I said in the first sentence above.
I don’t think this is true. Having your opinion match the grand jury’s, at least most of the time, is part of how the justice system maintains its legitimacy. Vigilance is the surest defender of freedom and all that.
I couldn’t find the video that was mentioned in the article (actually by someone commenting on the article). I’d like to see it. My feeling is that while the bicyclist had the right of way he brought about his own demise. The lady in the Mercedes stated that she thought the rider had guts riding down a hill with a large truck coming up behind him.
“I had the right of way” makes a terrible headstone epitaph.
But that’s not what I was responding to. Someone posted that since the driver had no intent to hit the cyclist that it was a simple accident, not a crime. I pointed out that operating a vehicle unsafely is a crime in and of itself, regardless of intent.
I agree that we can’t say whether the driver committed a crime without knowing more details, but IMO the details presented in the article would seem to support an indictment. However, the article may or may not represent what actually was presented to the Grand Jury. I’m also a cyclist who deals with idiot drivers all the time so I’m a bit sensitive on this issue.
This assumes that the grand jury and the average joe have received all of the same information on which to base their judgment, which is rarely the case.
In my state, the grand jury typically meets for one day to hear evidence for each particular charge the prosecutor wants indicted. The evidence generally consists of the investigating officer giving a brief recitation of his police report. That generally meets the criteria of probable cause for purposes of returning a true bill of indictment.
The most oft-cited cause for indictments being returned not as true bills… the officer didn’t show up. No evidence = no indictment.
The prosecution usually just tries again the next month, and admonishes the officer for his no show.