# Grand jury does not indict trucker who struck and killed cyclist last August: Why not? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 7, 2013, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640 "2013-02-07T21:15:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Barrett\_Bonden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@Barrett\_Bonden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barrett_Bonden)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640/181 "2013-02-18T20:56:44Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > But there is no evidence available that says the trailer struck the cyclist. If I understand you correctly, what you are saying here is that there is no evidence that the trailer swung into the cyclist before the trailer ran over the cyclist. If so, you are correct that that is not relevant. If the truck was passing too close to the cyclist, it was too close, regardless of any other conditions, including whether or not the cyclist was run over. > [@Magiver](#): > > This case lacks the evidence needed to determine what happened. I don’t understand why this is so hard to comprehend. I realize I’m beating a dead horse here, but to reiterate, my question was why wouldn’t a Grand Jury indict on the charge of Unsafe Overtaking of a Bicyclist. Thanks to the meticulous detective work of the Wellesley Police Department and eyewitness accounts, we know the relative position of the truck and the bicycle at the point where the truck overtook the bicycle. We know the maximum amount of clearance the truck gave the bicycle between the trailer and the curb: four feet four inches. That is total width, which had to include distance between the truck and bike, the bike/rider itself, and the bike and the curb. We also know that according to the law, if there was not enough clearance, the truck was not legally entitled to pass. So the only question is: does four feet four inches between truck and **curb** allow a truck to safely pass a bike? ---
**Author:** ![Barrett\_Bonden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@Barrett\_Bonden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barrett_Bonden)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640/182 "2013-02-18T21:00:18Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > [http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/02/15/cyclists-react-with-anger-after-grand-jury-returns-indictment-wellesley-bike-crash-case/JDTtJSawtj34hxAAP5Y0RI/story.html](http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/02/15/cyclists-react-with-anger-after-grand-jury-returns-indictment-wellesley-bike-crash-case/JDTtJSawtj34hxAAP5Y0RI/story.html) > [@](#): > > Cunningham said that he initially felt confident the charges against the truck driver would stick, but that he grew concerned when he heard that a member of the grand jury had asked a question of a Wellesley detective that suggested the juror did not understand the truck’s obligation to yield to the bicycle. If this is the case, it would explain the failure to indict on the charge of Unsafe Overtaking of a Bicyclist. Sadly. ---
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640/183 "2013-02-18T21:09:34Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I’m not sure why the video stopped but the location of the bike was beyond the railroad overpass and just passed the next intersecting street. Either the cyclist was sprinting to keep up with the truck or got hooked on the trailer and then pulled under (further down the road). > > I thought by the description it was a dump truck. This was a full size rig pulling a trailer. I don’t wish to negate the responsibility of the truck driver but I would have taken the sidewalk if I saw it coming. Just today on the way to work I had an 18 wheeler cut me off on the highway. Not much I could do but give way and I have a steel frame surrounding me. A bicyclist has air. Why were you racing the truck and why couldn’t you maintain your speed? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640/184 "2013-02-18T21:10:45Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > My uncle died while bike riding on a forest trail. He hit a small rock, went over the handle bars, and hit his head on a bigger rock. It’s not blaming him to say that; that’s just the sequence of events. It wasn’t his fault, or the bike’s fault, or even the rock’s fault. If a truck had been driving next to him, it wouldn’t have been the truck’s fault if he’d fallen under the wheels. > > It’s plausible that the truck and/or trailer drifted right and hit the cyclist. It’s also plausible that the cyclist drifted right, hit the curb and fell over. There’s not enough info in the police report alone to know which is more likely. Which means nothing. Contact with the trailer is not a requirement. The truck driver placed the bicycle in a dangerous situation, that is all that is needed to assign fault. For instance, I decide to chance a close left. There in fact was just enough room, but you do not see that we are going to clear each other, panic, swerve left and hit a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Now, whose fault would you call that? I never made contact with your car, so I am free to go on my way? The unassailable fact is that the trucker chose to pass the cyclist with no room to spare. There is no law that says a motor vehicle must pass a bicycle as soon as possible – in fact, the law says the opposite. The law says that bicycles have a right to use roads that do not explicitly prohibit them. Because there was an attempt to prosecute, it seems obvious that Weston road does not prohibit bicycles. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640/185 "2013-02-18T21:23:26Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > But there is no evidence available that says the trailer struck the cyclist. I take back my previous comment. Your previous comment is no longer the stupidest thing I have ever read on this board. The above comment is has eclipsed it and turned the stupidity to 11. So if the trailer didn’t strike the cyclist how did he get the tread imprint of one of the trailer tires on his body? Unluckily incident at the tattoo parlor? How did his bicycle get under the trailer? See the witness statement. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640/186 "2013-02-18T21:30:02Z")
> [@Spiderman](#): > > There is a serious flaw in your statement. It doesn’t matter how much distance there is between the center line & the curb since the cyclist is legally allowed to be riding in the travel lane. Did the travel lane get smaller or just the shoulder to the right of the travel lane? On the supposition that he was in the travel lane the whole time, he would not have needed to move left at all. I don’t see a flaw. The law regarding minimum distances of passing applies to passing so I don’t understand why you brought up the “travel lane”. > [@Spiderman](#): > > Ever think of the possibility that, as **Rick** called him, Sparky McNumnuts pulled a little too far to the right when his tractor passed the cyclist, this would cause his trailer to fishtail maybe just enough to come in contact with the cyclist? > In [Part 3](http://www.scribd.com/doc/123808087/Weston-Road-Crash-Incident-report-Part-3) of the police report (pg 8/13, 2nd ¶) indicates, that based on wear marks, the trailer tire may have rubbed against the pedal. The last sentence states that this was being sent for further investigation. What the investigation lacks is evidence of the distance between the truck and the cyclist and how the cyclist went under the trailer wheels. Again, what is so hard to comprehend about this? The driver could be Charles Manson’s twin with an unstated hobby of running over cyclists. He could have stickers of bikes on the side of this truck with X’s through them. What is needed is the evidence to convict. > [@Spiderman](#): > > Wow, something we can agree on! From the pix I saw, it appears to be a Specialized Shiv, a higher-end special purpose time trial/triathlon bike. Another pic shows what appears to be a better quality Specialized road helmet. > My experience is just the opposite, people don’t tend to spend the money on a higher-end bike until they’ve been riding for a while (& therefore have experience) & decide they like it & want to spend the money on better equipment. Therefore, as a general rule, people on better bikes tend to be better riders than those on department store specials. my experience is that the little skinny tires don’t have the same traction and the lighter weight wheels have less gyroscopic effect. If I was on my mountain bike I wouldn’t even need to hop the curb. I’d just turn in and ride over it. But YMMV. In this instance the better bike/better rider didn’t work out so well. > [@Spiderman](#): > > How, by watching what the guy behind him is doing??? > Again, from the [PA Bicycle Driver’s Manual](http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/pdBikePed.nsf/infoChapterTwo?OpenForm) that is poor advice to give a cyclists. > [@Spiderman](#): > > Let’s assume bike/rider are 2’ wide & rider is only 6” from right edge of lane line. That’s 2½” + 8½” of truck is 11’. If Sparky McNumnuts had given 3’ or 4’ of clearance, he’d be in the other lane (with oncoming traffic) so we know he didn’t do this & was therefore merely inches away from the cyclist. A slight hiccup from either party & you see what happened here. In short, Sparky did not pass safely! > NASCAR cars ride real close together, but even those \*professional \*drivers don’t always make it w/o rubbing up against each other. Of course their vehicles are comparible in size/weight so one doesn’t have a distinct advantage over the other. I am also pretty sure that they don’t have a driving record of chargeable accidents & license suspensions as long as their arm. Let’s assume big trucks are heavy and will crush you dead if you have an encounter with them. > [@Spiderman](#): > > Well since you’re obviously so much better of a driver than all of us we should all just bunny-hop a perpendicular curb, stay on the sidewalk, & stop for any cars we may encounter on our way home. :rolleyes: You should assume drivers of other vehicles that can kill you represent a danger and provide for a way out if the situation warrants it. I don’t ride my touring bike on a road with no shoulder or a road with a high lip that would cause me to wreck if I’m crowded out. If a vehicle approaches without a safe way out I watch the vehicle and give way to it. I’m really not invested in the idea that my relatives can collect on a wrongful death. In this instance you’re making an assumption that the driver was at fault. I’m making the statement it may or may not be true but also that the cyclist used poor judgment regardless of what traffic laws allow for. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640/187 "2013-02-18T21:37:52Z")
> [@Rick](#): > > I take back my previous comment. Your previous comment is no longer the stupidest thing I have ever read on this board. The above comment is has eclipsed it and turned the stupidity to 11. > So if the trailer didn’t strike the cyclist how did he get the tread imprint of one of the trailer tires on his body? Unluckily incident at the tattoo parlor? How did his bicycle get under the trailer? See the witness statement. There is no witness statement that indicates how the cyclist got under the trailer. I pointed out that the witness #1 even says this in her statement. she is on the opposite side of the truck and down the road. She has no way of seeing what happened. A cyclist is taller than the bottom edge of a trailer. It’s physically not possible to run over him. He has to go down and into the area in front of his wheels. Clearly he was crushed by the tires but that is not the same as the driver running over him. How can you possibly be that dense as to not understand this? Something causes the cyclist to fall into the path of trucks rear wheels. We don’t know what that was and there is no witness who can shed any light on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640/188 "2013-02-18T21:51:17Z")
Given the width of the road and the oncoming traffic, I would prefer to hear of a scenario where the truck could have been considered to be passing legally, let alone safely. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640/189 "2013-02-18T21:52:50Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > You should assume drivers of other vehicles that can kill you represent a danger and provide for a way out if the situation warrants it. I don’t ride my touring bike on a road with no shoulder or a road with a high lip that would cause me to wreck if I’m crowded out. If a vehicle approaches without a safe way out I watch the vehicle and give way to it. I’m really not invested in the idea that my relatives can collect on a wrongful death. In this instance you’re making an assumption that the driver was at fault. I’m making the statement it may or may not be true but also that the cyclist used poor judgment regardless of what traffic laws allow for. Back to blaming the victim I see. How dare he ride legally! ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640/190 "2013-02-18T21:57:35Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > Back to blaming the victim I see. How dare he ride legally! the cyclist is a victim of his own poor judgement. whether the truck driver contributed to it we may never know. As it stands now, he’s innocent. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640/191 "2013-02-18T22:00:09Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > the cyclist is a victim of his own poor judgement. He rode legally and got killed for it. What a wonderful message to send. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640/192 "2013-02-18T22:06:18Z")
> [@For You](#): > > Which means nothing. Contact with the trailer is not a requirement. My response about my uncle was in reply to Smell my Wort, who asked us to speculate what might have caused the cyclist to lost control. My point was that we can speculate lots of plausible scenarios - but it’s not in the police report, and it’s not evidence anyway, so it’s not relevant. > [@](#): > > The truck driver placed the bicycle in a dangerous situation, that is all that is needed to assign fault. I don’t think this is proven, either, unless you can demonstrate that trucks routinely kill cyclists on that stretch of road. To come at it another way - driving and bike riding are inherently dangerous activities. Driving and biking on the same road always carries a risk of an accident. Just traveling down the road is not, all by itself, enough to say that the trucker was doing something dangerous. Have there been previous accidents at that spot between bikers and drivers? I don’t think we have that info. It’s unlikely that this is the first big truck and cyclist to ever pass each other on that spot. But if there’s no history of previous accidents at this spot, I don’t think you can argue that a) this spot is so dangerous that trucks shouldn’t be allowed to pass cyclists and b) the driver should have known that even though the road was not posted closed to trucks and/or cyclists. > [@](#): > > For instance, I decide to chance a close left. There in fact was just enough room, but you do not see that we are going to clear each other, panic, swerve left and hit a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Now, whose fault would you call that? I never made contact with your car, so I am free to go on my way? … If I freak out, that’s my fault. Of course it’s not your fault. If you hit me and drove me into the pedestrian that would be one thing. But if I just spaz … how is that your fault? Are you saying you think you should be held at fault for causing the accident? At any rate, we don’t have any evidence (that we know of, I mean) that the truck driver made any sort movement, deliberate or otherwise. > [@](#): > > The unassailable fact is that the trucker chose to pass the cyclist with no room to spare. There is no law that says a motor vehicle must pass a bicycle as soon as possible – in fact, the law says the opposite. The law says that bicycles have a right to use roads that do not explicitly prohibit them. Because there was an attempt to prosecute, it seems obvious that Weston road does not prohibit bicycles. It’s equally legal for trucks & bikes to use that road. It might be smarter to ban one or the other on that stretch, if the road is especially dangerous. One accident is not enough to demonstrate that it’s impossible for the two to coexist. Perhaps this accident will inspire the city planners to rethink access on that road and post more signage about its limits. Even so, it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the cyclist or the trucker were wrong, as things stand now. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640/193 "2013-02-18T22:15:37Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > He rode legally and got killed for it. What a wonderful message to send. He rode legally and lost control of his bike and went under a truck. If you want to send a message it should be to use common sense. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640/194 "2013-02-18T22:40:50Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > He rode legally and lost control of his bike and went under a truck. “Stole more chains than he could swim with.” And you accuse others of making claims without evidence? Look at the figures for the lane. There is no physical way the truck could have been passing legally, let alone safely. SpiderMan gave the statistics and you just handwaved them away (with another blame-the-victim comment). > [@](#): > > If you want to send a message it should be to use common sense. Which common sense is this? To some, “common sense” means that cyclists should not be riding in the road at all. I don’t put much stock in the what people claim using the abused term ‘Common sense’. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640/195 "2013-02-18T23:53:46Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > “Stole more chains than he could swim with.” > > And you accuse others of making claims without evidence? Emotional rant. > [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > Look at the figures for the lane. There is no physical way the truck could have been passing legally, let alone safely. SpiderMan gave the statistics and you just handwaved them away (with another blame-the-victim comment). Correct, there isn’t a legal way for the truck to pass. But there is a physical way for the truck to pass. As I’ve stated before, I’ve had people encroach into my lane to give way to cyclists many times. Amazingly, I moved over to make room. Even if an officer was there and witnessed it it doesn’t contribute to the accident. > [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > Which common sense is this? To some, “common sense” means that cyclists should not be riding in the road at all. I don’t put much stock in the what people claim using the abused term ‘Common sense’. You can’t use absolutisms as an argument against common sense. Riding next to an 18 wheeler with a high curb on your right is a poor decision. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640/196 "2013-02-19T00:54:51Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > I don’t think this is proven, either, unless you can demonstrate that trucks routinely kill cyclists on that stretch of road. No, you see, the bicycle popped out from under the trailer tires, that is pretty convincing proof. The truck driver placed his trailer right next to the Motsinegos at at least 20mph (pretty fast on a bike), that is a dangerous situation when the bike really has nowhere to go. The fact that Alexander Motsinegos bought it demonstrates that the truck driver put him in a dangerous situation. What more do you need? > [@Magiver](#): > > Riding next to an 18 wheeler with a high curb on your right is a poor decision. He did not “ride next to an 18 wheeler”, the truck came up and overtook him. The truck driver was obligated by law to _not do that_. At the point that the truck came alongside, Motsinegos has little option but to keep riding, because, IME, braking would probably have been more dangerous in that situation. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640/197 "2013-02-19T02:37:24Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Emotional rant. You are trying another handwaving dismissal of the fact that I am pointing out that you are blaming the victim. > [@](#): > > Correct, there isn’t a legal way for the truck to pass. But there is a physical way for the truck to pass. As I’ve stated before, I’ve had people encroach into my lane to give way to cyclists many times. Amazingly, I moved over to make room. Even if an officer was there and witnessed it it doesn’t contribute to the accident. [Looking at the road in question](http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/02/15/cyclists-react-with-anger-after-grand-jury-returns-indictment-wellesley-bike-crash-case/JDTtJSawtj34hxAAP5Y0RI/story.html). If the opposite side is the same as this side I would like to know where ‘amazingly’ you would find the room to move over. And that makes yet another misrepresentation of this case by you. > [@](#): > > You can’t use absolutisms as an argument against common sense. Riding next to an 18 wheeler with a high curb on your right is a poor decision. Ah, so therefore it was completely the cyclist’s fault. He rides legally as per the law but didn’t hide in the bushes when a truck came by. The only thing I will blame the cyclist for is not more fully taking the lane to outright discourage any attempt by the trucker to pass. Even that is pushing it for ‘blame’. Given the laundry list of violations this trucker had in his past - he probably might have run the biker over outright or tailgated or other unsafe actions. ---
**Author:** ![Spiderman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiderman/32/230_2.png) [@Spiderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiderman)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640/198 "2013-02-19T03:17:03Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I don’t see a flaw. The law regarding minimum distances of passing applies to passing so I don’t understand why you brought up the “travel lane”. Because the width, or absence of a shoulder, where one is not supposed to ride has no relevence on the width of ‘travel lanes’. If the ‘travel lane’ is not wide enough for the truck to _safely_ pass a cyclist, then the truck should not attempt said pass until it is safe to do so. This concept isn’t exactly Rocket Surgery. (yes, I do know what I just typed) > [@Magiver](#): > > A cyclist is taller than the bottom edge of a trailer. It’s physically not possible to run over him. This statement may be true for a _standing_ cyclist. However, I’d argue otherwise concerning one in aero position on a TT/Tri bike. > [@Magiver](#): > > the cyclist is a victim of his own poor judgement. whether the truck driver contributed to it we may never know. As it stands now, he’s innocent. Innocent & not proven are hardly the same thing. > [@Magiver](#): > > Riding next to an 18 wheeler with a high curb on your right is a poor decision. On the part of the trucker that put him there. > [@Magiver](#): > > Correct, there isn’t a legal way for the truck to pass. What? What? What’s that you just admitted to??? ---
**Author:** ![Spiderman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiderman/32/230_2.png) [@Spiderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiderman)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640/199 "2013-02-19T03:24:11Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > I don’t think this is proven, either, unless you can demonstrate that trucks routinely kill cyclists on that stretch of road. > > To come at it another way - driving and bike riding are inherently dangerous activities. Driving and biking on the same road always carries a risk of an accident. Just traveling down the road is not, all by itself, enough to say that the trucker was doing something dangerous. > > Have there been previous accidents at that spot between bikers and drivers? I don’t think we have that info. It’s unlikely that this is the first big truck and cyclist to ever pass each other on that spot. > > But if there’s no history of previous accidents at this spot, I don’t think you can argue that a) this spot is so dangerous that trucks shouldn’t be allowed to pass cyclists and b) the driver should have known that even though the road was not posted closed to trucks and/or cyclists. > > \ > > It’s equally legal for trucks & bikes to use that road. It might be smarter to ban one or the other on that stretch, if the road is especially dangerous. One accident is not enough to demonstrate that it’s impossible for the two to coexist. > > Perhaps this accident will inspire the city planners to rethink access on that road and post more signage about its limits. Even so, it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the cyclist or the trucker were wrong, as things stand now. Congratulations! You just proved the argument of the other side! Maybe there’s no history of accidents because the other truckers who attempted to pass cyclists did so safely & legally. That by waiting a few seconds until oncomming traffic passed, a _responsible_ truck driver could then cross the center line to allow enough room to safely pass the truck. That if everyone drives responsibly & legally, all parties can share the road & no one needs to be banned. ---
**Author:** ![bicycleguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecd19e/32.png) [@bicycleguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bicycleguy)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640/200 "2013-02-19T03:37:30Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > so if my car is affected by the draft of the trailer I can sue? I have seen well written posts by you so I know you are intelligent enough to know that the draft created by a tractor trailer will have a much, much greater effect on a bike than on a car. This man was a professional truck driver. He better know what effect his draft will have on a bike when he passes by very closely. If he chooses to ignore that and kills someone, then, yes, by all means, he can be sued. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-jury-does-not-indict-trucker-who-struck-and-killed-cyclist-last-august-why-not/649640.md?page=11)