We have. Prosecutor has said that there is no statute in VA law that he feels he could get a conviction on, so there would be no charges filed. He was careful to never say there were no charges that could be considered as applicable, but that he saw none that he could get a conviction on.
This conversation took place about two weeks after the incident.
Double jeopardy. He was found guilty of failure to pay full time and attention. The Commonwealth can’t try him again on a greater charge.
I rode a motorcycle as my primary transportation for several years when I was younger. I can’t count how many drivers look right at you and turn in front of you, totally missing you. They just don’t see motorcyclist. Sure, they are obligated to see, but that doesn’t change the physics of the situation, as they just don’t see you.
I’m always sympathetic towards the motorcyclist, and I’m sorry that the OP was yet another victim of the event. It sucks, but what penalty is appropriate for this type of accident? Perhaps that’s why they have insurance companies, torts and civil judgments.
They “just don’t see you” because they haven’t been trained to look.
I’m thinking prison time for drivers who, by their own negligence, kill motorcyclists, would be a useful incentive.
Well the insurance company may decide to drop him after this are at least raise his rates considerably. If he lost his insurance, that would probably about the same as losing his license and that probably would be a good thing.
Bricker, all I can do is thank you for making it necessary to point out the difference between a traffic regulation infraction and a criminal charge, noting that some of the former can include the latter in VA in that, for instance, failure to yield can also be covered by a reckless driving charge, and thus be a criminal offense (misdemeanor) but with the penalty being only a fine v. any incarceration. (If this’d happened in WV and someone elected to call it reckless driving, that might subject the person to a modicum of jail time … up to six months if it’s a repeated issue with the person.)
I can’t know whether there are facts or circumstances unknown to the OP but subject to an investigation*, and neither can (s)he … we don’t know what we don’t know. It’s entirely unlikely but still possible, for instance, that there’s some intent or wilful element here 'cause the old guy declared X-Y-Z before or after the incident.
I was going to ask that: does Virginia treat traffic infractions as crimes?
Really Not All That Bright [I thought you might change that after passing the bar in Florida]: “I was going to ask that: does Virginia treat traffic infractions as crimes?:o”
Some of them are technically criminal offenses, yes.
Generally no. But some, yes, and as it happens in this case, yes…which is why I said what I said.
Va Code § 46.2-863 places failure to yield as a reckless driving offense; § 46.2-868 makes reckless driving a Class 1 misdemeanor, NOT an infraction.
So conviction under 46.2-863 attaches jeopardy to the set of facts.
True. The double jeopardy defense must be raised at trial.
But on these facts, it’s double jeopardy to charge any crime that constitutes the “same offense” under Blockburger, meaning any crime unless the two each have an element distinct from one another. (And I’ll head you off at the pass by distinguishing Miles v. Commonwealth, because that “failure to yield” was a city ordinance and not the state charge currently codified at § 46.2-863.)
I should also point out that apart from double jeopardy, Va Code § 19.2-294 provides that if the same act is a violation of two or more statutes, conviction under one of the statutes is a bar to a prosecution or proceeding under the other. Even setting aside double jeopardy, then, I think 19.2-294 would be a tough hill for the Commonwealth to climb.
To what extent is a conviction/guilty plea of failure to yield admissible or preclusive in a civil action for liability from the accident?
In other words, because the pickup driver plead guilty to the traffic violation, does that mean it can be used against him in the civil trial, or even more powerfully, does it mean that the driver sill automatically be found liable in the civil trial?
There’s some nuance that I’m not hip to, though; civil law is not my strength…
While true, I understand from others that this sort of thing can make insurance premiums skyrocket. It may not take money away from him, but it may make it hard for him to get insured and thus be able to drive. At the very least, it will cost him money over time.
I checked the link to “the other board” provided in the OP. The OP in that link admitted that the motorcyclist wasn’t known to be the safest. Furthermore, what we’re seeing in this thread is just one side of the story. What was the investigator’s conclusion about contributing factors.
And just for fun, can we drop all the allegations about conniving to protect relatives of a different law enforcement agency absent actual proof of such connivance?
California used to have–maybe it still does and maybe other states follow the same system–what they called “assigned risk” for certain categories of driver, such as those whose license had been pulled within a certain number of years. That meant that any driver got insurance, but those placed in the assigned risk category paid a hefty premium.
To the OP, I give you my deepest sympathies. I know just how you must be feeling, as six weeks ago my father, a motorcyclist, was killed by a pickup that rear ended him and propelled him into the vehicle in front of him. The pickup driver took his attention from the road to put a CD in, and didn’t see my dad. As I said in another thread, that better have been some damned important music.
We still aren’t sure whether criminal charges will be made, my mother’s lawyer is working with the insurance issues.
So the driver that killed your BIL still can drive? That sucks.
To put this in context, since you somewhat cherry-picked my comment on the linked board, I said in my posting on the other message board that he did not wear armored motorcycle gear and that his bike seemed to always have something minor wrong that he was planning to fix soon.
I’m an over the top perfectionist when it comes to my vehicles so I notice everything. So it always bugged me to see things like a zip tie holding one his saddlebags in place. But none of the issues with his bike impacted its visibility or stopping/evasive abilities.
As for him not wearing an armored jacket, I’ve read the autopsy report and seen the wrecked bike in person. Trust me when I say an armored jacket would have made no difference.
Curious what contributing factors you think may be applicable here. Clear visibility. Middle of a sunny day. Use the google map link above. You can place the little Google man right on the crossover and then look southeast. You can see the exact view the driver had. Sure looks like a clear field of vision to me.