# Truck runs over cyclists, no charges filed **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 30, 2007, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149 "2007-01-30T19:35:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149/1 "2007-01-30T19:35:22Z")
[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?? ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149/2 "2007-01-30T19:48:59Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] 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. [/quote] 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. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149/3 "2007-01-30T20:07:06Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] Mere negligence generally isn’t grounds to press criminal charges against someone. [/quote] 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? ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149/4 "2007-01-30T20:08:46Z")
As a regular bike commuter, let me just say this: People who pass too close should be strung up by their naughty bits. ---
**Author:** ![RiverRunner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/977dab/32.png) [@RiverRunner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RiverRunner)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149/5 "2007-01-30T20:17:44Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] 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. [/quote] 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 ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149/6 "2007-01-30T20:18:29Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] 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? [/quote] 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. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149/7 "2007-01-30T20:43:24Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149/8 "2007-01-30T20:48:54Z")
[QUOTE=you with the face] Save outrage for something that could possibly effect you. This does not, not even remotely. At least from what I can tell. [/quote] 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. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149/9 "2007-01-30T20:55:59Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] 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. [/QUOTE] So a traffic investigation in another state concluding no criminal charges are warranted affects your safety. That’s not crazy at all. Nope. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149/10 "2007-01-30T20:57:00Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149/11 "2007-01-30T21:08:14Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] 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. [/QUOTE] I missed the part where the truck driver caused the accident. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149/12 "2007-01-30T21:15:26Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] 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. [/QUOTE] 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 _mal_feasance, where the recklessness takes place with malice of forethought. ---
**Author:** ![Seven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Seven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Seven)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149/13 "2007-01-30T21:18:18Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149/14 "2007-01-30T21:18:49Z")
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus] I missed the part where the truck driver caused the accident. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Stonebow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Stonebow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stonebow)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149/15 "2007-01-30T21:24:00Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149/16 "2007-01-30T21:26:51Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] 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. [/QUOTE] Guilty until proven innocent, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Who](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Doctor\_Who](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Who)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149/17 "2007-01-30T21:34:40Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149/18 "2007-01-30T21:37:12Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] 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. [/QUOTE] Becaue that’s what I said. Not really. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149/19 "2007-01-30T21:39:19Z")
[QUOTE=Waverly] Unless you want to clarify that you are using a little bit of hyperbole, you might want to double-check this. [/quote] 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 _mal_feasance, 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. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149/20 "2007-01-30T22:04:55Z")
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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truck-runs-over-cyclists-no-charges-filed/390149.md?page=2)