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?
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.
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.
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.
Ok, I’ll play. The government has to prove the accused is guilty. Now, Bricker, what standard of proof do they have to meet?
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.
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?
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. 
In Canada, criminal negligence is codified in the Criminal Code of Canada. Here’s a link to sections 219 through 221, the Criminal Negligence sections.
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.
What? 
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.
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.
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.
Who said that it does? I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about at this point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 
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.
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.
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?
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:
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?
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.
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.
Your sarcasm in the light of my intentional civility strikes is unaccountably and unnecessarily bitchy.
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.
My example was not specific enough as to fact for you to declare that it must in every case represent a crime.
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.