People who drive and kill someone routinely get charged with vehicular manslaughter in Hawaii.
A manslaughter charge is automatically considered in UK. it may not be brought - but it is considered.
What does it take to post a link?
It was mentioned that DWI is the best way to prove negligence, but even that isn’t always enough. Laws and courts often give a drunk driver a slap on the wrist (if that) for drunk driving instead of treating that behavior as the reprehensible action that it is. If DWI was punished harshly instead of giving stupid sentences, maybe we would have less of it.
I know of one judge who told a repeat offender that he would feel guilty for the rest of his life for killing a young child and that was punishment enough.
In the Seattle area I often see bicyclists as the ones acting recklessly; zipping between cars, riding through red lights or against traffic, etc. It’s those frequent situations that make it difficult to assume blame for a driver in a collision.
In Indiana, the way it works, is that there is a difference between the crime, and the charge. If someone kills someone else through reckless driving, drunk or sober, but without the intent of harming anyone, the crime might be “vehicular homicide,” but the charge will probably be “involuntary manslaughter.” If you chase someone down in your car with the intent of running them over, the crime might still be “vehicular homicide,” but the charge in that case would probably be “voluntary manslaughter,” a much more serious charge.
If you plan in advance to run someone over, and lie in wait in your car for them to pass in front of you on their way home from work and you run them down, the crime again might still be vehicular homicide, but in this unusual case (which I doubt happens except on TV) the charge is 1st degree murder, because planning and lying in wait raise it to that level. The prosecutor will have to prove motive, though. If he can’t prove that facet of the crime, he may have to reduce the charge to 2nd degree murder.
It’s really has very little to do with cars vs. bicycles. There’s a lot of vehicular homicide going on with people merely getting tickets.
The column eventually gets around to a key problem: calling these “accidents”. As in “Oops, I made a lane change without looking and killed someone. My bad.” These are not “accidents”. These are human caused deaths and should be treated as such.
(Now if your tire caught a nail, went flat, causing you to swerve into another lane and kill someone. That’s an accident.)
The language has to change. Then the mentality might change.
The column appears to assume that the bicycle operator is not at fault.
Similar to Seattle, San Francisco bicyclist defend their “right” to run stop signs and want the action decriminalized for them. There is CCSF supervisor support for this, but so far enough reasonable heads who foresee the obvious result have prevailed.
We also have plenty of pedestrians looking down at their phone and/ or wearing headphones who obliviously walk in from of buses, cars, trucks, and trolleys. Pedestrians/ jaywalkers don’t get hit that often, but every experienced vehicle operator knows who will be found at fault.
The Master’s point is that even excluding when the bicyclist is at fault, we still a lack of prosecution of car drivers …
The difference is when a pedestrian slams into a semi-truck at full speed, the truck might get scratched … when a truck slams into a pedestrian at full speed, the local coroner will be doing a lot of scrapping … should the law take this into account?
The vast majority of bicyclists I encounter on the road are doing as they should … and when they are they’re entitled to all the rights and responsibilities as cars … when one gets in my way, I can only shake my head and say in my heart they’re the ones saving gas and protecting the solar system …
I remember once I was parallel-parked, looked carefully over my shoulder, and pulled out. Bike hit me (he was fine, a couple scratches luckily). It was clearly “my fault”, but as I was picking him up, we noticed the low angle of the sun and glare from reflected rain made a blind spot of a couple car lengths behind me that you couldn’t tell was a blind spot (we both agreed with that). Sheer bad luck. Once in thirty years for me. Multiply that rate by the number of cars on the road, and you can easily get the kind of statistics you see without assuming negligence on either side.
Point being, it’s not worth turning this thread into the kind of “car drivers are bad” “no, bike users are bad” tit-for-tat. While there will be true cases of negligence, if you looked at it from a safety-mitigation perspective, the answer is people bump into each other. It happens. But when society sets up so many close encounters between 2-ton objects and 200-pound objects, the 200-pound objects lose (and have more to lose, as we’re talking about the people’s bodies). It’s better to look at the mitigations - separate bike lanes, areas where, as The Master says, bikes can cross intersections in packs - then cast a huge amount of “we’re not punishing someone enough” blame.
Many jurisdictions distinguish between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. As a generalization, voluntary manslaughter in the automotive context is likely to be charged where there is evidence that the driver was acting recklessly, beyond mere negligence. Involuntary manslaughter amounts to something more like negligent homicide.
And it’s not just bicyclists that have to watch out. Many drivers don’t “see” those on motorcycles.
My father was killed( I think of it as murdered) by a distracted driver. Dad was struck from behind by a guy who was looking down to put a CD in his player. Dad was propelled into the truck in front of him and sandwiched between vehicles. The guy who killed him was never even in court. We weren’t even allowed to know if he’d got a ticket.
I think penalties for accidents caused by distracted drivers should be waaaaay harder.
Yes, they are accidents. All it means is that it wasn’t intentional.
A 2015 article How Strictly do Chicago Police Enforce Bike Traffic Laws?
Here’s the end:
the lower percentage is misleading. It could mean the same number of people getting hit divided by a larger sample size. It might not mean anything except, just like gazelle in Africa, there is safety in numbers.
Does anyone have any insight into the rather notorious NYC bike messengers and their daredevil riding and the number of incidents with motorized vehicles?
If I was randomly shooting crap in my back yard and unintentionally killed a neighbor kid, I presume I would be tried, convicted and sent to jail for a good while.
That what crimes like negligent manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc. are all about. You didn’t intend to kill someone but you still did something wrong.
“Intentional”? Please.
“Accident” suggests “bad things happen”, rather than “I wasn’t paying attention to what I was doing”.
It doesn’t just apply to bikes. I’ve heard of places considering changing from calling them “car accidents” to “car incidents”, for the same reason.
The U.S. government has switched to “collisions” over “accidents” in most publications.
To the OP, in Washington state, this statute says this:
The most common way to prosecute it is alcohol and drugs, but sometimes you see “racing” cases. It requires more than “negligence.”
Your scenario is inaccurate. Let’s say you have a fenced-off acre of land. You have “no trespassing” signs all around. You set up a target area in the middle of that land where you are nowhere near anyone else or their property. On a regular basis you fire a legally-owned weapon at those targets.
One day, unbeknownst to you, a neighbor kid trespasses onto your property and is sneaking around. You shoot at your target and strike the unseen kid. The kid comes stumbling out with a wound. You try to aid him and call 911 but he dies.
I doubt you’d be blamed by anyone other than a rabid anti-gun nut or grief-stricken family members. Certainly you’ve committed no crime.
If you were randomly and recklessly shooting at random stuff on your property with no consideration for what or who was around or behind your targets then yes, you could and should be convicted for manslaughter, just as you probably would (or should) if you hit a bicyclist while clearly driving in a reckless manner.
It depends heavily on the local DA, and just how negligent the driver at fault appears to be. There’s no point bringing a case to a jury if there’s too much of a chance of a juror thinking “that could have happened to me while I was driving” and hanging the jury or else getting an outright acquittal. There are too many other cases in your workload for which you can get a conviction that need your time.