No Criminal Charges Against Driver Who Struck Cyclist

[Deborajen]

Yet another disappointment in our legal system's not stepping up to the plate in holding a driver responsible for controlling his/her car. The driver was ticketed for inattentive driving, but otherwise no consequences. The district attorney and the highway patrol both say the driver didn't commit a crime. In other words, he's not responsible "cuz he didn't mean to -- " Meanwhile, the cyclist will be constantly reminded, for the rest of his life, of the driver's act of negligence.

It's really maddening how our country doesn't take seriously the responsibility of driving a car. :mad::mad::mad:

http://www.kansas.com/2010/08/15/1448053/driver-not-facing-charges-for.html#Comments_Container

[pll]

That is an outrage. Laws need to be changed. You cannot maneuver a heavy vehicle that can kill people and be given a free pass for being 'distracted with something in the car'. Would drivers feel the same if airline pilots crashed planes because they were distracted with a text message or something else in the cockpit? It would be not be intentional, either. This ruling simply sends the wrong message.

[OakLeaf]

That's exactly what I've been saying for years. All these advocacy organizations keep trying to increase penalties for killing vulnerable road users. To me, that's exactly the wrong approach. Not only doesn't it address the underlying issue, but it reinforces drivers' view of us as "other."

All other traffic offenses are strict liability. Speed, and it doesn't matter whether or not your speedometer was accurate. Run a stop sign, and it doesn't matter whether or not you saw it. Drive drunk, and it doesn't matter that you sincerely believed you were okay to drive.

Kill someone, and all of a sudden the prosecution has to prove mens rea. :mad: :mad:

[crazycanuck]

The article mentions "Police say they could find nothing the driver was doing wrong to cause him to veer"

Hang on a min..If you veer for some unknown reason & kill someone, it means you'll not be charged with some sort of offense???? That doesn't seem to make sense..:confused:

Is there any further legal info available to the public on the matter & what does the actual judgment say?

The media does play with words & am now wondering what else was said that the newspaper doesn't feel it necessary to tell the public.

[Thorn]

It is really sad, but even getting a ticket issued has become a moral victory in the greater problem of driver education.

In South Carolina, the local bike group had to do the job of the police and show that the cyclist was not at fault before a ticket issued:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100811/NEWS01/100811033/Edwin-Gardner-cleared-in-bicycle-SUV-collision-

In Wisconsin, the same approach failed (again) to get even a ticket issued:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/lifestyle/100780379.html

So we have to live with moral victories when a ticket and revocation is issued:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/lifestyle/100350484.html

While I'm not one for an eye-for-an-eye mentality, I still have to believe that creative sentencing would be appropriate. Get the driver to do the driver's ed circuit. Have them teach kids about save driving/riding. Community service with people who don't have cars...yeah, I live in a dream world....

[sfa]

That's insane. They couldn't find anything the driver was doing wrong that caused him to veer onto the shoulder and hit the cyclist? Why should it matter WHY it happened? The fact that it DID happen should be enough. After ruling out external causes that could legitimately excuse the driver from criminal negligence (things like a sudden bout of vertigo, or mechanical problems, or dangerous weather) they need to charge the driver with something, even if it's just something like "improper handling of vehicle." Isn't driving on the shoulder illegal anyway? Or crossing a solid painted line (assuming there was one there to differentiate the shoulder from the main road)?

[hebe]

I am so saddened and angered to read that link. Something is very wrong if there is no responsibility associated with driving.

[JennK13]

Isnt there some sort of criminal or gross negligence with his violation of traffic safety laws resulting in the injury of the victim? He swerved and hit the guy on the side of the road - if the cyclist wasn't there, and an officer saw the vehicle swerve like that, wouldn't they stop the driver to see if he was drunk or distracted for some reason, or if at an intersection or lane change, for failing to signal? There are so many things here that don't make sense. At the very least, I hope the driver had insurance and this poor Spainard gets something out of this tragedy.

[smilingcat]

Our legal system is such that unless you have lots of money or someone willing to do pro bono case, this isn't going anywhere.

I think all you can do is write to the DA's office and use their reasoning of well "it wasn't his fault, he was distracted in a car" excuse as a precedent setting statement and have all traffic infraction thrown out because the driver was distracted.

Also do a writing campaign, a recall vote of the DA... And a public pressure via news coverage and even a demonstration with hopefully some media coverage.

This is just so asinine and points out a big flaw with American society. I am truly saddened and embarrassed with this outrageous conduct of the driver, police and the DA. Had this been a toddler on a tricycle with his mom, would DA let it go?? Probably not. Had the cyclist been a member of the police, DA's office, or city official would DA let it go?

I need to get off. Things like this makes me depressed and I hear more and more each day...
:(

[Melissa71]

I am furious to read that lame excuse, that the police couldn't find him guilty of doing anything wrong. Ummm, not paying attention, improper lane usage, failure to reduce speed, and striking a cyclist. I guess if you're a cyclist your life doesn't mean squat. :mad: My heart goes out to that poor man that will have to spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair. :(

[OakLeaf]

Got nothing to do with the driver's money, or the victim's.

Every state in the USA is the same thing. Traffic offenses are strict liability, unless you kill someone, and then there's a mental element.

I'm curious how it is in other parts of the world. All y'all non-US TE'rs, are traffic homicides strict liability where you live?

[crazycanuck]

Good q oakleaf.

I'd like to give you an answer but i've no idea what strict liablity means. Feel free to look at the following Australian links (I did a search but couldn't find the answer :o):

http://www.department.dotag.wa.gov.au/

http://www.nt.gov.au/justice/

http://www.ag.gov.au/

[Owlie]

CC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability
It's exactly like Oak said above. For traffic cases, it doesn't matter whether or not you knew you were doing X; all a prosecutor would need to prove was that you were doing X:
"Strict liability often applies to vehicular traffic offenses. In a speeding case, for example, whether the defendant knew he or she was exceeding the posted speed limit is irrelevant. The prosecutor would need only prove that the defendant was indeed operating the vehicle in excess of the speed limit."

[Bike Chick]

Outraged! Outraged! Outraged! Same story over and over and over.....In Illinois there is a stiff fine and penalty of jail time if you hit a construction worker (and rightfully so) and signs reminding you every time you enter a construction zone. I wish cyclists would get the same. There are penalties if you hit a cyclist but no one will prosecute.

[Catrin]

This is as sad as it is outrageous. There isan underlying message that it doesn't really matter what happens to an adult on a bike...whether that is the intended message or not that is what comes across.

[denda]

We have had 3 cyclists killed in my area in the last few weeks! One just last night. I am getting afraid to ride.
One of them was hit when the driver dropped his cell phone and reached to get it. It was reported that the cyclists were riding 3 abreast, so I don't think he will face any charges.
We all need to be alert! Drivers and cyclists.

[ivorygorgon]

Well, I hate to have an unpopular opinion, but here goes.

I am responding to some of the comments posted here. The cyclist was not killed (not that I think being paralyzed from the ribs down is great either) The motorist is being held accountable under current law, he was cited and will have to deal with whatever consequences follow from that. He will likely face a civil suit. (Don't get me wrong, I don't equate these consequences as being the same as being paralyzed).

The cyclist will have a civil case against the motorist; negligence in and of itself simply isn't a criminal act. The driver is guilty of negligence. Negligence is not a crime. Negligence is also not "strict liability," at least in CA. A plaintiff has to prove defendant was negligent.

I honestly would hate to see negligence made a criminal offense. That means every time anybody rear ended anybody else, or was negligent in any other way, it would be a crime.

I am not saying that I think what happened was ok, in fact, it is a tremendous tragedy and like tragedies just keep occurring. I just disagree with some of the "takes" on it and how it was handled by law enforcement. Clearly something needs to be done to increase cyclist safety. I know riding on the road terrifies me.

[denda]

I honestly would hate to see negligence made a criminal offense.

I agree with this.

[pll]

Needless to say, I disagree with the view that negligence should not be criminalized. A reasonable, responsible, person will not be texting, using the cell phone, or looking for stuff in the car while driving a heavy vehicle that can kill or severely injure other people. I hope lawyers chime in, but when negligence is criminal, I believe it is against some standard of a reasonable person. rear ending someone would not be criminal unless the driver engaged in irresponsible behavior while driving.

[Eden]

I also disagree - negligence with a firearm is a crime, negligence with a motor vehicle shouldn't be any different. A car is a deadly weapon and a driver should not take the responsibility of operating one lightly.

[buffybike]

Outraged! Outraged! Outraged! Same story over and over and over.....In Illinois there is a stiff fine and penalty of jail time if you hit a construction worker (and rightfully so) and signs reminding you every time you enter a construction zone. I wish cyclists would get the same. There are penalties if you hit a cyclist but no one will prosecute.
Excellent point, Bike Chick.

The driver who hit me only got a citation. I, on the other hand, got $10,000+ in medical bills.

[tctrek]

Not sure, but I think it's the same if you hit a pedestrian or if you hit another car. If they can't prove you were negligent or did it on purpose, then it's not a crime. It's so incredibly sad that this guy came to Ride Across America and now he will never walk again, but it doesn't look like the person that hit him committed a crime.

[Charlotte Berry]

Driver kills a pregnant women on a bike. Car slowed, looks at her and then leaves.

Video...
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=7609051

[Deborajen]

In my opinion, "inattentive driving" implies the driver wasn't paying attention/wasn't paying enough attention and something bad could have happened or something like a fender bender happened. "Negligent driving" implies that the driver didn't uphold responsibility for controlling the car, either by being inattentive or going too fast around a curve, etc., and something bad did happen as a result of it. If a driver swerves off the road and hits a cyclist who was riding on the shoulder and the cyclist is seriously injured, the driver should be ticketed for inattentive driving and also be charged with negligent driving, and negligent driving should carry stiffer penalties varying depending on the degree of negligence and the degree of damage/injiury done.

I agree with an earlier post that a car can be a deadly weapon. That's what our laws seem to miss. They're treated more like a tool that we're "entitled to." It's not right.

[marni]

I also disagree - negligence with a firearm is a crime, negligence with a motor vehicle shouldn't be any different. A car is a deadly weapon and a driver should not take the responsibility of operating one lightly.

and gun owners have to be licensed as do car drivers- I fail to see the difference between driving and hitting and shooting and hitting. If anything the car, if not as deadly is certainly more dangerous because everyone has one and takes their right to have one and their ability to handle one a lot more casually.

either way, someone ends up hurt and someone ends up paying, either physically or mentally.