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.

http://www.kansas.com/2010/08/15/144...ents_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.

[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..

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/20...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.