Deadly Drivers

dhk2 said:

.....he has not been charged with any driving violations. .....cell phone in her purse. Still, no charges were filed. .....or other parts of the US, normally get away without criminal charges, or so much as a traffic citation?

Yes. I lost a close friend in Indiana 2 years ago. He was cycling early one morning as was struck from behind, and was killed instantly. The driver, while very remorseful, did not even get a ticket. Apparently there is a loophole in the laws - people on bicycles are not people??

I don't think the law is designed to allow cyclists, or anyone struck by a car, to be ignored or not properly investigated by law enforcement to determine cause and fault, if any.

But we all know what the law is designed to do and what it often does do, are two different things.

Sometimes a civil suit will help kick start an investigation.

I'm sorry to both of you for your losses.

What I have trouble wrapping my head around is the basic fact that a bicyclist is entitled to travel in the lane. Any other traffic in the lane is required to yield that space. That means every driver is responsible for paying attention to who or what is on the road at all times. Not seeing them should be as inexcusable as not seeing any other vehicle you run into. Intent is not the issue; the results are. At least that is my armchair lawyering perspective.

Many states have a statute requiring drivers to allow a given distance to pass. Tennessee has a three foot law. I know this because I wrote that particular amendment to the law.
The problems are that even law enforcement officers are ignorant of these laws and individuals break laws regardless.
I still think we are better off with than without them and education of the public the best route to follow.
It is dangerous out there and we must always be alert and never take anything for granted, especially the actions of others.

JHuskey, you're certainly right there. However, the lack of accountability after the damage is done still puzzles me. I think if people felt like there was a huge penalty for killing someone... a bit more than what they get for running over a possum... maybe they would open their eyes more.

Yes we are still 3rd class citizens at best.

dhk2, sorry to hear about the loss of a fellow cyclist. Incidents like that tend to force many of us to re-consider why we're out there and whether it's worth the risks we face.

Unfortunately, intent is a big part of our laws and "accidents" are typically handled through civil rather than criminal proceedings. As someone above stated, if a driver "didn't see" a car in front of them and ran into the back, killing a passenger, then there would likely be a criminal investigation and civil suit even if no charges were made -- it's just so hard to believe that an unimpeded driver wouldn't see a car on the road in front of them that it practically screams negligence on the part of the driver. "Not seeing" a cyclist doesn't create the same sense of misbelief with jurors, who can probably all relate to having had a cyclist sneak up on them at one time or another.

In civil cases the standard of proof is lower (preponderance of the evidence vs. beyond a doubt), so it might be possible to get a wrongful death suit or similar pressed against the offender even if there are no criminal charges levied by authorities. If the visibility conditions were clear it wouldn't seem to hard to show negligence in operating a motor vehicle resulting in the death of another -- of course, that's a sympathetic cyclist talking.

I have some experience with civil suits since I get the honor of dealing with claims for my company. In most states liability is based on comparitive fault. If you are found to be 1% over 50% at fault you have some liability. This is based on proof brought force to preponder the evidence in your favor.
The plantiff,in theory, has the burden and proof.
Yes, criminal trials are based on reasosnable doubt.
This is of course a simple explaniation and the whole process of discovery and testimony can be complex and time consuming.

Here inthe UK, a driver who said he didn't see a cyclist and hit them from behind could be charged with driving without due care and attention. Most accidents involving cyclists are due to lack of attention by drivers. I'm a driver as well as a cyclist and there's no excuse for not seeing a cyclist on a road. Drivers who can't see cyclists shouldn't be driving in my opinion. the government should do more to ensure drivers pay more attention. like making more punative punishments and adding some form of cycle awareness education into the driving test.
We've just had an election in the Uk and after 13 years of a so called green government which was pledged to get people out of their cars and onto bikes, nothing happened to encourage that.
There's enough hot air spewed out from politicians wanting to appear green but it's never followed by any action.

decca234uk said:

I'm a driver as well as a cyclist and there's no excuse for not seeing a cyclist on a road. Drivers who can't see cyclists shouldn't be driving in my opinion. the government should do more to ensure drivers pay more attention.

I agree, I really don't see how someone could not see a cyclist. Maybe they just stand out to me because I ride, but I see them half a mile away. There really is no excuse to "not see" a cyclist and suffer no consequences for what would normally be called vehicular manslaughter.

jhuskey, glad to hear you contributed to the "3 Foot Passing Law" in Tennessee. But sorry, it appears to be worthless from where I sit. After all, if a motorist can run down a cyclist in broad daylight and not even receive a "class C misdemeanor" citation as prescribed by the law, then apparently the law is never enforced.

But appreciate the input, and frenchgye, thanks for your kind note. Sorry to sound negative, but the anger is still pretty high here. I was told at the funeral that the family isn't pursuing a civil suit. I've already advised my wife that in the event the same fate befalls me one day, she needs to contact a good cycling lawyer right away.

decca234uk said:

Here inthe UK, a driver who said he didn't see a cyclist and hit them from behind could be charged with driving without due care and attention. Most accidents involving cyclists are due to lack of attention by drivers. I'm a driver as well as a cyclist and there's no excuse for not seeing a cyclist on a road. Drivers who can't see cyclists shouldn't be driving in my opinion. the government should do more to ensure drivers pay more attention. like making more punative punishments and adding some form of cycle awareness education into the driving test.
We've just had an election in the Uk and after 13 years of a so called green government which was pledged to get people out of their cars and onto bikes, nothing happened to encourage that.
There's enough hot air spewed out from politicians wanting to appear green but it's never followed by any action.

From quick online research, I read that the UK doesn't have the same "Strict Liability" law that is in effect in Holland and most of the rest of Europe. The law says that in the event of a car/cycle or car/pedestrian accident, the car driver is at fault unless negligence on the part of the cyclist/ped contributed.

I'm planning to raise these questions to our local bike safety committee. Our city has just completed designation of "bike routes" with nice green route-number signs and big yellow "Share the Road" caution signs. However, if a motorist can run down and kill a cyclist on these routes without criminal penalty, I honestly don't know what "a cyclist has the right to the road" means.

dhk2 said:

Here's my question: do drivers who hit and kill cyclists in other countries, or other parts of the US, normally get away without criminal charges, or so much as a traffic citation?

Laws are getting better in Australia, though we had a few case like this around Geelong over the last 9 months and from what I know the drivers avoided charges and jail. An example is this one;

Quiet road, no traffic, straight road, clear day, cyclist single file etc..

Geelong sporting identity Rex Sizeland dies after bike smash
GEELONG sporting identity Rex Sizeland died in hospital last night after a horrific collision with a car while cycling on Monday.

Doctors at The Alfred hospital yesterday withdrew Sizeland's life support after he suffered serious head injuries in the crash at Breamlea.

Link: Geelong sporting identity Rex Sizeland dies after bike smash - Local News - Geelong, VIC, Australia

South Australia probably has the toughest laws here (hit and run), ironically a well known cyclist was the first to be charged :eek:

Chris Jongewaard to stay in jail after losing appeal against two-year term
ELITE cyclist Chris Jongewaard has lost an appeal to have his two-year jail term for hitting his training partner in a crash at Normanville in 2007 overturned.

Jongewaard, 30, of Para Hills, was found guilty of aggravated driving without due care.

He was also found guilty of leaving the scene of the February 2007 accident, which ended the career of his former training partner, Matthew Rex.
Links: Chris Jongewaard to stay in jail after losing appeal against two-year term | Adelaide Now | Cycling champion Chris Jongewaard jailed for nine months | Adelaide Now

Things like this will continue to happen as long as bicyclists are 'marginal' road users -- basically, not significant to the norm of a given society. And, as long as cyclists are marginal, their numbers will not increase.

Enforcement of existing law is, and has been, a joke. "Don't sweat the small stuff" is the order of the day. And being buzzed/clipped/run off the road, without crippling injury, is small stuff. APPARENTLY, so is vehicular homicide, though!

I wish I HAD an answer to this; 'no-excuse', zero-tolerance enforcement has its problems, but everyone has SOME sort of excuse for behaving badly anymore. I can't see jail time for most of these, unless there is some intent proven or the human trauma is life-threatening. But some other form of impact CAN be made to the careless....

Careless driving causing property damage? Lose the use of your car until restitution is made. Personal injury? Loss of license for the period of time of the injury. (And I know medical science can perfect some sort of treatment that would render the offender incapable of driving -- say, long-term eye dilation) Causing a death? Yeah, go room with Bubba at the graybar.

Get someone's ATTENTION, and they'll be careful about what they do. Someone may ask, "Yeah, but what if it's a family member of yours that does this?" My love for them has never proven to be immunity from being careless. Sometimes, you just have to step up and take what you've got coming.

dhk2 said:

From quick online research, I read that the UK doesn't have the same "Strict Liability" law that is in effect in Holland and most of the rest of Europe. The law says that in the event of a car/cycle or car/pedestrian accident, the car driver is at fault unless negligence on the part of the cyclist/ped contributed.

That runs afoul of the traditional American sense of fairness*, but it makes a lot of sense. Basically, by applying some forethought it places the greatest responsibility on those who hold the greatest capacity to do harm. I've often considered the outcry about cyclists' lax attitude regarding traffic laws (stop signs, etc.) and thought "why should bikes have to follow the laws designed to regulate motor vehicle traffic and protect motorists?" Simply treating bicycles like every other vehicle on the road is lazy law-making and fails to adequately protect cyclists or address the differences between vehicles (speed, maneuverability, stopping distances, visibility). I'd like to see some lawmakers have the wherewithal to pass laws which address differences instead of "treat them all the same and let natural selection work it out."

* IMO, the prevailing sense of fairness here in the US deals more with protecting people's rights foremost, and dealing with responsibility for the consequences if necessary. While I can understand that philosophy in principle, my observation is that it has created a sense of "best stay out of my way" entitlement. The bigger and louder the vehicles we drive here, the easier it is to intimidate and threaten those around us while remaining within our rights to operate them. If some else gets killed by accident then they must have gotten too close for their own good -- let them prove otherwise. 😠