TandemGeek

Let me start off with a sincere question: Why is it in so many cases when someone accidentally kills another person with a firearm they're charged with just that, involuntary manslaughter / accidental death by discharge of a firearm... but similar charges aren't filed when a motorist fails to maintain control of their vehicle and kills pedestrians or cyclists? I'm not looking for rants or opinions, I'm looking for feedback from anyone who has first hand knowledge of the laws in their state or who has done research and understands the legal reasoning for the apparent inconsistency.

Is it just a legal 'gap'? Is it something that the LAB needs to introduce into the on-going distracted driver hearings / potential legislation so that the loved ones of pedestrians and cyclists who are needlessly run-down while doing nothing wrong are provided with accountability and justice? Moreover, I have always thought that laws also serve a deterrent purpose by making citizens aware that there are consequences for causing the death of a fellow citizen, whether intended or not.

-------------------

To the story: A horrible, horrible and seemingly needless loss made more so by absolving the driver of any wrong doing.

https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc.../63116092.html

Ajenkins

The last two paragraphs contain mutually exclusive statements. If he lost control, as the policeman said, it wasn't an accident. What a pantload. I hope the girl's guardian sues the motorist until he's bleeding from every orifice.

TRaffic Jammer

fuggin horrible, I can't imagine leaving my kids orphans. Christ, I'm NEVER EVER trying to the wife to ride with me now.
For Real, for civil suiting him to death. How do you lose control?....by not driving the way you are supposed to OR driving in some form of condition/state you are supposed to be. Too many instances of horrible driving get called accidents.

Paul Barnard

How TF do you lose control of a vehicle on an open 4 lane divided road. Seriously. Was he just driving along and all of the sudden he lost grasp of the fundamentals of manuevering his vehicle? Oh schidt my truck has started drifting to right, what do I do, what do I do?

10 Wheels

Texting on his cell phone.

TRaffic Jammer

Then it weren't an accident.

chipcom 

Guns are designed to kill people, guns are bad, killing with a gun is bad.

Cars are designed for transportation, cars are good, killing with a car is good.

Until people learn that a lethal weapon is a lethal weapon, no matter what it was designed for, nothing is going to change.

Digital_Cowboy

Because sadly, in the eye's of many we are "kooks" for riding bikes or walking where we want to go instead of climbing into a cage to get where we need/want to go. As well as seeing us as some sort of "second class" citizen. Also sadly for some reason unlike with firearms the police usually take the stand that "they have to see it" to enforce bicycling laws. Or laws that impact bicycle riders.

Digital_Cowboy

Sadly, yep.

5kdad

Gun owners are hated. Cyclist are annoying to drivers. Most everyone love automobiles.
There are powerful entities with the agenda to outlaw guns, and they'll use any opportunity to push their agenda and demonize gun-ownership.

The Human Car

Misuse of a gun falls under criminal law, misuse of a car falls under traffic law.

TandemGeek

You and Chipcom have probably hit the nail on the head at the most basic level.

Of course that leads me to wonder, what would happen if all of the various groups that purport to represent cyclists and pedestrians could adopt a single agenda item? An agenda item that focused on making sure law enforcement agencies and prosecutors apply the laws already on the books as they pertain to homicides where a vehicle became a weapon, whether intended or not. The latter, treating fatal collisions uniformly as homicides from the outset, is the only way that a proper investigation will be conducted to ensure files are charged against motorists who kill when it was clearly no fault of the cyclists or pedestrians.

Clearly, the laws already exist in various forms -- some specific to vehicular homicide, others under the more general negligent homicide -- but if the responding law enforcement officials simply dismiss fatal collisions where motorists have failed to yield or maintain control of their vehicles as 'accidents' there will never be uniform accountability and application of penalties to motorists who kill. Until that uniformity exists, there just won't be that forcing function that causes motorists to think about their vehicles the way sportsmen, law enforcement and military personnel think about their weapons. Yes, there will still be reckless drivers, but if the expectation is that if you kill a cyclist who was 'just riding along' you'll be heavily fined, have your right to drive suspended, and be either serve time if clearly negligent behavior was involved or through community service (perhaps speaking to driver ed students or participating in PSAs) to ensure justice is served for those to whom you did harm. Moreover, and unless I'm mistaken, when justice is served insurance claims and civil suits are given more credence and secure compensation with greater success and that too should serve as a deterrent to reckless behavior.

Bottom Line: Law enforcement needs to enforce laws, not take on the role of judge and jury at the accident scene by assuming the anguish, insurance and civil suits will serve justice to all involved.

Accidents DO happen, but when a vehicle leaves the road or fails to yield and there just are not any contributing factors that truly mitigate a motorist being held accountable for being fit to operate their vehicle and focusing their attention on the job of driving, a proper investigation should be conducted, charges filed and prosecution pursued. Yeah, yeah... the court systems are already too clogged with "real crimes". What a sad state of affairs.

BTW, I'm not an advocate of the "Kill a Biker, Go To Jail" movement that exists in the motorcycle community. It's too far over the top and perhaps the only purpose it serves is to raise awareness... well, maybe. In some cases it probably just convinces JQP and legislators who don't ride motorcycles that a lot of the folks who do aren't all that rationale.

TandemGeek

Not sure about that one, unless it's just defined that clearly in Maryland.

My novice understanding is that, unless a state has more narrowly defined criminally negligent homicide to the misdemeanor of vehicular homicide, I don't believe statues preclude the use of the more general negligent homicide.

Again, it's the nature of the act -- failing to maintain or control a vehicle in a safe and prudent manner -- that leads to the death of someone where the criminal offense comes into play. And, again, unless the law enforcement agency that responds to the scene of the collision treats a fatality as a homicide (i.e., DUI is involved since that's relatively easy to prove and has strong public support as being an unacceptable behavior) then the nature of the offense is a moot point. Again, as is also seen in many vehicle collisions, LEOs don't necessarily cite anyone for failure to yield, etc. when they should unless the 'victim' presses for it (So, are you going to write that guy a ticket for running into me?), it sure seems like many law enforcement agencies have adopted a posture that lets the insurance companies and parties involved sort it out in civil court.

njkayaker

Horrible story.

I think it's related to the essential purpose of the devices.

It's not just "pedestrians and cyclists" who are killed/injured as consequences of collisions that result from distracted driving. Distracted driving is negligence. It's strange that people do things that are distracting so routinely.

=========================

So, since somebody could drown in it, a pool is "leathal weapon"?

If he "lost control", it was not intentional. It if was intentional, it was not an "accident".

gcottay

I think your question is a good one.

Let's put John Smith behind the wheel of his well maintained car. He's driving at exactly the speed limit when a tire blows causing the vehicle to suddenly veer six feet to the right, hitting and killing a cyclist. Should the law impose a consequence on Mr. Smith?

Dchiefransom

People have to start paying attention, and be held accountable when they are not.

Dchiefransom

If the car is well maintained, then, no, it was an accident. What if Mr Smith had that happen, and the responding officer found extremely worn tires, with the underlying belts showing through? What if Mr Smith veered off the road onto the shoulder and killed a cyclist and nothing was found to be wrong with his car, and he had no health "episode"?
Three different scenarios, with the results of no charges being filed in either case, as we see from incidents throughout the country.

TandemGeek

My take, no consequence under the scenario you describe.

However, to reach that conclusion would require an investigation to verify the conditions you describe. Therefore, until such time as the forensic aspects of the investigation were completed it would be premature for authorities to make any statements regarding cause or liability.

quickshoe

Horrible situation for ALL involved. What if a seemingly healthy driver suffered a stroke? What if a seemingly healthy driver wasn't aware that he was narcoleptic? Diabetic?

If he/she was DUI or texting or on the cell phone, speeding, any of those types of distractions that could have led to the accident that's another story.

We have to give those who apply/enforce our laws some ability to make judgement calls. At this point Badillo is quoted as saying "he didn't think the driver would face charges" sounds to me like it isn't likely based on his knowledge of the laws and the circumstances, but not completely ruled out.

genec

https://azbikelaw.org/blog/was-that-a...nt-or-a-crash/

TandemGeek

See above regarding the investigative process, which hinges on the often times subjective judgement of authorities who have biases that may or may not be consistent with what the law provides.

Again, just this past Saturday a co-worker was killed riding his bicycle near Fort Worth and initial statements and assumptions about the driver's responsibility were driven by emotion and empathy, not forensics. However, in this case authorities to the best of my knowledge have still simply stated the fact that "No charges had been filed", pending completion of the still on-going investigation.

Now, in a related story that followed the initial report Texas' proposed 3' rule was mentioned, more specifically that Gov. Perry had veto'd the legislation. While I personally wouldn't mind seeing the 3' rule even in our own state, once again enforcement becomes the real issue. How will the 3' rule be applied when the motorist simply states the ubiquitous: 'didn't see them because.... sun in the eyes, came around a blind curve and they were in the middle of the road, etc." or "they just swerved right out in front of me for no reason"?

Regardless, the Bill Kennedy commentary is a good read: https://www.star-telegram.com/topstor...y/1645403.html

So, what do 'we' do? How do "we -- the cycling community" act and speak with a common voice to address a common problem instead of being splintered and divided by tribes with different agendas and methods that often times do more to alienate cyclists or move them to special facilities instead of making them safer on the roads we legally share with motorists?

njkayaker

I don't disagree with this.

A pillow then. Since nearly anything can be a "lethal weapon", calling "everything" a weapon means that "weapon" has no meaning!

The difference is that firing a rifle in such a manner is clearly negligent. What is "strict" attention? Do you pay "strict" attention in everything you do all the time? Are you sure that you'd never make a mistake?

=============================

These statements "Motor vehicle crashes and injuries are predictable, preventable events." and "predictable results of the laws of physics" assume that things are much simplier than they are really.

It's unlikely that absolutely all of them can be "prevented". Airplanes still crash for all sorts of complicated reasons that are hard to predict. People also do make mistakes.

Are all mistakes negligent?

https://www.howwedrive.com/
Tom Vanderbilt says similar stuff regarding the term "accident".

njkayaker

The difference between these two things is that, in the second set, there should be some consciousness (forethought) that such acts can lead to a collision. The culture had to be educated that drunk driving was negligent. It looks like it needs to be educated that "distracted driving" is negligent too (in a similar way). One problem with the "distracted driving" stuff is that it is often more ambiguous than a positive blood-alcohol-level test is. (Cellphone records might be as useful as a blood test is.)

Digital_Cowboy

What you said makes a lot of sense, but you did get one thing wrong. Driving is not a RIGHT, it's a PRIVILEGE, one that can be taken away at any time and should be done more then it is currently. Such as with the elderly whose mental facilities and reflexes are no longer up to the task of driving. Or someone who has had numerous traffic violations.

Although many, many American's do seem to think of driving as an inalienable right. And that nothing should interfere with it.

Digital_Cowboy

I think that is taking it too far. And sadly something similar to your line of thought happened down here in Fl several years ago. A mother petitioned the state and was the driving force to pass a law requiring some sort of safety device on all pools. Because her son had drowned in a pool. The irony of the situation is that SHE was watching her son and he drowned in the FAMILY pool. So because she was an irresponsible parent everyone in the state of Florida has to endure the added expense of adding some sort of safety equipment to their swimming pool, hot tub, etc. The only exceptions to the law is if your home is with x-feet of the bay/gulf/ocean/pound/lake/retention pound/drainage ditch, etc.