Bicycling Accident Investigation

[webist]

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/16468940.htm

Sad. It seems that the investigation has concluded that an accident occurred without fault on anyone's part. The kid was riding for charity when killed. Such a shame.

[Dchiefransom]

It says there apparently needs to be malicious intent for any charges to be filed. This must mean that if the driver was just acting stupid, then he can't be charged.
A girl dies, witnesses give an account, and the state trooper's report runs counter to the witnesses.

[N_C]

It says there apparently needs to be malicious intent for any charges to be filed. This must mean that if the driver was just acting stupid, then he can't be charged.
A girl dies, witnesses give an account, and the state trooper's report runs counter to the witnesses.

Isn't it typical for the witnesses account to run couter with the law enforcements? ;) I thought you were in law enforcement at one time, don't you know this to be true?

[thdave]

It says there apparently needs to be malicious intent for any charges to be filed. This must mean that if the driver was just acting stupid, then he can't be charged.
A girl dies, witnesses give an account, and the state trooper's report runs counter to the witnesses.

In the context of the article, the issue is whether or not the driver was driving illegally, not stupid. I suspect he was and that's why the call for a re-investigation. What bothers me is that it leaves the impression that the driver was ok to do what he did. The solicitor's office has a civic responsibility to state that this driver's behavior and actions were negligent and caused this girl to die.

Even if the driver faces no charges, I think the family can still sue him for damages. He's clearly at fault, even if not criminally responsible.

[Golf XRay Tango]

I will never understand why police of all people don't see that if you can run over a cyclist who 'falls' as you're passing them, then you're passing too damn close.

[unkchunk]

I still tink the way to handle these things is to send them a "I Killed a Person" T-shirt to them on the anniversery of the day, every year for the rest of their lives. Also, put a "I Killed a Person" bumber sticker on their car. That way they will have to think about it at least once a year. Waiting around for politicians and the legal system to come up with answers is like waiting for...

I base this on a teenage drunk driving case like twenty years ago. As part of the sentence, the kid was required to write a check for $1.00 to the parents of the girl he killed on the the anniversery of the day. I think it was the second year that he didn't send the check in and so went to jail. How hard is it to write a check? Well evidently, it's pretty hard if you have to remember the name of the person you killed for one whole minute.

I think there are enough cyclists in the country that no matter where these killers go, that on that day a T-shirt or a bumper sticker will suddenly show up. No more than that. No threats, no destruction, no name calling, just a T-shirt and a bumper sticker on their car. And in time, when people learn that they will never be able to pretend it didn't happen, then this stuff will stop.

[Helmet Head]

I will never understand why police of all people don't see that if you can run over a cyclist who 'falls' as you're passing them, then you're passing too damn close.
The problem is that you can pass cyclists "too close" thousands of times with no ramifications. I once got buzzed by a police car in fact, while I was riding in a bike lane. Then, on the 5641st time, the cyclist falls unexpectedly.

What I don't understand is why they don't have any info on what the captain of the tandem - the older brother - has to say about it. I mean, if they got hit while upright, you'd think he'd say that, and that's what his parents would say, instead of just

Tom Giblin [the father] said he thinks the truck was simply too wide and that it brushed Rachel's shoulder as it passed, knocking the bike over and into its path.

If the truck hit the stoker on her left shoulder, then it would push the tandem away from the truck... no?

[Dchiefransom]

The problem is that you can pass cyclists "too close" thousands of times with no ramifications. I once got buzzed by a police car in fact, while I was riding in a bike lane. Then, on the 5641st time, the cyclist falls unexpectedly.

What I don't understand is why they don't have any info on what the captain of the tandem - the older brother - has to say about it. I mean, if they got hit while upright, you'd think he'd say that, and that's what his parents would say, instead of just

Tom Giblin [the father] said he thinks the truck was simply too wide and that it brushed Rachel's shoulder as it passed, knocking the bike over and into its path.

If the truck hit the stoker on her left shoulder, then it would push the tandem away from the truck... no?

If the truck hit her shoulder and pushed it forward, her body would lean left, and that would take their balance to the left. He was pulling a trailer, which might also have been wider than his pickup. There was another thread on here about a cyclist that was run over by a trailer on a circular offramp in Texas. The pickup missed her but the trailer hit her. If the truck in this case was big enough, passing too close could have sucked them into the truck.

[joejack951]

If the truck hit her shoulder and pushed it forward, her body would lean left, and that would take their balance to the left. He was pulling a trailer, which might also have been wider than his pickup. There was another thread on here about a cyclist that was run over by a trailer on a circular offramp in Texas. The pickup missed her but the trailer hit her. If the truck in this case was big enough, passing too close could have sucked them into the truck.

If the trailer brushed the captain, the bike would have leaned left assuming the brushed caused him to turn the handlebars to the right. Hitting the stoker would be the equivalent of push against the frame of the bike. The stoker has no steering control. Leaning right (after getting hit on the left) will cause a bike to turn right regardless of which direction the front wheel is turned. I would like to hear the captain's side of the story as well. It would be the most useful account of the story.

[edit] Just reread the quoted post and I see the Chief's point. [edit]

[divergence]

It seems that the investigation has concluded that an accident occurred without fault on anyone's part. An earlier Charlotte Observer article (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/16468940.htm) quotes an unnamed police investigator as saying "Whether the bicycle was out in the lane, or whether the truck was not yielding the right of the way to the bicycle, both of those are still in play."

If he/she meant that cyclists who are "out in the lane" are riding negligently, then the police have assigned this case to an investigator who is incompetent to handle it.

[The Human Car]

Out of curiosity does anyone know if there was a bike lane or adequate shoulder involved? That fact was not mentioned in the articles.

FWIW I found this to be the link to an earler artical:
http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/091706cckr-ad-TopTeenBikeDeath.1df37ba2.html

[gpsblake]

Human Car: There is no shoulders or bike lanes in most of South Carolina including that stretch.

Webist: That report didn't say it was a no fault accident, it only said that law enforcement decided there wasn't evidence to persue this as a criminal manner & a conviction would be impossible. Which probably is the correct call although most in here will emotionally disagree. If the driver was drunk, or drove off, it would be a different story.

However, I'm sure the driver of the truck will be sued successfully in civil court. More than likely an out of court settlement with his insurance company.