JW Fas

In a rare occurrence a driver actually got serious consequences for killing a cyclist.


https://www.toledoblade.com/local/co...es/20221130091

Daniel4

"...with his vehicle last year while intoxicated. "

If it weren't for his DUI, he probably would not have been charged.

The only way a driver responsible for a collision would be charged is if:
1) Hit and Run; or
2) he's DUI; or
3) driving without a licence or with a suspended licence; or
4) already known or wanted by the police; or
5) the victim was in a car.

indyfabz

livedarklions

bs

Steve B.

No, this is pretty much correct. I live in a pretty congested area. On the rare occasion that a driver actually hangs around after killing a cyclist, the police statement is always a "vehicle impounded for a brake check" or something similar. Most cases locally are always a hit and run because there is no additional penalties added on to a leaving the scene of an accident with injury. There is NEVER and otherwise consequences for when there is no witness other than the drive who would usually use a "I didn't see him" excuse. The drivers NEVER get prosecuted unless there are additional circumstances as noted by Daniel. I see stories of countless motorcyclists killed or injured by drivers who make what is essentially an illegal left turn across the path of an oncoming bike. It's clearly a case of failure to yield right of way, yet the police do nothing. This is the attitude of the cops, if they didn't see an accident or there is no witness to an obvious illegal move by a motorist, they decline to follow up.

livedarklions

Look at his list and then reread your own post. Your list of things that going into charging decisions is completely different than his. I'm not saying that it's automatic that killing someone will automatically result in charges, I'm just sick of him posting this dumb incomplete list over and over.

Steve B.

His list is, IME, pretty much correct as to the reasons the police will charge a driver when they hit a cyclist.

livedarklions

As you note, witnesses make a big difference, but there's tons of things he isn't listing. Hell, he doesn't even note the possibility that someone is intentionally hitting people, not to mention speed, crosswalks, whether children were involved, general road rage or egregious things like wrong way driving. He just posted this same exact list in another thread right before the driver who was the subject of that thread was charged despite none of his factors being present.

​​​

jon c. 

It has little to do with bicycles. Drivers in fatal accidents are seldom charged beyond a traffic citation absent extenuating circumstances. It doesn't matter if it's a bicycle or a car on the receiving end.

Daniel4

From what I notice in news reports over the years, if the victim is in a car, the offending driver gets charged right away. But if the victim were a pedestrian or a cyclist, the driver is usually released: unless it's one of the other things listed like hit and run, DUI etc.

In the case of this thread, it's DUI.

jon c. 

What are they charged with?

Daniel4

For whatever that caused the death of the car occupants, like reckless, careless or dangerous driving.

jon c. 

You're asserting that these drivers are charged with crimes but you can't cite the crimes with which they are charged. Your contention fails for lack of evidence.

indyfabz

This is the Internets. You don’t need evidence or a basis for an assertion to sound like you know what you’re talking about to some folks.

livedarklions

What gets reported in the news is an absurd sampling method. You don't have the basic information to post the stuff you do as if it is fact.

And now you've backpedaled from charged at all to charged right away.

livedarklions

It's actually aggravating circumstances, not extenuating, but I totally agree with this. Daniel4 keeps posting this nonsense about charging criminally being more likely when the casualties are in other motor vehicles, and it's obviously based on nothing but the numbers of news stories he reads.

sean.hwy

That list is pretty damn accurate here in CA. Even hit and run you don't get in trouble if you can say you didn't know. Like side swiping a cyclist into a ditch. Of course you can't hit someone head on and smash your windshield and play dumb.


you can more less kill someone with your car and get away with a slap on the wrist as long as you where not under the influence and come some kind of story. foot slipped off the brake, i dropped my coffee made we swerve, saw a deer, rabbit, dog, whatever, etc....

Daniel4

All you need to do is read the article for what the driver is charged.


In the case of this thread, the driver was charged because of DUI.
"...with his vehicle last year while intoxicated. "

In another thread, the authorities are looking for the driver who is hit-and-run."..it was unclear whether the driver was aware of the incident, and that police are working to track down the driver."

https://cyclingtips.com/2022/11/davide-rebellin-killed-by-truck-driver-while-training/


And I can pull out another case that happened near Humboldt, Saskatchewan in which the driver was immediately arrested and charged with dangerous driving and that was because the victims were in a bus.

Daniel4

In Toronto, a driver was acquitted for killing a woman walking her dogs. She was a dog walker on the sidewalk. The driver was trying to grab a bottle of water that had rolled under his feet. Rather than stopping his car and temporarily inconveniencing any driver behind him ( there were none), he kept driving. He lost control of his car and it jumped the curb killing the woman.

In this case, a pedestrian's life is worth less than a bottle of water.

livedarklions

You're now asserting these are the rules for what now? Charging, immediate charging, or conviction? You're on your third iteration of what your categories are supposed to be defining.

sean.hwy

that seems to be the norm :/ it's wonder why anyone would use a gun/knife/poison to kill anyone when you can just run over them and say I was changing radio stations and didn't seem them.

homeless in ca.

Lyins is an incorrigible apologist for dangerous drivers.

livedarklions

Interesting aspect of the sentence--I wonder how many people would be more upset by this than going to prison for at least 8 years:

"Urbanski’s driver’s license was also suspended for life, and he is forbidden from purchasing or owning a vehicle."

Honestly, I think the states would get a bigger deterrent effect bang for the buck by making this the penalty for a wider range of things than they would throwing someone in prison once in a while. After all, taking away someone's driving privileges permanently doesn't really cost the state much of anything while imprisoning them is very expensive.

Mind you, I am very happy this particular person is going away for a long time. I just think it's a particular American delusion that you can actually imprison enough people to make a real safety difference.