Fucking drivers!!!

[AdironRider]

not a slippery slope & it does not absolve smaller vehicles of responsibility to operate safely

it has everything to do with the level of potential damage ::: speed and mass

huge trucks
small trucks
passenger vehicles
motorbikes
scooters
bicycles
pedestrians
kids

we already have many precedents for level of potential danger

I get that you would prefer things be that way, but in the eyes of the law they are not. In the eyes of the law the cyclist and the driver are equals. (lets just exclude commercial vehicles and their separate regulations for the time being given they are a non-factor in this instance)

[::: :::]

Just because you don't need a license to ride a bike does not absolve you from risk, or the rules of the road.

absolutely correct

What does a body count have to do with anything?

a shitton

bikes don't kill with the same frequency




because of their mass and their potential speed and lack of personal protection (ie no safety cage)

[::: :::]

I get that you would prefer things be that way, but in the eyes of the law they are not.

No, that's actually incorrect on both points

In the eyes of the law the cyclist and the driver are equals.

That is not true. While some responsibilities do overlap, there are separate responsibilities as well.

(lets just exclude commercial vehicles and their separate regulations for the time being given they are a non-factor in this instance)

fine, but my point is not about this accident specifically, but about driving culture that is insensitive to the actual risk of driving

[jamal]

I didn't say a cyclist has zero responsibilities. But being negligent on a bike is usually only going to hurt yourself. Being negligent in a car can and does hurt other people, to the tune of almost 100 deaths a day in the US. That's the difference.

[californiagrown]

I didn't say a cyclist has zero responsibilities. But being negligent on a bike is usually only going to hurt yourself. Being negligent in a car can and does hurt other people, to the tune of almost 100 deaths a day in the US. That's the difference.

More actually. Youre underselling your point. I didn't believe your numbers so i googled it. Turns out there are over 40,000 automobile deaths in the USA annually. Holy shit!!!

[Danno]

I don't think anyone here thinks the driver isnt culpable or doesn't deserve punishment.

You're not reading the same posts I am.

I think you are sliding down a slippery slope by saying one road user has more responsibility than the other. That is exactly why lots of people hate cyclists for thinking the rules apply to thee and not to me so to speak.

You have two forms of transportation where there are inherent risks, including death, sharing a roadway, and outside of specific situations (like an Idaho stop sign) share the same responsibilities and rules to follow. People can die and no rules could be broken. In this case it appears she only broke a rule determined by society to result in a ticket currently.

That is not entirely true. For example, commercial vehicles have different licensing requirements than do autos, which have different licensing requirements than bikes. Precisely because we expect the operators of each to have different knowledge bases and act differently. But generally speaking, yes, they do follow the same basic traffic rules. And your last sentence here is not a given, it is precisely what we are discussing.

You never answered my question above about if the deceased had been a pedestrian. Is your position that regardless of who died and what their mode of transport was (walking, biking, broken down car on the shoulder), if we can't demonstrate that the driver was intoxicated or acting under a very precise set of recognized "distracted driving" conditions (ie texting or playing with her phone), she is not negligent or criminally liable?

Also, you are trying to add in punishment, as in she shouldn't be charged because she's suffered enough. Punishment is entirely separate. In fact, juries typically are not allowed to know what the punishment for a crime is before deliberating, because of the risk of prejudice, that they won't strictly evaluate the elements of a crime and instead will decide whether the defendant "deserves the punishment". She either is or is not guilty of a crime; prosecutors may have discretion to consider exigent circumstances when pursuing the case, and judges may have the same discretion when sentencing after a conviction. But neither has anything to do with whether she was criminally negligent, and whether that negligence led to someone's death.

I'm not calling for "blood", and think it's quite likely that she doesn't deserve jail time. But based on the facts I have seen, she should be charged with a crime.

[californiagrown]

You're not reading the same posts I am.




I'm not calling for "blood", and think it's quite likely that she doesn't deserve jail time. But based on the facts I have seen, she should be charged with a crime.

Im pretty sure the consensus (including Adiron.....) as posted in this thread a few different times is what you just typed above. Im reading the same posts you are, just not in the same way it sounds like.

[californiagrown]

And of course, if she was hammered or texting throw the damn book at her. She openly stopped, clearly felt massive guilt, got the authorities involved herself (way to go buddies that were there by the way).

If she wasn't hammered or texting I do not see how throwing her in jail and ruining another life, who probably also has kids and a husband, solves anything other than your need for vengeance.

Im pretty sure the consensus (including Adiron.....) as posted in this thread a few different times is what you just typed above. Im reading the same posts you are, just not in the same way it sounds like.

See above. Sounds like Adironrider is just advocating for not sending the driver to jail for a long time.

[AdironRider]

You're not reading the same posts I am.



That is not entirely true. For example, commercial vehicles have different licensing requirements than do autos, which have different licensing requirements than bikes. Precisely because we expect the operators of each to have different knowledge bases and act differently. But generally speaking, yes, they do follow the same basic traffic rules. And your last sentence here is not a given, it is precisely what we are discussing.

You never answered my question above about if the deceased had been a pedestrian. Is your position that regardless of who died and what their mode of transport was (walking, biking, broken down car on the shoulder), if we can't demonstrate that the driver was intoxicated or acting under a very precise set of recognized "distracted driving" conditions (ie texting or playing with her phone), she is not negligent or criminally liable?

Also, you are trying to add in punishment, as in she shouldn't be charged because she's suffered enough. Punishment is entirely separate. In fact, juries typically are not allowed to know what the punishment for a crime is before deliberating, because of the risk of prejudice, that they won't strictly evaluate the elements of a crime and instead will decide whether the defendant "deserves the punishment". She either is or is not guilty of a crime; prosecutors may have discretion to consider exigent circumstances when pursuing the case, and judges may have the same discretion when sentencing after a conviction. But neither has anything to do with whether she was criminally negligent, and whether that negligence led to someone's death.

I'm not calling for "blood", and think it's quite likely that she doesn't deserve jail time. But based on the facts I have seen, she should be charged with a crime.

Lets just ignore commercial vehicles for the time being as they don't apply here. There is and should be a different level there for a myriad of reasons.

I could be wrong, but a ticket does mean you committed a crime no? It just streamlines the process. Obviously there is more to it than that but for all intents and purposes that is the gist right?

If say it was a pedestrian, and again, she wasn't hammered or texting, I would feel the same way.

In terms of punishment, I don't think guilt should be enough, but I don't think manslaughter like others have argued is the right level. Like I said before, given the facts presented currently, it would be a failure to maintain lane ticket which society has deemed appropriate currently. Maybe that isn't enough, I don't know the fine structure down there but hopefully its more than 50 bucks.

[::: :::]

In terms of punishment, I don't think guilt should be enough, but I don't think manslaughter like others have argued is the right level. Like I said before, given the facts presented currently, it would be a failure to maintain lane ticket which society has deemed appropriate currently. Maybe that isn't enough, I don't know the fine structure down there but hopefully its more than 50 bucks.

IMV, a driver taking another's life is certainly guilty of more than just maintaining the lane


and, i'm not following this: "I don't think guilt should be enough"

[Danno]

The reality is that the outcome matters, the "harm" matters, in criminal trials. Not just intent. I go into a store to rob it and someone dies in the course of that robbery, I may be guilty of felony murder. Even if I didn't directly cause the death, don't have a gun, and didn't ever intend for anyone to get hurt. We have a crime of attempted murder that is different from murder. Our laws recognize that two identical acts may deserve different punishments based on the harm that directly results from those acts.

So maybe all she did was recklessly drive, or "fail to maintain a lane". If a cop was following a driver, saw them swerve into the shoulder and pulled the driver over (probably to check for intoxication), if the driver was sober that ticket might be all they get, if that. But the same actions, if it results in death, may deserve a different charge and punishment. That's how the law works, there's nothing odd about it.

[Dantheman]

I've been in the desert....

The lady is not acting like someone who isn't going to be mentally fucked forever. Some may prefer physical prison, but I'd wager she now is trapped in a mental one for life.

This is pure speculation. All we know is that she stopped and cooperated with police.

The idea that your own guilt is punishment enough if you kill someone through negligence blows my mind. I already said earlier that prison may not be appropriate in this case, but she should have a felony on her record, have her driver's license revoked, and pay some sort of serious penance to society (community service, etc.).

In this case it appears she only broke a rule determined by society to result in a ticket currently.

Bull. Shit.

Prosecutors have clear grounds to charge her with manslaughter but have chosen not to. If you hit and kill a cop on the shoulder issuing a ticket your ass is going to jail. If the driver were a thuggy-looking black or latino guy he'd be in jail. Nice white lady kills a faggy cyclist though and suddenly she's an equal victim.

[californiagrown]

Other drivers refusing to pass a bicyclist on a busy street when the rider is well within his 4' bike lane, and the 12' wide car lane is wide open. Some people shouldn't be allowed to drive a car if they have such a lack of spatial awareness. This happens too damn much and pisses everyone off including the cyclist who im sure isn't stoked that some Tesla SUV is riding their ass at 10mph on a 35mph street.

[BobbyBill]

Other drivers refusing to pass a bicyclist on a busy street when the rider is well within his 4' bike lane, and the 12' wide car lane is wide open. Some people shouldn't be allowed to drive a car if they have such a lack of spatial awareness. This happens too damn much and pisses everyone off including the cyclist who im sure isn't stoked that some Tesla SUV is riding their ass at 10mph on a 35mph street.

^^^^ this and drivers who, trying to be courteous, stop for bikes at intersections where the car has the right of way and they ( the driver stopping for the bike) would not ever stop to let a car go. Bikes on the road are vehicles and I expect to be treated like one. Even if you stop (wrongly) for a bike to cross, the guy going the other direction in his car might not and it causes a dangerous situation.

[Dantheman]

No DUI, no texting, stayed at the scene and cooperated with police, probably feels terrible about it. Thus, any shitty lawyer should be able to get the reckless homicide charges dismissed. Citation for failure to stop at a stop sign should be issued, though.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/children-s...ry?id=58848002

[Dee Hubbs]

I quickly scanned the thread to see if this was already posted. Sorry if its a repost.
This happened a while ago and driver was fined, but the owner of this video just recently released it.

[huckbucket]

I quickly scanned the thread to see if this was already posted. Sorry if its a repost.
This happened a while ago and driver was fined, but the owner of this video just recently released it.

Just fined? That's attempted murder all day long. Not kidding.

[Dee Hubbs]

Just fined? That's attempted murder all day long. Not kidding.

From what I read the fines and court case was all decided on verbal accounts. This video was not admitted as evidence, and has since been released.

[Dantheman]

Even with the video an attempted murder charge seems unlikely, because there's an adult on a bicycle involved. Randomly attack someone with a baseball bat who slowed you down on the sidewalk or getting through Costco and see if you walk away with a fine.

[Danno]

I wouldn't vote to convict for attempted murder based on that video.

[doebedoe]

I wouldn't vote to convict for attempted murder based on that video.

Because they may not have intended them to die?

How about assault with a deadly weapon?

[Danno]

Because they may not have intended them to die?

How about assault with a deadly weapon?

Assault with a deadly weapon, absolutely. I haven't researched the elements for attempted murder, but at that speed, doesn't look like he was trying to murder the cyclist, nor does death seem like a reasonable outcome of that collision.

I'm not defending the driver AT ALL, I'd readily convict for many offenses, just not attempted murder.

[Dantheman]

Assault with a deadly weapon, absolutely. I haven't researched the elements for attempted murder, but at that speed, doesn't look like he was trying to murder the cyclist, nor does death seem like a reasonable outcome of that collision.

Fair enough, though I'd argue that death is a reasonably probable outcome of that collision. Pure luck that it didn't end much worse. Good thing it was Oz and guns weren't involved....

[rideit]

Well, this should give the warm and fuzzies

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2018/12/...-the-business/

[doebedoe]

Does this go in the fuck the police thread, or fuck drivers thread?

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/07/...ing-red-light/

Or more fun reading on why it's not just drivers fault, but the legal instiutions that effectively mandate cars:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...s4CbVotJjsQ6xQ