It's Not a Bike Accident When a Car Hits a Rider

[Dantheman]

13 months to charge this guy who admitted to police that he "was looking down at his phone to change the music" and "did not even know what he hit until seeing the bicycle and victim's body on the side of the road," and had a BAC of 0.10% at 6:15 am.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50225386...rom-a-year-ago

[altasnob]

Takes time to analyze people's blood. Also, courts are all totally backlogged due to the pandemic so not surprised it took awhile for charging. I don't think it had anything to do with the fact victim was bicyclist.

[highangle]

RBLM!

[54-46]

RBLM!

All cyclists matter. What’s wrong with you, Man?

[JimmyCarter]

All cyclists matter. What’s wrong with you, Man?

Not recumbent riders

[Woodsy]

My father in law fell on his bike ( he does about 1000 miles a year) He is 75
Broke 5 Ribs, and his hip ( now surgically repaired) plus contusions & abrasions galore.
5 days in hospital, now in inpatient rehab.
Bike Accident.

"Hey honey, just gonna pop out for a ride..." is a lead turd in my house right now..

[54-46]

Not recumbent riders

I laughed….

[smartyiak]

My father in law fell on his bike ( he does about 1000 miles a year) He is 75
Broke 5 Ribs, and his hip ( now surgically repaired) plus contusions & abrasions galore.
5 days in hospital, now in inpatient rehab.
Bike Accident.

"Hey honey, just gonna pop out for a ride..." is a lead turd in my house right now..

About 5 weeks ago, I had a MASSIVE road crash (it's in another thread). Yesterday, I exchanged the kiddo with ex-wife and instead of "Hi" she greets me with, "So...I heard you went for a ride...how was that???" <judging eyes and glancing at kiddo>.

[Dantheman]

Two misdemeanors and $1,000 in fines for killing a pedestrian, without ever appearing in court: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=uxbndlbing

I don't think the fact that he's the state AG even mattered much in the sentence. Pretty standard sentence for killing someone with your car in America, sadly.

[altasnob]

No evidence of drugs or alcohol involved.

Curious, if a driver not under influence of drugs and alcohol, abiding by all traffic laws (not speeding, not repeatedly swerving out of their lane), ends up running over a pedestrian on a dark highway, what should their sentence be?

I do think the investigation in that case was botched by the police, mainly due to the fact a blood sample wasn't taken until the next day when (most) alcohol and drugs would have already dissipated from his blood. But that's on the cops.

[::: :::]

No evidence of drugs or alcohol involved.

Curious, if a driver not under influence of drugs and alcohol, abiding by all traffic laws (not speeding, not repeatedly swerving out of their lane), ends up running over a pedestrian on a dark highway, what should their sentence be?

I do think the investigation in that case was botched by the police, mainly due to the fact a blood sample wasn't taken until the next day when (most) alcohol and drugs would have already dissipated from his blood. But that's on the cops.

INAL
isn't that the definition of manslaughter?
the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.

[altasnob]

In Washington, manslaughter requires recklessness, or criminal negligence. Recklessness is driving like a maniac. Think exceptional speeding. Criminal negligence is failure to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation. Washington also has a lower charge of vehicular assault, which is disregard for the safety of others and causes substantial bodily harm to another.

So if someone is driving the speed limit straight down the road, and swerves briefly a single time just a few inches over the fog line, but, unlucky for them there happens to be a guy walking down the road at that exact spot, does that satisfy any of the above?

These types of cases are difficult to prove. Much easier if drugs and alcohol are involved. Traffic reconstruction experts can try to prove exceptional speed or swerving. They look at the skid marks and plug the measurements into algorithms. Could get a search warrant for the black box like they did for Tiger's recent accident.

I have a friend here who years ago killed two motorcyclist in a collision during a heavy rain storm up in the mountains. He hydroplaned and plowed them over with his car. No drugs or alcohol involved, fully cooperated with the police investigation. He got a $250 traffic ticket for that. And he is not an attorney general (school teacher).

The South Dakota AG will still likely be held liable in civil wrongful death suit. So he still will likely have to pay millions to the deceased family. The fact he plead guilty in a criminal court can be used as evidence he is in the wrong in the civil case.

[stradissimo]

In Washington, manslaughter requires recklessness, or criminal negligence. Recklessness is driving like a maniac. Think exceptional speeding. Criminal negligence is failure to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation. Washington also has a lower charge of vehicular assault, which is disregard for the safety of others and causes substantial bodily harm to another.

So if someone is driving the speed limit straight down the road, and swerves briefly a single time just a few inches over the fog line, but, unlucky for them there happens to be a guy walking down the road at that exact spot, does that satisfy any of the above?

These types of cases are difficult to prove. Much easier if drugs and alcohol are involved. Traffic reconstruction experts can try to prove exceptional speed or swerving. They look at the skid marks and plug the measurements into algorithms. Could get a search warrant for the black box like they did for Tiger's recent accident.

I have a friend here who years ago killed two motorcyclist in a collision during a heavy rain storm up in the mountains. He hydroplaned and plowed them over with his car. No drugs or alcohol involved, fully cooperated with the police investigation. He got a $250 traffic ticket for that. And he is not an attorney general (school teacher).

The South Dakota AG will still likely be held liable in civil wrongful death suit. So he still will likely have to pay millions to the deceased family. The fact he plead guilty in a criminal court can be used as evidence he is in the wrong in the civil case.

Did he leave the motorcyclists to die in the street, or stop?

[dunfree]

Two misdemeanors and $1,000 in fines for killing a pedestrian, without ever appearing in court: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=uxbndlbing

I don't think the fact that he's the state AG even mattered much in the sentence. Pretty standard sentence for killing someone with your car in America, sadly.

It’s South Dakota, not America. A shithole of trash running a tax shelter.

[John_B]

Did he leave the motorcyclists to die in the street, or stop?

Seriously. The AG hit the pedestrian so hard that the pedestrian’s glasses were found INSIDE the car of the AG.

[highangle]

In Washington, manslaughter requires recklessness, or criminal negligence. Recklessness is driving like a maniac. Think exceptional speeding. Criminal negligence is failure to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation. Washington also has a lower charge of vehicular assault, which is disregard for the safety of others and causes substantial bodily harm to another.

So if someone is driving the speed limit straight down the road, and swerves briefly a single time just a few inches over the fog line, but, unlucky for them there happens to be a guy walking down the road at that exact spot, does that satisfy any of the above?

These types of cases are difficult to prove. Much easier if drugs and alcohol are involved. Traffic reconstruction experts can try to prove exceptional speed or swerving. They look at the skid marks and plug the measurements into algorithms. Could get a search warrant for the black box like they did for Tiger's recent accident.

I have a friend here who years ago killed two motorcyclist in a collision during a heavy rain storm up in the mountains. He hydroplaned and plowed them over with his car. No drugs or alcohol involved, fully cooperated with the police investigation. He got a $250 traffic ticket for that. And he is not an attorney general (school teacher).

The South Dakota AG will still likely be held liable in civil wrongful death suit. So he still will likely have to pay millions to the deceased family. The fact he plead guilty in a criminal court can be used as evidence he is in the wrong in the civil case.

My stepdad was 18 and passed out drunk in the back seat when his sober girlfriend hit & killed a pedestrian in the tule fog. Stepdad's father [a newspaper editor] essentially supported the auld drunkie's impoverished family for years after the insurance paid out $1000 [1940s], and he sent Xmas presents until he died 10-11 years later.
Stepdad said his father never forgave him for it.

[Dantheman]

Curious, if a driver not under influence of drugs and alcohol, abiding by all traffic laws (not speeding, not repeatedly swerving out of their lane), ends up running over a pedestrian on a dark highway, what should their sentence be?

He plead to one count of operating a motor vehicle while using a mobile electronic device and one count of lane driving, so he was not abiding all traffic laws. If you drift out of the lane because you're using your phone while driving in the dark and kill a pedestrian on the shoulder (I don't believe for a second that Boever was walking in the middle of the traffic lane) you should, at a minimum, be charged with a felony. Yes, it might be hard to make those charges stick and you might walk, but you deserve to be charged with a felony regardless.

Even South Dakota's far-right governor is calling this a miscarriage of justice, FFS.

On a personal level, if you negligently kill someone with your car, basic human decency dictates that you show up to court in person and apologize to the victim's family. What a pathetic coward.

The fact he plead guilty in a criminal court can be used as evidence he is in the wrong in the civil case.

He plead no-contest. IANAL, but that's not the same as pleading guilty. I have no idea how that might affect a civil case.

[::: :::]

I would think there would be a line between the responsibilities of driving (failure to navigate the road responsibly/safely, ie negligence) vs acts of god/nature ("accident") that impacts the event [an accident being outside the purview of the responsibilities of driving]

I'm not aware of how the various jurisdictions define negligence, but i do know that a lot of deference has been given historically to the driver and negligence to date seems to be a high bar. These issues have gotten a lot of discussion here in biketown.

negligence can be quite pedestrian and still be deadly, given the mass & speed involved
distracted driving, ie spilling coffee or texting
is it reckless? not necessarily, but certainly negligent

criminally negligent is tough though
this is where the "i didn't mean to" defense does hold some weight, but perhaps shouldn't as much as it historically has
when a less protected road user (pedestrian, cyclist, cop making a stop) gets hit, the cost is astronomically high -- out of proportion to the level of distraction

[altasnob]

He plead to one count of operating a motor vehicle while using a mobile electronic device and one count of lane driving, so he was not abiding all traffic laws. If you drift out of the lane because you're using your phone while driving in the dark and kill a pedestrian on the shoulder (I don't believe for a second that Boever was walking in the middle of the traffic lane) you should, at a minimum, be charged with a felony. Yes, it might be hard to make those charges stick and you might walk, but you deserve to be charged with a felony regardless.

I don't know the specifics of the plea. Did he actually state he was using his phone and swerved outside his lane of travel at the time of impact? You can plead to a reduced charge even if you did not commit the charge. So just because he plead does not mean he actually did that without further details. But I would agree, if you are using your phone, swerved out of the lane, and struck someone, that should be enough to get vehicular assault to stick, at least in WA. I read that the evidence showed he was on his phone one minute prior to impact, but at the time of impact the phone was locked. It wasn't clear if he was talking on speaker, which is allowed here in WA.

Even South Dakota's far-right governor is calling this a miscarriage of justice, FFS.

She's just a politician gauging what she thinks the people want. It's easy for politicians to throw prosecutors making tough calls under the bus.

On a personal level, if you negligently kill someone with your car, basic human decency dictates that you show up to court in person and apologize to the victim's family.

In WA and most places, you have to be in court to plead to a criminal offense. But apparently SD law lets him skip the hearing.

He plead no-contest. IANAL, but that's not the same as pleading guilty. I have no idea how that might affect a civil case.

There is no way he is taking the civil case to trial. Burden of proof is much lower. He will settle, and it will be millions. He is ruined financially.

[altasnob]

Did he leave the motorcyclists to die in the street, or stop?

The SD AG did call the cops after the accident. He claimed he thought it was a deer. No matter how ridiculous it is, how do you disprove this without other additional evidence?

[altasnob]

I would think there would be a line between the responsibilities of driving (failure to navigate the road responsibly/safely, ie negligence) vs acts of god/nature ("accident") that impacts the event [an accident being outside the purview of the responsibilities of driving]

We all agree that you shouldn't be responsible for "acts of god" or true accidents. If I homeless man jumps in front of my car, I shouldn't be guilty.

In WA, there is different levels of negligence. My friend who killed the motorcyclist plead to the traffic infraction Negligent Driving 2nd. That says:

"driving your car in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property."

That only gets you a $250 fine. Contrast this with Manslaughter 2nd, which gets you a few years in prison, which requires:

"failure to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation."

And then there is vehicular assault, which also gets you prison, and requires:

"Disregard for the safety of others means an aggravated kind of negligence or carelessness, falling short of recklessness but constituting a more serious dereliction than ordinary negligence. Ordinary negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary care. Ordinary negligence is the doing of some act which a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances or the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would have done under the same or similar circumstances."

These laws aren't defined any further. You literally just throw all of this up in front of a jury and tell them to figure it out. So you can see how difficult it can be to classify a vehicle collision an infraction/misdemeanor/felony.

[dan_pdx]

The SD AG did call the cops after the accident. He claimed he thought it was a deer. No matter how ridiculous it is, how do you disprove this without other additional evidence?

The victim's glasses were inside his car...if he didn't see he hit a person, then he wasn't looking at the road at the moment of impact, right? So it's either hit and run or criminal negligence.

Also, I saw the statement in the article that he stopped looking at his phone before impact, but where did we get that information? Is that just his say-so?

[::: :::]

In Washington, manslaughter requires recklessness, or criminal negligence. Recklessness is driving like a maniac. Think exceptional speeding. Criminal negligence is failure to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.

So if someone is driving the speed limit straight down the road, and swerves briefly a single time just a few inches over the fog line, but, unlucky for them there happens to be a guy walking down the road at that exact spot, does that satisfy any of the above?

just going by your definition above, yes for criminal negligence

reasonable person's standard of care might be:
* "don't hit things while you are driving"
* "stay in your lane"
* "drive at a speed consistent with conditions to maintain control"
* "obey posted signage/signals/laws/etc"

i think the criminal part of the negligence is inherently tied to the result...ie, if no death, then no issue with the driving in your scenario
as opposed to recklessness, which could occur with or without a resulting death [altho, not "manslaughter" obviously]

[altasnob]

The victim's glasses were inside his car...if he didn't see he hit a person, then he wasn't looking at the road at the moment of impact, right? So it's either hit and run or criminal negligence.

Hit and run is leaving the scene of the accident and not calling the cops. He called the cops right after the accident. WA law says you should stay at the scene, but I couldn't imagine a prosecutor charging someone with hit and run when they called the cops immediately after the accident, even if they drove away from the scene. The point of the law is to not flee and try to get away with the crime.

Just because you are looking down at the moment of impact doesn't mean you have done anything wrong. Do we all keep our eyes on the road 100% of the time? I have no idea how part of the glasses got in the car. Was his window open? Did his window/windshield shatter?

Also, I saw the statement in the article that he stopped looking at his phone before impact, but where did we get that information? Is that just his say-so?

Prosecutors said Ravnsborg was on his phone roughly one minute before the crash, but phone records showed it was locked at the moment of impact. Ravnsborg told investigators that the last thing he remembered before impact was turning off the radio and looking down at the speedometer.

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/27/10316...a-deadly-crash

[dan_pdx]

Just because you are looking down at the moment of impact doesn't mean you have done anything wrong. Do we all keep our eyes on the road 100% of the time? I have no idea how part of the glasses got in the car. Was his window open? Did his window/windshield shatter?
https://www.npr.org/2021/08/27/10316...a-deadly-crash

Yeah, the glasses came in through the windshield while on the victim's face. From the released tapes of the police interview: "The agent told Ravnsborg that “the only way for them to get there is through the windshield...His face was in your windshield, Jason. Think about that.”

As far as whether I ever look away from the road, if I think I might be outrunning my visibility, then no, eyes on the road.

Article says "but phone records showed it was locked at the moment of impact." Seems reasonable, but how do we know the moment of impact?