# Penalties for negligent drivers who kill cyclists?



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

Don't want to muddy up a RIP thread, so maybe better to do separately.

What should the penalty be for a driver who negligently kills a cyclist, assuming the cyclist is obeying the law? Not talking about road rage, intentional, drunk, or something like that, but rather purely not being careful -- drifting over into the bike lane, running a stop sign, right hook, left cross, etc. 

I think it should be a felony, at least, and loss of license for life.


----------



## seeborough (Feb 3, 2004)

Fixed said:


> I think it should be a felony, at least, and loss of license for life.


Good call on the felony and the loss of license. The guy who ran over a buddy of mine and severely crippled him, was charged with driving left of center and got a $125.- fine.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

Well, until ads like these stop popping up on the right side of the page...

Drivers License Suspended
$99 Advanced Driver Improvement Class for suspended Drivers in FL

*
DUI Laws
Get Answers to Your Questions About DUI Laws. Free DUI Consultations

*
Suspended License?
Free Legal Info And Resources on Suspended License Law- FindLaw.com

*
Beat Your DUI Charge
Our DUI Lawyers Can Help Get Your Case Reviewed Now For Free

...one can assume that the penalties will remain minor.

Problem is, there are a ton of laws on the books but no one enforces them. Prosecutors would rather let folks plead out instead of taking them to trial.

They don't want to take the cases to trial because they see it as unwinnable- many people don't see what the big deal is with drunk driving or driving while seriously distracted and besides, what was that idiot on the bike doing on the road anyway? And he said he was sorry, isn't that enough?

For most people, it's more important to shave a minute off their commute (we're all guilty) than it is to drive safely. Hell, my car's got airbags, what's the worst that could happen? 

So rather than passing new laws, what we need to do is change attitudes. And it needs to start with learning that other people's lives are more valuable than your time. And if you can figure out an easy way to teach people that, you'll probably solve most of the world's problems.


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

At the very least it seems negligent drivers should lose their licences.

It's just too common these days to hear "I didn't see you/them," as if that makes it a no-fault situation. You're driving a car and don't "notice" cyclists/pedestrians/other cars? You shouldn't be driving.

I'm not sure how I feel about criminal charges. But with or without them we could do a lot more to combat reckless driving (Revoke licenses as above, ban cell phones and texting, etc.).


----------



## StageHand (Dec 27, 2002)

It seems to me, that most drivers would be clamoring for more stringent enforcement of misdemeanor and felony vehicular violations, and for higher punishments. If it were easier to lose your license, you'd be more careful, have fewer accidents, and premiums would stay down. If I get a car and get it insured, I'm paying for me and all the other idiots who don't insure their cars. I won't advocate for jail time for all felonies, but for repeat offenders, definitely. Automotive violations are routinely overlooked, to everyone's detriment.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

StageHand said:


> It seems to me, that most drivers would be clamoring for more stringent enforcement of misdemeanor and felony vehicular violations, and for higher punishments. If it were easier to lose your license, you'd be more careful, have fewer accidents, and premiums would stay down. If I get a car and get it insured, I'm paying for me and all the other idiots who don't insure their cars. I won't advocate for jail time for all felonies, but for repeat offenders, definitely. Automotive violations are routinely overlooked, to everyone's detriment.


Yeah, but are you willing to start driving the speed limit at all times?


----------



## strathconaman (Jul 3, 2003)

Up here in Ontario, in a bike-car collision the driver of the automobile is presumed negligent, and has the burden of disproving it. But negligence is part of civil law, and not part of criminal (or regulatory), which would result in a driver's licence suspension.

Now again, I can only speak about my jurisdiction, but most suspensions are an automatic consequence of a conviction, and a conviction includes a plea. So if a driver pleas guilty to a drunk driving charge (a criminal offence) there are automatic suspensions to his licence.

Now if the accident kills or injurs someone, and you want to charge the person for murder (or some sort of manslaughter, or assault with deadly weapon/aggrivated assault) then there is a much higher burden for the state (ie they have to prove more to get a guilty verdict).

For me, the most important issue is the civil consequences, because it is the civil consequences that will affect the cyclist and their family. For this purpose, negligence is much more important, and for negligence to be proven any sort of criminal or regulatory conviction is of great help. So where a motorist runs down a cyclist, and the cyclist's family is looking for compensation I would rather see a quick plea on "dangerous driving" and then a quick settlement on damages than a 4 year wait on a murder charge and similar wait on damages.

Of course we could cut off their hands and blind them. That would work too.


----------



## PdxMark (Feb 3, 2004)

We as a society first need to change how we think of cars and driving. We treat it as an almost inherent right and any adverse consequences from driving as being acceptable collateral damage that comes with the necessity of motorized mobility. Until MADD came along, even drink driving was almost an acceptable consequence. In the narrow area of impaired driving we now have some sense of proportion to the dangers involved. Outside that any negligent harm caused by a driver is almost acceptable.

Thinking back to criminal law class, it seems like there are very few areas in which mere negligence gives rise to criminal liability. If we could change our conception of driving to include the notion that it is an inherently dangerous activity (killing 30k people a year in the US), then I think we could apply a negligence standard to criminal consequences for harm to innocent road users.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

strathconaman said:


> Of course we could cut off their hands and blind them. That would work too.


Then you just end up with blind idiots behind the wheel...


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

It would be very difficult to pass legislation that puts more value on a cyclist's life than it does on the life of a motorist. Under most laws, both are considered equal participants in traffic on public roads.


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

Distracted and negligence should be treated the same as driving while impared. Cell phone use and texting while driving are illegal is some areas. Checking records for the time of the accident should be pretty easy to do. My closest calls are the drivers who fly up to a stop sign without looking until they are almost in the intersection. Usually the front of the car sticks out into the shoulder or bike lane so I have to make a last minute swerve into traffic. I have never the white stop line enforced. 

When I lived in South Carolina it was probably the worst place ever for traffic versus bikes. It only got better when the local police started doing bike patrols in neighborhoods. I was riding home one day and got to see two cops almost get T-boned by a car rolling a stop sign. They stopped the car and when I rode by all could say was "See?!!".


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*criminal negligence*



PdxMark said:


> Thinking back to criminal law class, it seems like there are very few areas in which mere negligence gives rise to criminal liability. If we could change our conception of driving to include the notion that it is an inherently dangerous activity (killing 30k people a year in the US), then I think we could apply a negligence standard to criminal consequences for harm to innocent road users.


I think we need to treat driving cars like handling guns. Mandate that you are taking control of a deadly weapon, and the failure to maintain control of it so as to avoid injuring someone is an affirmative duty. If you can't utilize the utmost care, then don't drive. Just think what the public what do if the attitude toward carelessly firing a rifle into a crowd and killing someone only got you a misdemeanor.


----------



## JoeDaddio (Sep 3, 2005)

Fixed said:


> I think we need to treat driving cars like handling guns. Mandate that you are taking control of a deadly weapon, and the failure to maintain control of it so as to avoid injuring someone is an affirmative duty. If you can't utilize the utmost care, then don't drive. Just think what the public what do if the attitude toward carelessly firing a rifle into a crowd and killing someone only got you a misdemeanor.



I think that makes sense. If you're legally carrying a loaded gun and you accidentally shoot and kill someone in the mini mart because you're not paying attention to what you're doing, what would the person be charged with? (sounds oddly familiar to a recent PO thread).


joe


----------



## JohnnyTooBad (Apr 5, 2004)

Criminal negligence and vehicular manslaughter. Then, civil suits.

Back when this was discussed, not too long ago, someone said something I agreed with: The problem is that everyone drives distracted once in a while, including the judges, cops, prosecutors, jury, etc. And the thought that goes through their head is "there but for the grace of God, go I". So they feel they are more likely to kill someone by their negligence than be killed doing something like biking or walking across a street, so they want to keep any potential penalties for their future negligence low. It's crazy, but I think this is what people are thinking, unconciously, deep down inside. It goes right along with this perception that driving is a right, not a priveledge. 

Maybe it fits in with the attitude of "wearing a skirt that short, she was just asking to be raped". They think bikers are just "asking for it" by riding on roads that they wrongly assume are only for cars.


----------



## JohnnyTooBad (Apr 5, 2004)

What would be great, but would never happen due to cost, is that bikes should be illegal on roads where there are bike paths, and there should be bike paths/lanes, separated by a curb, median, grass, etc, (al teast rumble strips) along every road with a speed limit above 25mph..


----------



## StageHand (Dec 27, 2002)

buck-50 said:


> Yeah, but are you willing to start driving the speed limit at all times?


Sure. I'm in no hurry. I'm not much over most of the time, anyway. (when I drive)


----------



## PdxMark (Feb 3, 2004)

*Cars are dangerous*



Fixed said:


> I think we need to treat driving cars like handling guns. Mandate that you are taking control of a deadly weapon, and the failure to maintain control of it so as to avoid injuring someone is an affirmative duty. If you can't utilize the utmost care, then don't drive. Just think what the public what do if the attitude toward carelessly firing a rifle into a crowd and killing someone only got you a misdemeanor.


In a recent local case in point, a guy in an apartment tossed/dropped his loaded handgun onto a chair, it discharged, bullet went through the wall and hit his sleeping neighbor in the shoulder. He's facing misdemeanor reckless endangering and felony 3rd degree assault.

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_010409_news_bizarre_apt_shooting.3a3cdda5.html

ORS 163.165 Assault In The Third Degree
ORS 163.195 Recklessly Endangering Another Person


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

Why? We have very stiff penalties for running down someone in a a crosswalk--- of course I don't live in the US.

I agree with Fixed. Around here, if there is any major accident, all drivers involved immediate surrender their drivers licenses pending the investigation (this usually takes a few days at most). They give blood samples, etc. to test for impairment. If a driver is negligent in an accident involving a death, it is highly likely he or she will do some prison time--- usually less than a month, pay "restitution" ordered by the court to the surviving family, and lose their license for a year or so. It costs thousands of dollars in classes to regain a license.

It could be said that they treat all drivers like they treat CDLs in the US---- professional drivers have all sorts of different standards when they are driving on the job--- different blood alcohol levels for impairment, etc.

Despite all of that, the media will never print the name of the offender.... no matter what they did--- 

We also have a zero tolerance for drinking and driving.




wim said:


> It would be very difficult to pass legislation that puts more value on a cyclist's life than it does on the life of a motorist. Under most laws, both are considered equal participants in traffic on public roads.


----------



## PaulRivers (Sep 11, 2006)

JoeDaddio said:


> I think that makes sense. If you're legally carrying a loaded gun and you accidentally shoot and kill someone in the mini mart because you're not paying attention to what you're doing, what would the person be charged with? (sounds oddly familiar to a recent PO thread).
> 
> joe


That's kind of an absurd comparison. Hitting someone/something with your car can happen as a result of a moment of inattention in the normal course of operating your car. You don't "accidentally" shoot someone with a loaded gun. You have to take it out, turn the safety off, point it, and pull the trigger. And it's not like driving a car where you already nearly to that point in normal operation - you don't need to point your gun at broccoli to buy it.

If you want a comparison to guns, a far more equal comparison would be a driver killing a biker (through negligence and no ill intent) compared to a soldier shooting another soldier in a friendly fire incident. What happens there?


----------



## JoeDaddio (Sep 3, 2005)

PaulRivers said:


> That's kind of an absurd comparison. Hitting someone/something with your car can happen as a result of a moment of inattention in the normal course of operating your car. You don't "accidentally" shoot someone with a loaded gun. You have to take it out, turn the safety off, point it, and pull the trigger. And it's not like driving a car where you already nearly to that point in normal operation - you don't need to point your gun at broccoli to buy it.
> 
> If you want a comparison to guns, a far more equal comparison would be a driver killing a biker (through negligence and no ill intent) compared to a soldier shooting another soldier in a friendly fire incident. What happens there?



What if the person forgot to put the safety on? What if they were reaching in to their pocket for their wallet, the gun wasn't properly holstered, and it fell out, went off, and shot someone? What about people in their home cleaning guns who shoot a friend/family member? They didn't take it out, take the safety off, aim it at their SO and fire it. They weren't properly handling it, they were being careless.

It's possible to shoot people by accident, without ill intent.


joe


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

JohnnyTooBad said:


> ...bikes should be illegal on roads where there are bike paths...


Huh? Have you tried riding many "bike paths?" You have to swerve around dozens of pedestrians, runners, and skaters, and every road you cross (i.e. every block) you lose the right of way. 

The day we are legally required to stay on bike paths is the day I quit riding a bike.


----------



## JoeDaddio (Sep 3, 2005)

JohnStonebarger said:


> Huh? Have you tried riding many "bike paths?" You have to swerve around dozens of pedestrians, runners, and skaters, and every road you cross (i.e. every block) you lose the right of way.
> 
> The day we are legally required to stay on bike paths is the day I quit riding a bike.



Serious. And here in So. Cal where the only real MUTs we have follow rivers, every ride would be boring as hell and there wouldn't be any mountains to climb. Not to mention they'd be overstuffed with riders.


joe


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

bigbill said:


> Distracted and negligence should be treated the same as driving while impared. Cell phone use and texting while driving are illegal is some areas.


+1...IMHO, this is the biggest issue we face today.....

It's frightening how many people text while driving....and despite what people believe, they suck at multi-tasking... You cannot use a cell phone, blackberry, etc and operate a vehicle safely.... 

Anyone that believes that is no different than a drunk/impaired driver- they are in denial


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

Back on topic... I think we make a strategic error by framing the conversation as being about running over bikers.

I think it has a better chance of selling if we talk about general road safety, the daily death toll on our streets and highways from all causes, including impaired / sleep deprived / distracted / unsafe driving, and for all victims, including other motorists, little babies in carseats, pedestrians, and cyclists.

Then it's "not about bikes"; it's about "safety and responsibility" 
And if a really good politico got hold of it, you might even be able to tie it to healthcare reform and insurance rates.


----------



## PomPilot (May 17, 2006)

PdxMark said:


> We as a society first need to change how we think of cars and driving. ...


Here, here.

When I was studying in Austria (was that really almost 30 years ago  ), one of my professors told us that it would cost his oldest son close to $1,500.00 US to get his driver's license. That was due in part to the mandatory driving lessons. Also, the student driver's vehicle had a prominently posted indicator (a 4-inch / 10-cm high, white L on a blue background) that the driver was still under "learner's" status, and subject to driving limitations. Additionally, there were restrictions on driving hours, etc that applied until the student driver had completed their probationary period.

Maybe we need to make it harder to get a driver's license than just going into the local DMV office, paying a $50.00 fee, and passing a couple of simple tests.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Creakyknees said:


> Back on topic... I think we make a strategic error by framing the conversation as being about running over bikers.
> 
> I think it has a better chance of selling if we talk about general road safety, the daily death toll on our streets and highways from all causes, including impaired / sleep deprived / distracted / unsafe driving, and for all victims, including other motorists, little babies in carseats, pedestrians, and cyclists.
> 
> ...


Agree completely. Wanting special treatment because you're riding a bicycle might get you just that—a ban on riding all roads designed for the use of motor vehicles. Most people in motor vehicles can (rightly or wrongly) make a believable claim for depending on their car and on use of the road for their and their family's income, education, health and recreation. All most of us can offer is 'recreation,' which in most localities plays as is a piss-poor argument for having unlimited use of a public road.


----------



## PaulRivers (Sep 11, 2006)

JoeDaddio said:


> What if the person forgot to put the safety on? What if they were reaching in to their pocket for their wallet, the gun wasn't properly holstered, and it fell out, went off, and shot someone? What about people in their home cleaning guns who shoot a friend/family member? They didn't take it out, take the safety off, aim it at their SO and fire it. They weren't properly handling it, they were being careless.
> 
> It's possible to shoot people by accident, without ill intent.
> 
> ...



Sorry, what I wrote and what I meant to write were a little different. What I meant to write was that for your people who aren't doing one of a few specific activities where they're regularly shooting a gun (soldier in a war zone, hunters, police officer in a gun battle) people don't "accidentally" shoot other people because of a *single* mistake. In your example above, the person made at least 3 different mistakes, at which point there's a line between an "accident" and a "dumbass" or "negligent idiot".

The difference between a gun and a car is that while they can both be dangerous, there's no need to wave around a loaded gun in an average person's daily life, while the average person does get in their car and drive on the road every day. My point was that if you're going to compare gun-crime to car-crime laws, a fair comparison for the person who's driving (who does it every day) would be to look at the laws for a person who's also pulling out their gun on a daily basis.


----------



## PdxMark (Feb 3, 2004)

PaulRivers said:


> Sorry, what I wrote and what I meant to write were a little different. What I meant to write was that for your people who aren't doing one of a few specific activities where they're regularly shooting a gun (soldier in a war zone, hunters, police officer in a gun battle) people don't "accidentally" shoot other people because of a *single* mistake. In your example above, the person made at least 3 different mistakes, at which point there's a line between an "accident" and a "dumbass" or "negligent idiot".


This is the rationale that makes 30,000 deaths a year an acceptable consequence of driving. Taking as an example the accident that triggered this thread, a cyclist who's lit-up like a X-mas tree being hit from behind and killed, I'd say the driver likely made more than just a single mistake. First, the driver very likely chose to do something that diverted his or her attention from driving. That would have been a conscious choice. Second, the driver failed to control his or her car while doing something that was distracting. That's two. 

The driver is no innocent victim of circumstance in this case.


----------



## PaulRivers (Sep 11, 2006)

You know, I wrote an entire eloquent post about this kind of topic a few months ago and bookmarked it, and now I can't find the link. Darn it.

While I am somewhat horrified that someone in a car hits someone on a bike, kills them, and by default maybe gets a fine, educating drivers is never going to eliminate biker deaths from cars.

Just look at what we already know on the roads - there's no advantage, in a car, to hitting another car. For your average person, it's expensive, life and injury threatening not to mention extremely inconvenient. Even if you're rich, that's not going to save you from a broken arm or the possibility of going to jail if someone thinks it's your fault.

And yet - cars still hit other cars all the time. Even though there's no advantage, and very big drawbacks, auto accidents and driver deaths from auto accidents happen every day.

So the idea that we'll ever be able to get all the drivers were more observant, courteous, and somehow then we won't have any car-bike accidents and deaths is not very realistic. You might, at best, make a noticeable change in the statistics, but as long as cars and bikers share the same road there will be bike/car accidents and deaths.

The only way to make a drastic change to this situation is to keep the cars and the bikes separate, on completely separate roadways. What we need is more dedicated bike roads - bike paths that are like the interstate for cars - while on the bike path you never intersect a road with cars on it unless you get off the path on an exit.

People talk about bike paths in amsterdam and drivers being far more courteous, etc etc, but a lot of the pictures I've seen from there also show "bike lanes" that are entire streets dedicated to bikes with physical barriers that separate them from car traffic. Even if it's just a concrete curb between the bike and car sections, it's waaaaaaaay better than the "3 foot strip" we often have here. Where cars and bikes share the road the road is often blocked off so that only bikes can go "through" for several streets, thus cars on these streets are low speed, low volume local traffic.

At least that's how it looks in the photos I've seen, and I love the idea of seeing more of that here.


----------



## comuter (Apr 6, 2007)

My opinion on the matter:
Assuming the driver is not impaired in any way (drugs, alcohol, phone distraction):
Also assuming the cyclist is obeying all laws and doing a good job of making his or her self visible:
-A driver hits but does not seriously hurt the cyclist:
1 year loss of driver’s license + full cost of medical and property damage + mental anguish around $1,000

-A driver hits and seriously injures a cyclist (broken bones serious recovery time) 
3 year loss of driver’s license + full cost of medical and property damage + mental anguish anywhere between $5,000 and $15,000

-A driver hits and permanently injures a cyclist (life long disability)
6 year loss of driver’s license + full cost of medical and property damage + mental anguish anywhere between $100,000 and $1,000,000.

-A driver hits and kills a cyclist 
10 year loss of driver’s license + payment to family of anywhere between $500,000 and $2,500,000

If the driver is caught driving on this suspended license then he / she immediately goes back and serves that amount of jail time in a federal pen. 

If the driver is impered in any way (drunk, drugged up, texting, surfing the internet on the phone) then I say they should be charged with murder straight up. 

I think this is about fair.


----------



## JoeDaddio (Sep 3, 2005)

PdxMark said:


> This is the rationale that makes 30,000 deaths a year an acceptable consequence of driving. Taking as an example the accident that triggered this thread, a cyclist who's lit-up like a X-mas tree being hit from behind and killed, I'd say the driver likely made more than just a single mistake. First, the driver very likely chose to do something that diverted his or her attention from driving. That would have been a conscious choice. Second, the driver failed to control his or her car while doing something that was distracting. That's two.
> 
> The driver is no innocent victim of circumstance in this case.



Exactly.

That most people use a car daily shouldn't be an excuse that they are allowed a particular amount of negligence while operating it. You're still responsible for yourself and your actions and inattentiveness. If you decide to text message while driving, you made the choice. If you take your eyes odd the road, you made a choice. If you drive with your knee you've made the choice. If the road makes a slight left turn and you didn't see it and smash into a person from behind and kill them, it was your negligent choices that made that happen.


joe


----------



## oarsman (Nov 6, 2005)

*No Clear Answer*

I am a prosecutor (and a cyclist, obviously) and have dealt with lots of traffic fatalities (none involving a cyclist, actually). The law in my jurisdiction (British Columbia), and that in most common-law jurisdictions (such as the US, UK, Australia) is sort of a continuum. At one end is "simple" negligence: like a momentary lack of attention. The results can be horrific, but there are no regulatory or criminal sanctions. These are dealt with by civil suits for damages. Then you have "regulatory" offences, like speeding, running a stop sign, unsafe turn. Penalties for these offences are usually fines, maybe driving suspensions, possibly even short jail sentences for repeat offenders.

After that there are criminal offences, like "dangerous" driving, impaired driving and criminal negligence (listed least to most serious). All of these offences require a certain amount of intentionally bad or even extremely bad driving. Think driving way above the speed limit or weaving in and out of traffic or complete recklessness, or of course driving drunk. In Canada you theoretically can get life in prison for criminal negligence causing death, although the highest I have ever seen is about 12 or 13 years for a first offence. 

When I hear people say that a drunk driver should be charged with murder, it sets my teeth on edge. Murder has a very specific definition: you must intend to kill someone. Indeed the whole basis for the criminal law in common-law jurisdictions is intention. As a general rule, you cannot be punished criminally without some degree of intent (this is different, by the way in many civil law jurisdictions, like most of Europe). 

Now, if a person intentionally uses his car as a weapon to kill someone, that person can be convicted of murder.

The real difficulty is where on the continuum certain behaviour fits. It is very difficult to convince a jury that someone should be convicted of criminal negligence, because he ran a stop sign. Not so hard if he is driving at 100 miles an hour in a stolen vehicle fleeing the police then crosses the centre-line killing two members of a family driving the other way.

Each case depends on its particular facts. Some things are horrible, tragic accidents. Others are criminal offences. As an aside, in the twenty years or so I have been practicing, I have noticed a tendency to charge drivers more often with criminal offences for behaviour that used to be considered "simple" negligence. Not sure why. Perhaps a slow realization of how dangerous driving can be.


----------



## MTT (Oct 14, 2005)

PdxMark said:


> We as a society first need to change how we think of cars and driving. We treat it as an almost inherent right and any adverse consequences from driving as being acceptable collateral damage that comes with the necessity of motorized mobility. Until MADD came along, even drink driving was almost an acceptable consequence. In the narrow area of impaired driving we now have some sense of proportion to the dangers involved. Outside that any negligent harm caused by a driver is almost acceptable.
> 
> Thinking back to criminal law class, it seems like there are very few areas in which mere negligence gives rise to criminal liability. If we could change our conception of driving to include the notion that it is an inherently dangerous activity (killing 30k people a year in the US), then I think we could apply a negligence standard to criminal consequences for harm to innocent road users.


Well put- I second that! MTT :cryin:


----------



## MTT (Oct 14, 2005)

JohnnyTooBad said:


> What would be great, but would never happen due to cost, is that bikes should be illegal on roads where there are bike paths, and there should be bike paths/lanes, separated by a curb, median, grass, etc, (al teast rumble strips) along every road with a speed limit above 25mph..


I was surprised to read a few months back that separate bike lanes are actually more dangerous than bike lanes next to traffic. Apparently when you approach an intersection in a bike lane drivers are used to bikes there and see you more often then if you are coming from a bike only trail. I heard they are changing some of the bike paths in Holland because of these studies. Of course out in the country the bike only lanes might be more safe; I think it depends on the specific situation/ intersections, so Johnny I don't think it is that simple.................MTT :mad2:


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

Felony. 

Driver's License suspended for a few years. 

Ordered to commute on a bicycle.


----------



## JohnnyTooBad (Apr 5, 2004)

Question.... Once in a while, on those stupid police video shows on tv, or on the news, you see (from the perspective of a police car's dash mounted camera) a cop car on the side of the road, with the cop writing someone a ticket, and an inattentive driver comes along and cleans them all out. Are those drivers that run over cops on the side of the road (with lights all flashing) let off with the same slap on the wrist?


----------



## BentChainring (Jun 23, 2005)

JohnnyTooBad said:


> Are those drivers that run over cops on the side of the road (with lights all flashing) let off with the same slap on the wrist?


I dont know the answer to your question. However, I will tell you that hitting a state of CA road worker, either construction, or urban forestry is basically like hitting a police officer. I dont know the penalties, Ill have to ask.

In illinois hitting a road worker comes with a max $10000 fine, and up to 14 years in jail.


----------



## BentChainring (Jun 23, 2005)

FYI

Penal Code

192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds:

(a) Voluntary—upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.

(b) Involuntary—in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle.

(c) Vehicular-

(1) Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 191.5, driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, and with gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, and with gross negligence.

(2) Driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, but without gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, but without gross negligence.

(3) Driving a vehicle in connection with a violation of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 550, where the vehicular collision or vehicular accident was knowingly caused for financial gain and proximately resulted in the death of any person. This provision shall not be construed to prevent prosecution of a defendant for the crime of murder.

This section shall not be construed as making any homicide in the driving of a vehicle punishable that is not a proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, or of the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner.

“Gross negligence,” as used in this section, shall not be construed as prohibiting or precluding a charge of murder under Section 188 upon facts exhibiting wantonness and a conscious disregard for life to support a finding of implied malice, or upon facts showing malice, consistent with the holding of the California Supreme Court in People v. Watson, 30 Cal. 3d 290.


----------



## BentChainring (Jun 23, 2005)

193. (a) Voluntary manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 3, 6, or 11 years.

(b) Involuntary manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

(c) Vehicular manslaughter is punishable as follows:

(1) A violation of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 192 is punishable either by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or six years.

(2) A violation of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 192 is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year.

(3) A violation of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 192 is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 4, 6, or 10 years.


----------



## Ultraviolence (Jul 20, 2008)

In my opinion, if you get in a car and you are drunk, you do intend to kill someone. The question is whether your intentions turn into real events, or if you get lucky and they don't.


----------

