Kill a Trooper - No ticket!!!

[OnceFast]

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/funeral_arrangements_set_for_t.html

Another terrible story. Condolences to the family. Can someone smarter than me explain how you can run over someone not in your lane of traffic and NOT get a ticket????? Unbelievable.

[GregL]

This accident has hit our local cycling community very hard. The trooper was well respected as a very kind human being. I do not know him, but I have met his son who is a very strong junior racer.

While no tickets have been issued yet, I believe that is because the investigation is still being conducted. According to local media, the investigators are looking into such things as cell phone records as well as the usual sobriety and vehicle speed issues. I think it is admirable that the troopers are being thorough instead of rushing to judgment over one of their own.

Regards
Greg

[JeffS]

While no tickets have been issued yet, I believe that is because the investigation is still being conducted. According to local media, the investigators are looking into such things as cell phone records as well as the usual sobriety and vehicle speed issues. I think it is admirable that the troopers are being thorough instead of rushing to judgment over one of their own.

Regards
Greg


So we have to have a "reason" to charge someone now?

Sorry, but someone who can't execute a pass on a cyclist without running off the road is clearly at fault in my mind. It's not an "accident". I don't care if he hit a cyclist, another car, or a dog standing on the side of the road. There should be serious penalties for Brewer, and everyone else who can't control their weapons.

[GregL]

Yes, you do need a reason to charge someone. I think that's called the law and it's defined in our constitution.

As I said in my earlier post, the investigation is ongoing. Once it's complete, I am hopeful and confident that the driver will face appropriate charges. We just don't know what those charges will be (e.g., failure to yield the right-of-way, reckless driving, vehicular manslaughter, etc...). This terrible tragedy has very deeply affected the local cycling community. To my surprise, there has been no call for vengence, but rather an outpouring of great memories of the victim and a call for more education both for motorists and cyclists. Hopefully, some good will come of this horrible loss.

Regards,
Greg

[39cross]

Interesting set of comments attached to the original article. Whenever I see one of these accidents I think but for the grace of God that could be me, or any of my bicycling friends. This is not right. As one of the commentators points out, homicides by drunk driving were treated lightly for a long time, but that attitudes have changed. That has to happen with cycling accidents as well. There seems to be a perception among some drivers that the cyclist somehow "deserves it" for slowing down traffic or somehow being an obstruction. It would be a pain in the neck - but drivers should have to be retested, maybe every ten years or so, to remind them (us!) of the rules and obligations of the road.

[bzbvh5]

I'm interested to see what the final verdict will be; knowing that the person killed is a cop. I'm tired of reading stories where cyclists get killed and the penalty for not stopping at a stop sign is more severe.

The best lack of justice is a law professor here in Dallas was just trying to "push the slow cyclists out of the way with her car". At least that's what was said at the trial. The cyclist wasn't killed but the bike was destroyed. This was on a road that many (several thousand per week) cyclists ride ever day. The professor got probation. I'm sure the professor got the same professional courtesy from the judge as police officers give each other for speeding tickets.

[allegretto]

Interesting set of comments attached to the original article. Whenever I see one of these accidents I think but for the grace of God that could be me, or any of my bicycling friends. This is not right. As one of the commentators points out, homicides by drunk driving were treated lightly for a long time, but that attitudes have changed. That has to happen with cycling accidents as well. There seems to be a perception among some drivers that the cyclist somehow "deserves it" for slowing down traffic or somehow being an obstruction. It would be a pain in the neck - but drivers should have to be retested, maybe every ten years or so, to remind them (us!) of the rules and obligations of the road.

the laws are not nearly harsh enough yet. and judges are still reluctant to "throw the book" at these homicidal maniacs (yes, that's what they are. no excuses, everyone knows what can and does, every day from DUI's)

[GregL]

Sadly, most citizens regard driving as a right, not a privilege. I would love to see regular retesting of drivers, but it will never happen. The DMV system simply could not handle the load and the driving public would be in uproar.

I wholeheartedly concur with the idea that we need to better educate motorists and change general thinking patterns regarding cyclists' rights. Two local cyclists put together a bumper sticker in response to this tragedy. They are selling them for about $1 each to recoup their expenses. The board of directors of a local cycling club may order more to keep them on hand and get wider distribution.

Regards,
Greg

[Vancouverdave]

The assailant might want to move to another state--his ass is probably marked for life by all law enforcement in the area. Wouldn't break my heart if the guy ended up getting the Rodney King treatment.

[torquer]

I read about this on another forum, and given that a number of forumites live in the area, am not surprised to see it brought up here.

As an occasional visitor to the Finger Lakes region (my work takes me upstate regularly, and I try to pack my bike), I am familiar with US Route 20 and plan my riding to avoid it; it's probably marked for 50 or 55 mph, which means the traffic (a mix of semis avoiding tolls on the nearby Thruway, farm pick-ups plus your usual deadly assortment of distracted appliance pilots) blasts through at 60 plus. You will feel an 18-wheeler going by at those speeds no matter how wide the shoulder.

Not to blame the victim, to be sure. He was obviously familiar with the conditions, and I could see the appeal of that stretch for someone doing a pre-work ride. I probably ride equally dangerous stretches closer to home without a second thought. The tragedy of his death should remind all of us, then, by how slender a thread we sometimes make it through our days.

[Steevo]

Any info on how to purchase those bumper stickers would be appreciated. I'd surely display one on my car, and I know others who would also.

[Dekonick]

It is good that the driver hasn't been charged - if an improper charge is filed, they can either get away with murder or just a tiny penalty. I know a case where a drunk (repeat offender) hit and killed a motorcyclist who was sitting at a red light. It was a CLEAR case of DWI and manslaughter. An officer charged the drunk lady with failure to stop or some such... and before the traffic division (the guys who investigate and charge for serious violations) had a chance to do anything, the scum driver's attorney had rushed to the courthouse the next morning and paid the ticket in full - resulting in a few points on the driver's record. TRAFFIC COULDN'T THEN CHARGE HER AGAIN - DOUBLE JEOPARDY LAW!!!

She got away with murder and DWI.

The authorities are doing the right thing in this case. Sucks a cyclist died.

[JeffS]

Yes, you do need a reason to charge someone. I think that's called the law and it's defined in our constitution.

Regards,
Greg


You knew you were taking the comment out of context when you wrote the reply right?

You need to check cell records? really? The guy ran his car off the road, came back on and killed someone. Murder's bad if you're on the phone while doing it... but ok if you just suck at driving. :rolleyes:

The hopeful always come out and pat everyone on the back when investigations are ongoing... as if that means anything. They know all they will possibly know about this incident at this point. Now, they're just trying to decide how they want to interpret the laws today, who his family is, does he know anyone important, is it an election year, etc...

Typically, they're just waiting for the press to die down before slapping his hand and sending him on his way.

[gdw]

The State Police are very good at this kind of investigation and aren't going to let the driver walk if he committed a crime. Just for your knowledge, accident investigation and reconstruction often takes more than a day or two when it involves a fatality.

[GregL]

The State Police are very good at this kind of investigation and aren't going to let the driver walk if he committed a crime. Just for your knowledge, accident investigation and reconstruction often takes more than a day or two when it involves a fatality.

Very well said! As much as everyone wants a quick response, these investigations take time. Sometimes it is simply bad driving, sometimes it is something else (blown tire, oil spill on road, deer crossing road, etc...). As soon as more info is publicized, I'll post a link.

Regards,
Greg

[BumbleBeeDave]

As soon as more info is publicized, I'll post a link.

. . . because in my NY state journalism experience JeffS and GDW are both correct. The NY state police can indeed be very thorough and cover all the details--when they want to. They can also do all the things that JeffS implies. I've seen both happen. In this case I would bet that they will conduct a very thorough investigation and then charge the driver with as many things as they can because he killed one of their own. He'll get off on this one only if he knows somebody in a VERY high place.

BBD

[OnceFast]

It took a while, but finally a sensible answer to by my question. Thanks for the reply, DekoNick. I hope you're right.

[Lifelover]

It is very possible to hit and kill someone and never be issued a ticket. We went through this very recently in Virginia Beach.

Bottom line is that a crime as defined by law has to have been committed.

I wish I still had the email that summarized the State Attorney's position but I will try to summarize it as best I can.

It boils down to intent and/or neglect.

Since Motorist are legally allowed to pass cyclist within the same lane, unless there is proof of negligence or intent, you may not be able to charge the driver. The key is weather or not the driver gives any indication of EVER seeing the cyclist. If the driver claims to have never seen the cyclist and there is no other proof to the contrary, it is conceivable that the cyclist veered into the car as the car was legally passing him.

In the case here in Va Beach the driver was heading due east into the rising sun on a 45 MPH, 4 lane road at around 5:30-6:00 AM. The driver struck and killed an experienced cyclist with blinkies. There were no witnesses to the collision. The only witness on scene after the hit verified that the driver was completely perplexed as to what happened and did not even see the cyclist until after getting out and inspecting her vehicle. The police checked cell phone records and verified she was not talking or texting and also test her for alcohol. Since she claims to have never seen him and there is no indication to prove otherwise, there is nothing she could legally be CONVICTED of.

"Convicted" is the key. Local cyclist are outraged and insist that she be charged even if it can be held up in court. They feel that not charging her makes a statement that it is OK to hit cyclist.

While it is not a very popular opinion amongst my peers, I fully agree with the State's position. It is not the State attorneys job to make statements. If they know that they can not convict than they should not charge.


Fine Print
This is all applicable to Virginia Law and to the case we had recently. Not the case the OP is talking about.

[gdw]

Excellent post. Too often on bike forums we see people taking sides without any real knowledge of what actually occurred.

[Ozz]

...The key is weather or not the driver gives any indication of EVER seeing the cyclist....
Seems to me, the responsibility of driving comes with being able to SEE what is in front of you....NOT SEEING should not be an excuse.

The driver should at least be able to say they saw the cyclist, was passing legally and the cyclist swerved in front of their car.....if you can't see what is in front of you....your best choice is to put the car in PARK.

This may not be the law....but seems like a pretty big loophole for drivers.

[Lifelover]

.....but seems like a pretty big loophole for drivers.


No question it's a big loop hole.

However, another aspect of law that seems to be over looked by the gp is that in regards to charging and convicting, the law is should not be "outcome" based. Weather a rider is barely shaken up or killed, the enforcement of the law should be blind. Normally the loop holes serve the common good. In some cases it's not so clear.