[pct-l] Manslaughter Charge for Bicyclist

[Timothy Nye]

Geez, enough already.  There have been enough posts regarding the conflict which has finally been resolved in favor maintaining the integrity of the trail.  However:

My post about the manslaughter charge here in California was adding something different to the conversation; that even in the cradle of mountain biking, the Bay Area where it was first developed and is now tightly regulated, that bikes are treated as vehicles under the law. Hence, the charge of vehicular manslaughter. Also, of course, bicyclists are routinely ticketed for DUI in the state, often to their considerable surprise usually after exiting a bar.

To me, the article wasn't about an "idiot on the road". After all, roadways are spacious. Bicycling is legal and the bicyclist was, after all, riding on the street and not illegally riding on the sidewalk. This was obviously an unforeseen accident, albeit one with a particularly tragic outcome, apparently by someone not knowingly violating the rules of the road. Hence, the manslaughter charge.

Yet, the facts of the case do demonstrate that bicyclists who are reckless can in fact kill, even when riding legally in an otherwise bike and pedestrian friendly environment.  I think that it's obvious that the danger to pedestrians goes up exponentially on a sidewalk and again by an order of magnitude on the Trail.

Under those circumstances, that is a collision on trail given the known consequent likely increase in both the risk of the occurrence of a collision coupled with the likely  increase in the severity of harm, a graver charge than manslaughter could result. In cases where a death occurred, if the behavior of the cyclist was found grossly negligence a charge of second degree murder might be leveled; this criminal charge is seen sometimes in accidents caused by a drunk driver that results in a fatality.

In any event, if any harm to a hiker is found to have resulted from a violation of a law, here read bicyclist on the Trail, it is what's called negligence per se. Thus, once the violation of law is found the only question to be litigated is the nature and extent damages such as negligent infliction of emotional distress, actual physical injury and any resulting emotional harm, lost wages, medical treatment, etc.  

The usual rule of thumb is to take actual monetary damages and multiply them by three to arrive at the figure for specials.  With the high cost of medical treatment, even chiropractic, this is where some real financial pain can come in. Also, emotional distress and pain are pretty subjective so there's a pretty good amount of play there as well. Of course, in this instance, punitive damages could at least be contemplated, especially if a court felt like they really wanted to send a message.

Wow. I'm glad I've kept my license active.

I guess I'm just a hater. Have a nice ride!

Gourmet



Sent from my iPad

On Mar 11, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Dan Jacobs <youroldpaldan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Zorglub <azorglub at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Now, I assume that Gourmet posted this to further an anti bike agenda.  One cyclist behaving like an idiot on the road does not say anything about the other 99% of cyclists who will mountain bike respectfully on the PCT when it's legal (or may ride it today).
>> 
>> So petty...
> 
> Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle. Mr Kettle, I'd like you to meet Mr Pot. You
> both look the same, so I thought I'd introduce you.
> 
> Dan Jacobs
> Washougal
> -- 
> "Loud motorcycle stereos save lives."
> Motorcycle to hike, hike to motorcycle.
> Make a friend of pain and you'll never be alone.
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-L mailing list
> Pct-L at backcountry.net
> To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
> 
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
> All content is copyrighted by the respective authors. 
> Reproduction is prohibited without express permission.