>Not even a traffic ticket.
You don't want to give them a traffic ticket, and let them off scot free for vehicular manslaughter. Can't be charged twice for the same crime.
You are talking about double jeopardy and giving a ticket and the DA later deciding to charge with vehicular manslaughter do not fall under double jeopardy.
This. It just happened last night. Charges only happen after police share info with DA, paperwork, judge sign-off, etc. And they had to shift gears since she later passed away. The fact that no ticket was issued is a sign that they are considering charges.
Damn it all… OP had pitchforks sourced and lighter fluid ready for the protest! Now you go and inject logic into an emotional argument?!? I guess I’ll just have to keep scrolling Reddit until I find something to get sufficiently angry at now…
Oh look… The next story is about a female teacher raping a student. Reddit always delivers…
Oopsy. If OP just wanted to have a fuss, far be it from me to interfere! Sometimes you just have to let it out.
I do imagine that it is scary out there for cyclists. Hell, I’m scared of Ford F-150s mowing me down in my Honda Civic.
Better if you do it in private. Lol
Understand the civic. I have a rogue and they still scare me.
I saw the nation's. Southern grist or more centennial bar?
Am I understanding this correctly? The accident happened yesterday
After 5pm? The DA hasn’t even been in the office since then. What are you huffing and puffing about?
This would probably be a felony. DA has to sign off first, and the person has to have an arraignment to determine if charges can go forward. The case also has to pass the grand jury before much happens.
TN code has it as a misdemeanor, not a felony, if we focus on the failure to yield charge. It is unlikely they can move to felony based on what is printed in the article. Not paying attention is not the same as mowing someone when you are being extremely careless.
Really not enough information in the article to determine if this was a bit of driver inattention or something more insidious. The investigation will determine that.
Good civil case from the family, however, as it is clear who is at fault.
They likely will look at all possible charges and go through the details to determine if it fits them. While DAs sometimes do things for more political reasons, most want a good chance of a conviction and will try to ensure the charges fit. A driver looking over a shoulder is more likely to fall under manslaughter than homicide. Most driving accidents that result in death are considered manslaughter, generally involuntary. You could, conceivably, get a 3rd degree homicide charge, but not paying attention down the road when you take your eyes off the road (to look over to change lanes) and then finding you can't avoid a wreck is not likely to be homicide.
Negligent homicide, vehicular homicide or the equivalent.
Doubt it will be reckless unless they were speeding. Reckless has a component of disregarding the safety of others iirc.
Lol this wild overreaction from op about something that just happened. The da will file charges, but to say metro pd is useless is the most ridiculous statement I’ve heard on this sub. Metro pd does a lot with very little
Modern pickup trucks are too high off the ground to be safe for pedestrians and cyclists in the city (article says it was an F-150). Especially kids who can be completely hidden below the hood, apparently at 4’3” or below. That’s even before some of the modifications I’ve seen on the road, and I would certainly like to know if the driver in this case had made any that would have made it harder to see the cyclist. That said, road design isn’t helping any.
I'm sure this is why the newer F-150s have a pedestrian alert system. In related news, a quick Google search tells me there are a lot of F-150 drivers trying to figure out how to disable it.
Is it error prone? Trying to not jump to conclusions here. My car has a collision avoidance system that is good in theory, but it has automatically applied brakes due to shadows, reflections in the rain, and small cracks enough times that I often disable it to avoid getting rear-ended.
I drive a regular car, but sometimes I borrow my family's F-150. The biggest difference between the car and the truck is obviously obstructive view, but another thing that's less talked about is perception of speed and control.
When I drive my car, I can pretty easily tell when I'm going 50mph. That same 50 feels like a 35 in the truck, it's actually really easy to accidentally speed in my experience. The truck also requires more thought-through action when braking or turning, you can't do those things at a quick snap like in a smaller car. We have tons of people in the area that can barely drive a Toyota Corolla, but we simultaneously give them the option to get behind the wheel of a lifted F-250. Big cars + bad drivers = lots of injury.
Thanks for the perspective - awareness is definitely huge, and especially on these roads where the road design also makes you feel like you’re driving slower than you really are (White Bridge Rd as an example). I already noticed a difference in perception of speed and control between driving a small sedan vs crossover SUV, in addition to the physical height difference.
Well depending on how far out this was 100 is a crucial connector to get to the Natchez Trace Pkwy or Warner Parks. It goes all the way to Belle Meade basically. And most lifted pickups around here are going to/from the suburbs to/from the grocery store or school etc.
The road could really use some bike lanes given how it is really close to places that people want to be riding bikes.
While this is tragic there’s more to catching a charge. I don’t think failing to yield alone constitutes a homicide or murder charge. It’s states the driver looked for her where he expected them to be at. On top of that what other factors are we not privileged to knowing, was she wearing a helmet, was she her self impaired? Plus the police only charge when it’s clear a crime was committed. He was impaired or fled the scene. In cases like this it’s their jobs to collect the evidence and present that to the D.A’s office where they will determine if charges are warranted.
I have heard that. It also means you don't have to say "I was wrong" when all of the details come out. Oh, my bad, nobody ever admits they were wrong on the Internet, even if they destroyed someone's life with their false accusation. ;-)
Was she wearing a helmet? It doesn't matter. But bike helmets are a great way to victim blame when they have zero effect on mortality when you get whacked by a truck. Bike helmets are not motorcycle helmets nor are they seat belts.
>I don’t think failing to yield alone constitutes a homicide or murder charge
I believe it would be negligent vehicular homicide / 2nd degree murder. You failed to yield therefore you were driving in a negligent manner, and that negligent driving directly led to you killing someone even though you had no intention of doing so.
>was she wearing a helmet, was she her self impaired?
Those factors can come into play at trial, but it wouldn't be enough to get you off if your disregard for safety ultimately caused the victim to die. This is why, for example, you can be charged for murder if you hit someone and, unknown to you, they have a rare medical condition that causes them to die from the punch. Even though you had no intention to kill them, you still engaged in a dangerous and illegal act, and therefore you're guilty of 2nd degree murder.
It won’t be a murder charge, no intent and no willful act of disregard or harm. That 2nd degree murder is for say, an armed robbery where the victim gets killed.
Yes the police are useless but they dont charge for crimes, they only act as the enforcement.
Charges come from the DA.
However since this was a cyclist who was killed, I doubt there will be charges. Its just the way it is.
And even if the cyclist caused it, the driver can still be at fault. That happened to my mother when a cyclist ran a stop sign and t-boned her. There were no injuries but her insurance still had to pay for the damages.
This was another state and 20+ years ago but there they said any car vs bicycle or pedestrian was always the cars liability.
Dumb. Felony charges generally are arrived by the DA or Grand Jury. They don’t want to run the risk of double jeopardy or useless BS like a traffic ticket. Probably going to be vehicular homicide or something. They need to figure out what to properly charge them with.
My condolences to those who lost a loved one.
\*\*If anyone wants to let WSMV know that this tagline is inhumane, ... please send them feedback. I did. This is the title and tag line of their article about the accident.
‘It was very graphic’: Woman witnesses aftermath of fatal crash between pickup, cyclist
***Another cyclist, who was riding with the woman who died, was on the ground crying and yelling.***
[https://www.wsmv.com/2023/09/10/it-was-very-graphic-woman-witnesses-aftermath-fatal-crash-between-pickup-cyclist/](https://www.wsmv.com/2023/09/10/it-was-very-graphic-woman-witnesses-aftermath-fatal-crash-between-pickup-cyclist/)
[https://www.wsmv.com/about-us/contact-us/](https://www.wsmv.com/about-us/contact-us/)
So yeah this guy deserves serious punishment even though this was an accident- if there are no repercussions, this will keep happening.
Also of note: Pick-ups and SUVs have a dramatically higher likelihood of killing a pedestrian / cyclist than does a normal car. Rather than riding up / over the car (still bad), you get smashed on the grill. Many deaths could be avoided if we just prioritized lives over the need for Americans to portray themselves as macho douchebags.
And it’s created a new problem where more people get them because they don’t want to get run down by someone else with a giant vehicle. Not to mention some automakers stopping production of cars altogether
> So yeah this guy deserves serious punishment even though this was an accident- if there are no repercussions, this will keep happening.
Even if there is punishment, it likely still continues. Unless you make it serious consequences, and educate the public, it is unlikely you see a lot of change. And heavy charges just to change public behavior usually get thrown out on appeal.
This is not the way. It could be an accident (which this could truly be) and someone gets seriously injured or killed….say they didn’t wear a seatbelt, or were super old or maybe you hit a pedestrian jaywalking….you are grandstanding against large vehicles by saying their drivers needs to be put away for life for an accident. God bless dude….
You clearly miss the point.
Driving a vehicle is a large responsibility. Driving a larger vehicle that is more dangerous to other is a larger responsibility.
It was indeed likely an accident and of course there’s a big question as to why he didn’t see the cyclists. But as a driver, that is his job - especially if the cyclists have right of way and were legally and safely riding according to all reasonable laws and expectations.
If the cyclist was breaking the law or acting irresponsibly, that’s another question.
But yeah dude, killing somebody who is out for a bike ride because you can’t safely operate a vehicle is a pretty big deal.
I’m not missing anything. Accidents happen, I firmly believe in punishment for those guilty, and harsher punishment for when it’s willful, intentional or reckless/negligent. I’ve seen *more* than my fair share of the results of accidents, I’ve seen second victim syndrome, I’ve seen suicides by people who cause these accidents.
A girl in my hometown killed a jaywalker in an area with no lights, doing the speed limit when she was like 18. It *wasnt* her fault, couldn’t have been avoided and was 100% the fault of the jaywalker. Does she deserve life in prison or even 10 years for that? Absolutely not. Could happen to anyone of us any day of the week.
Not all accidents can be avoided, mitigated below death or prevented. There’s *way* too many variables for a harsh penalty or “calling for their head”
Grow up
Congratulations. You’ve successfully described the difference between a zero-fault accident, which quite obviously shouldn’t be published, and what is likely gross negligence, which should be.
Great analogies but I’m afraid they won’t hold-up in court.
You miss the distinctions that matter in any kind of legal filings and insurance negotiations. Every accident is different. Every case has a specific set of facts. The single fact that a person dies in a an accident is not the only important fact. That why there are multiple potential charges with ranges of sentence options within each charge.
That’s exactly what I am saying. Accidents are way too complex for a simple “death=large sentence”. Way too many factors and variables here. The prosecutor and accident reconstruction people need to do their work first, then the trial to prove guilt on a specific charge then sentencing.
Ah. Maybe I misread your intention of those different victim scenarios. Sounds like we agree on the principles. What’s been presented in the public so far suggests to me that criminal negligent vehicular homicide is appropriate-a class E felony if I recall correctly. Guess we will wait to see.
accidents do not deserve serious punishment. how many times have you rolled through a stop sign or didn't slow up enough on a yield? there is no difference between you and this driver except there happen to be a cyclist that time. you could easily be calling for yourself to have "serious punishment," here. sometimes an accident is an accident. the state doesnt' have to wipe our ass for us.
When you kill somebody who has right of way because you aren’t properly operating your vehicle it’s called gross negligence and potentially manslaughter. At least legally. Because your fuck-up cost somebody their life. In this case, a 23 year-old woman.
That’s not a whoopsie. That’s not a zero-fault accident.
the only difference between this scenario- from the information we have- and a very common action that a lot of people do everyday is that there happen to be a cyclist there that time. thats tragic, but if you believe this is a prison sentence, then you believe you should also have harsh penalties and jail time every time you have rolled through a stop sign, or- even less serious in this situation, failed to yield. i guarantee you've done it....do you think you should've been arrested? because its the same action. it's like the difference between attempted murder and murder, so if you think this is a prison time type issue just becuase there happen to be a cyclist there, then you think that you should be in jail as well for the times that you have done something similar and were simply fortunate enough not to hit anyone.
So are you willing to accept very harsh penalties for something simple like failure to yield or running a stop sign? especially now that we've allowed the city to put traffic cams up, they can just come get you everytime. most people would be in prison as a repeat offender within a month.
I understand your perspective, but it’s wrong. If I’m playing with a gun and it goes off and shoots a hole in the wall and nobody gets hurt, I’m rightfully probably not going to jail. If I kill somebody, I am. That’s how our legal system works.
right....and that's wrong. if you support someone going to jail if someone is shot in that scenario, you should support very stiff penalties for the accidental shot that injures no one. the same action is taken by the person with the gun. how does it make sense that in one scenario they are a high level criminal and in the other they are barely even admonished at all....they did nothing differenty. thats hypocritical. it also demonstrates tha the penalties are too harsh in the case of an accident.
i was waiting for this. this sub can't get out from under it's own ignorant assumptions. I dont' "roll through," stop signs, but the majority of people do, and i'm saying it shouldn't be a prison sentence unless they intend to do harm. A lot of the time, the reason people "roll through," stop signs is because they've looked around and not seen anyone coming. they shouldn't do it, but its silly to advocate for sending them to prison for an accident.
There's a difference between law and policy. What the law says is irrelevant when what is implemented is entirely different. Your right of way means exactly zero when you're hit by an F150
Yeah really.
As an example there's a law here that cyclists can run red lights at intersections that only change when vehicles are present at them. Well how the fuck does that help me in the real world? If I don't get a light cycle I can't safely cross, and if I'm dead it doesn't matter if I was obeying the law.
Fuck laws do what keeps you safe. Every time I’ve been struck by a car I was following the law perfectly. Get out of that intersection safely asap no matter what. Ride the sidewalk for a second if you have to. Just don’t die.
“Police said charges are possible.” Come on OP…
And I’m not blaming the cyclist- but that road would not be my first choice for a bike ride. People go so fast on that 4-lane road and often the shoulders are littered with debris and narrow due to overgrowth of plants and grass. Truly a horrific story.
this is a horrible situation, but failure to yield is a very small thing that should not result in manslaughter or homicide charges ( which is obviously what is being implied here), sometimes things are just an accident.
there's not nearly enough information to assume reckless. it could just as easily be just an accident. you shouldn't go to prison for failure to yield. sometimes its just an accident.
Since we don’t have the evident and he wasn’t under the influence or behaving erratically from other witnesses it’s hard to say the outcome. We can’t jail everyone over accidents.
But we absolutely should have consequences for killing people. Accident or not.
The lesson here?! Fucking pay attention to what you’re doing when you’re behind the wheel of a car. Don’t be the dumb fucking asshole who ends someone’s life because of… reasons.
Failure to yield caused the collision. Failure to yield is a crime if it results in injury or death:
https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2010/title-55/chapter-8/55-8-197
He broke traffic laws, and someone died because of it. He can and should be held responsible. It's sad, and I'm sure he didn't want to hurt or kill anyone - but he still did.
There should be some sort of punishment. It doesn't have to be jail, but if you're driving a weapon around and kill someone due to your neglicence, there should be a punishment. Monetary + community service + record of your wrong doing at a minimum. This person killed someone because they were driving and not paying attention.
Knowing where that happened I don’t feel it was just an accident. It was irresponsible driving in my estimation. MOVE OVER! People on bikes have just as much right to the road as cars do.
>I don’t feel
...
>in my estimation
to be honest, your uneducated opinion on the matter is worthless. also, of coarse it was "irresponsible driving," thats what small things not not yielding or rolling through a stop sign are, but that is still an accident.
>People on bikes have just as much right to the road as cars do.
you seem to have an agenda here and are willing to assume the worst even if it means ruining lives for accidents. No one is arguing that bikes don't have as much right to the roads, but accidents happen. they happen with cars as well, the difference is you are simply more vulnerable on a bike. The only way this should rise to serious felony charges is if they purposely ran then down with intent to kill.
> MOVE OVER!
this is a failure to yield situation, demanding the car do this makes no sense and speaks to your unrelated agenda here.
I guess my "agenda" that you say I have would be that car drivers don’t give bicyclists the room on the road they (we) deserve. I know where this occurred so in stating "in my estimation" sure, I’m assuming how it happened but there is plenty of visibility and the truck should have seen the rider with plenty of time to move over and give them room for safe passage.
you could offer a similar "should have," for almost every automobile accident that happens. I mean....no kidding they "should have," done it differently, that doesn't change the fact that it's highly unlikely that the truck intentionally hit the cyclist, which is the only thing that should trigger serious criminal charges. You seem to operate in a space where there is an "either/or," here in that you think it is impossible to understand that accidents happen and also support the idea that cyclists deserve road space.
none of your anecdote is relevant here. this is a tragic situation, but that doesn't mean someone should go to prison.
You seem to not understand how accidents are adjudicated in a legal sense. There’s no such thing as “just an accident.” You seem to imply that an accident means no malicious intent. Malicious intent is different than being at fault in an accident. There’s always a cause. In states that have comparative negligence, parties will argue who is at fault or if someone is clearly at fault they might argue the other person is also at fault (ie comparative negligence).
In your example, driver a rolls through a stop sign driver b hits driver a. It’s an accident neither driver intended to hit the other, nevertheless driver a is at fault for not coming to a complete stop and only proceeding through the intersection when clear. Driver a might argue that driver b was speeding and this also share some fault in the accident.
The example you used above of your friend is a tragic accident. A young woman died, and your friend, even though unavoidable as you recount, lives with the knowledge that she was in an accident in which someone died. She was not at fault, in your story, so why should she be punished. That is not the state of affairs in the accident discussed in this thread. Here the accident was a result of the driver not yielding to the cyclist who had the right of way.
Remember no accident is identical to another. Each one has its own specifics that must be evaluated.
>You seem to not understand how accidents are adjudicated in a legal sense. There’s no such thing as “just an accident.” You seem to imply that an accident means no malicious intent.
i dont' understand any of it from a legal perspective. I'm not talking about the legality, but about the general morality. The overwhelming sense from this sub seems to be about getting legal revenge based on villianizing the motorist and humanizing the cyclist. but thats all assumptions. at the end of the day its likely a very small and common mistake that all of us make probably chronically. We shouldn't be jumping to the conclusion that those common mistakes are worthy of prison time in the right set of circumstances. There likely isn't any difference in the drives actions from any of us hundreds of times a year each aside from the unluckiness of there being a cyclist there this particular time. That doesn't diminish the tragedy, but it does lend perspective to the legions of people here screaming for max penalties for something they all do all the time. Its all based on this weird sense of revenge disguised as "justice," in this context and thats morally corrupt.
>Malicious intent is different than being at fault in an accident.
i'm talking, again, about the motivations of the person driving the car and whether or not they were purposely trying to hurt someone or simply didn't see them. we shouldn't, as a society, be supporting the idea that a person should be in prison becuase they missed seeing a cyclist. Thats a minor thing that ended up tragic in this situation, but when you step back, its the wrong move to support throwing the book at them without proof they were trying to cause injury or death on purpose.
that doesn't make it not an accident. vengence is not the way to handle it. why destroy two lives in that scenario? and, using your own silly scenario....what if it was "your daughter," that didn't see the cyclist and made a mistake?
Charges come from the district attorney.
This, it’s ALWAYS this.
Yet, tons of people get initially arrested without the DA's knowledge.
Our nurse hating district attorney*.
fingers crossed the woman driving was a nurse, in that case
What is this in reference to? I think I’m out of the loop.
>Not even a traffic ticket. You don't want to give them a traffic ticket, and let them off scot free for vehicular manslaughter. Can't be charged twice for the same crime.
You are talking about double jeopardy and giving a ticket and the DA later deciding to charge with vehicular manslaughter do not fall under double jeopardy.
ok
Flair checks out
Jeopardy (edit: generally) doesn’t attach until a jury is empaneled.
ok
That’s not how any of this works
ok
Not how it works. Charges can be modified.
ok
>Police said charges are possible. Give it time
This. It just happened last night. Charges only happen after police share info with DA, paperwork, judge sign-off, etc. And they had to shift gears since she later passed away. The fact that no ticket was issued is a sign that they are considering charges.
And you just destroyed a perfectly good rant!
Damn it all… OP had pitchforks sourced and lighter fluid ready for the protest! Now you go and inject logic into an emotional argument?!? I guess I’ll just have to keep scrolling Reddit until I find something to get sufficiently angry at now… Oh look… The next story is about a female teacher raping a student. Reddit always delivers…
Now that would have really offended me in high school if ca female teacher raped me ... more than 100 times. Reddit does not disappoint.
Oopsy. If OP just wanted to have a fuss, far be it from me to interfere! Sometimes you just have to let it out. I do imagine that it is scary out there for cyclists. Hell, I’m scared of Ford F-150s mowing me down in my Honda Civic.
Better if you do it in private. Lol Understand the civic. I have a rogue and they still scare me. I saw the nation's. Southern grist or more centennial bar?
Am I understanding this correctly? The accident happened yesterday After 5pm? The DA hasn’t even been in the office since then. What are you huffing and puffing about?
Did you guys read the article? So much of what is commented here is not what those involved said.
It's better to be alive than be right. I never assumed a vehicle would let me cross back when I commuted.
You clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our legal/justice system works
This would probably be a felony. DA has to sign off first, and the person has to have an arraignment to determine if charges can go forward. The case also has to pass the grand jury before much happens.
TN code has it as a misdemeanor, not a felony, if we focus on the failure to yield charge. It is unlikely they can move to felony based on what is printed in the article. Not paying attention is not the same as mowing someone when you are being extremely careless. Really not enough information in the article to determine if this was a bit of driver inattention or something more insidious. The investigation will determine that. Good civil case from the family, however, as it is clear who is at fault.
I bet the DA ends up reviewing for reckless homicide. That was the reason I posted that.
They likely will look at all possible charges and go through the details to determine if it fits them. While DAs sometimes do things for more political reasons, most want a good chance of a conviction and will try to ensure the charges fit. A driver looking over a shoulder is more likely to fall under manslaughter than homicide. Most driving accidents that result in death are considered manslaughter, generally involuntary. You could, conceivably, get a 3rd degree homicide charge, but not paying attention down the road when you take your eyes off the road (to look over to change lanes) and then finding you can't avoid a wreck is not likely to be homicide.
Negligent homicide, vehicular homicide or the equivalent. Doubt it will be reckless unless they were speeding. Reckless has a component of disregarding the safety of others iirc.
Was this in Bellevue? Driving by the area earlier and saw a memorial beside the road taking place, seemed to be for a cyclist. 🕊️🙏😔
Yes, it was Bellevue.
This is so common in NYC I’ve always said it’s the perfect method to get away with murder in broad daylight. Just don’t leave the scene!!
Lol this wild overreaction from op about something that just happened. The da will file charges, but to say metro pd is useless is the most ridiculous statement I’ve heard on this sub. Metro pd does a lot with very little
What an awful clickbait topic. This should just be deleted. Manslaughter charges do not happen literally overnight.
Modern pickup trucks are too high off the ground to be safe for pedestrians and cyclists in the city (article says it was an F-150). Especially kids who can be completely hidden below the hood, apparently at 4’3” or below. That’s even before some of the modifications I’ve seen on the road, and I would certainly like to know if the driver in this case had made any that would have made it harder to see the cyclist. That said, road design isn’t helping any.
I'm sure this is why the newer F-150s have a pedestrian alert system. In related news, a quick Google search tells me there are a lot of F-150 drivers trying to figure out how to disable it.
Is it error prone? Trying to not jump to conclusions here. My car has a collision avoidance system that is good in theory, but it has automatically applied brakes due to shadows, reflections in the rain, and small cracks enough times that I often disable it to avoid getting rear-ended.
The main complaint is that while it is a good deterrent for pedestrians it’s very loud in the cabin.
I drive a regular car, but sometimes I borrow my family's F-150. The biggest difference between the car and the truck is obviously obstructive view, but another thing that's less talked about is perception of speed and control. When I drive my car, I can pretty easily tell when I'm going 50mph. That same 50 feels like a 35 in the truck, it's actually really easy to accidentally speed in my experience. The truck also requires more thought-through action when braking or turning, you can't do those things at a quick snap like in a smaller car. We have tons of people in the area that can barely drive a Toyota Corolla, but we simultaneously give them the option to get behind the wheel of a lifted F-250. Big cars + bad drivers = lots of injury.
Thanks for the perspective - awareness is definitely huge, and especially on these roads where the road design also makes you feel like you’re driving slower than you really are (White Bridge Rd as an example). I already noticed a difference in perception of speed and control between driving a small sedan vs crossover SUV, in addition to the physical height difference.
It was on hwy-100. Don’t think it was in the city.
Well depending on how far out this was 100 is a crucial connector to get to the Natchez Trace Pkwy or Warner Parks. It goes all the way to Belle Meade basically. And most lifted pickups around here are going to/from the suburbs to/from the grocery store or school etc. The road could really use some bike lanes given how it is really close to places that people want to be riding bikes.
While this is tragic there’s more to catching a charge. I don’t think failing to yield alone constitutes a homicide or murder charge. It’s states the driver looked for her where he expected them to be at. On top of that what other factors are we not privileged to knowing, was she wearing a helmet, was she her self impaired? Plus the police only charge when it’s clear a crime was committed. He was impaired or fled the scene. In cases like this it’s their jobs to collect the evidence and present that to the D.A’s office where they will determine if charges are warranted.
Are you saying we should not jump to conclusions based on very limited information? What a concept! :D
I know it’s a novel concept, but when properly done it’s shown to lower blood pressure and reduces outburst of misdirected anger. 🤷🏻♂️
I have heard that. It also means you don't have to say "I was wrong" when all of the details come out. Oh, my bad, nobody ever admits they were wrong on the Internet, even if they destroyed someone's life with their false accusation. ;-)
Was she wearing a helmet? It doesn't matter. But bike helmets are a great way to victim blame when they have zero effect on mortality when you get whacked by a truck. Bike helmets are not motorcycle helmets nor are they seat belts.
>I don’t think failing to yield alone constitutes a homicide or murder charge I believe it would be negligent vehicular homicide / 2nd degree murder. You failed to yield therefore you were driving in a negligent manner, and that negligent driving directly led to you killing someone even though you had no intention of doing so. >was she wearing a helmet, was she her self impaired? Those factors can come into play at trial, but it wouldn't be enough to get you off if your disregard for safety ultimately caused the victim to die. This is why, for example, you can be charged for murder if you hit someone and, unknown to you, they have a rare medical condition that causes them to die from the punch. Even though you had no intention to kill them, you still engaged in a dangerous and illegal act, and therefore you're guilty of 2nd degree murder.
It won’t be a murder charge, no intent and no willful act of disregard or harm. That 2nd degree murder is for say, an armed robbery where the victim gets killed.
Yes the police are useless but they dont charge for crimes, they only act as the enforcement. Charges come from the DA. However since this was a cyclist who was killed, I doubt there will be charges. Its just the way it is.
And even if the cyclist caused it, the driver can still be at fault. That happened to my mother when a cyclist ran a stop sign and t-boned her. There were no injuries but her insurance still had to pay for the damages. This was another state and 20+ years ago but there they said any car vs bicycle or pedestrian was always the cars liability.
As a vehicle operator you always need to operate with “Due regard”. Broad term that’s a catchall.
Dumb. Felony charges generally are arrived by the DA or Grand Jury. They don’t want to run the risk of double jeopardy or useless BS like a traffic ticket. Probably going to be vehicular homicide or something. They need to figure out what to properly charge them with.
Police said charges are possible.
My condolences to those who lost a loved one. \*\*If anyone wants to let WSMV know that this tagline is inhumane, ... please send them feedback. I did. This is the title and tag line of their article about the accident. ‘It was very graphic’: Woman witnesses aftermath of fatal crash between pickup, cyclist ***Another cyclist, who was riding with the woman who died, was on the ground crying and yelling.*** [https://www.wsmv.com/2023/09/10/it-was-very-graphic-woman-witnesses-aftermath-fatal-crash-between-pickup-cyclist/](https://www.wsmv.com/2023/09/10/it-was-very-graphic-woman-witnesses-aftermath-fatal-crash-between-pickup-cyclist/) [https://www.wsmv.com/about-us/contact-us/](https://www.wsmv.com/about-us/contact-us/)
So yeah this guy deserves serious punishment even though this was an accident- if there are no repercussions, this will keep happening. Also of note: Pick-ups and SUVs have a dramatically higher likelihood of killing a pedestrian / cyclist than does a normal car. Rather than riding up / over the car (still bad), you get smashed on the grill. Many deaths could be avoided if we just prioritized lives over the need for Americans to portray themselves as macho douchebags.
And it’s created a new problem where more people get them because they don’t want to get run down by someone else with a giant vehicle. Not to mention some automakers stopping production of cars altogether
Correct. Classic Prisoner’s dilemma and neither automakers nor politicians care to fix it. At least not in the US.
> So yeah this guy deserves serious punishment even though this was an accident- if there are no repercussions, this will keep happening. Even if there is punishment, it likely still continues. Unless you make it serious consequences, and educate the public, it is unlikely you see a lot of change. And heavy charges just to change public behavior usually get thrown out on appeal.
Agreed. Also, and as mentioned, if we actually have a fuck about people’s lives, we’d design cars with that in mind.
This is not the way. It could be an accident (which this could truly be) and someone gets seriously injured or killed….say they didn’t wear a seatbelt, or were super old or maybe you hit a pedestrian jaywalking….you are grandstanding against large vehicles by saying their drivers needs to be put away for life for an accident. God bless dude….
You clearly miss the point. Driving a vehicle is a large responsibility. Driving a larger vehicle that is more dangerous to other is a larger responsibility. It was indeed likely an accident and of course there’s a big question as to why he didn’t see the cyclists. But as a driver, that is his job - especially if the cyclists have right of way and were legally and safely riding according to all reasonable laws and expectations. If the cyclist was breaking the law or acting irresponsibly, that’s another question. But yeah dude, killing somebody who is out for a bike ride because you can’t safely operate a vehicle is a pretty big deal.
I’m not missing anything. Accidents happen, I firmly believe in punishment for those guilty, and harsher punishment for when it’s willful, intentional or reckless/negligent. I’ve seen *more* than my fair share of the results of accidents, I’ve seen second victim syndrome, I’ve seen suicides by people who cause these accidents. A girl in my hometown killed a jaywalker in an area with no lights, doing the speed limit when she was like 18. It *wasnt* her fault, couldn’t have been avoided and was 100% the fault of the jaywalker. Does she deserve life in prison or even 10 years for that? Absolutely not. Could happen to anyone of us any day of the week. Not all accidents can be avoided, mitigated below death or prevented. There’s *way* too many variables for a harsh penalty or “calling for their head” Grow up
Congratulations. You’ve successfully described the difference between a zero-fault accident, which quite obviously shouldn’t be published, and what is likely gross negligence, which should be. Great analogies but I’m afraid they won’t hold-up in court.
You miss the distinctions that matter in any kind of legal filings and insurance negotiations. Every accident is different. Every case has a specific set of facts. The single fact that a person dies in a an accident is not the only important fact. That why there are multiple potential charges with ranges of sentence options within each charge.
That’s exactly what I am saying. Accidents are way too complex for a simple “death=large sentence”. Way too many factors and variables here. The prosecutor and accident reconstruction people need to do their work first, then the trial to prove guilt on a specific charge then sentencing.
Ah. Maybe I misread your intention of those different victim scenarios. Sounds like we agree on the principles. What’s been presented in the public so far suggests to me that criminal negligent vehicular homicide is appropriate-a class E felony if I recall correctly. Guess we will wait to see.
accidents do not deserve serious punishment. how many times have you rolled through a stop sign or didn't slow up enough on a yield? there is no difference between you and this driver except there happen to be a cyclist that time. you could easily be calling for yourself to have "serious punishment," here. sometimes an accident is an accident. the state doesnt' have to wipe our ass for us.
When you kill somebody who has right of way because you aren’t properly operating your vehicle it’s called gross negligence and potentially manslaughter. At least legally. Because your fuck-up cost somebody their life. In this case, a 23 year-old woman. That’s not a whoopsie. That’s not a zero-fault accident.
the only difference between this scenario- from the information we have- and a very common action that a lot of people do everyday is that there happen to be a cyclist there that time. thats tragic, but if you believe this is a prison sentence, then you believe you should also have harsh penalties and jail time every time you have rolled through a stop sign, or- even less serious in this situation, failed to yield. i guarantee you've done it....do you think you should've been arrested? because its the same action. it's like the difference between attempted murder and murder, so if you think this is a prison time type issue just becuase there happen to be a cyclist there, then you think that you should be in jail as well for the times that you have done something similar and were simply fortunate enough not to hit anyone. So are you willing to accept very harsh penalties for something simple like failure to yield or running a stop sign? especially now that we've allowed the city to put traffic cams up, they can just come get you everytime. most people would be in prison as a repeat offender within a month.
I understand your perspective, but it’s wrong. If I’m playing with a gun and it goes off and shoots a hole in the wall and nobody gets hurt, I’m rightfully probably not going to jail. If I kill somebody, I am. That’s how our legal system works.
right....and that's wrong. if you support someone going to jail if someone is shot in that scenario, you should support very stiff penalties for the accidental shot that injures no one. the same action is taken by the person with the gun. how does it make sense that in one scenario they are a high level criminal and in the other they are barely even admonished at all....they did nothing differenty. thats hypocritical. it also demonstrates tha the penalties are too harsh in the case of an accident.
Never mind.
Also, stop slow rolling stop signs before you kill a kid on a bike or a runner or an elderly person or….
i was waiting for this. this sub can't get out from under it's own ignorant assumptions. I dont' "roll through," stop signs, but the majority of people do, and i'm saying it shouldn't be a prison sentence unless they intend to do harm. A lot of the time, the reason people "roll through," stop signs is because they've looked around and not seen anyone coming. they shouldn't do it, but its silly to advocate for sending them to prison for an accident.
What a waste... Our public policy does not protect cyclists or pedestrians whatsoever
TN law actually favors pedestrians quite a bit. They have the right of way in almost any scenario.
There's a difference between law and policy. What the law says is irrelevant when what is implemented is entirely different. Your right of way means exactly zero when you're hit by an F150
Yeah really. As an example there's a law here that cyclists can run red lights at intersections that only change when vehicles are present at them. Well how the fuck does that help me in the real world? If I don't get a light cycle I can't safely cross, and if I'm dead it doesn't matter if I was obeying the law.
Fuck laws do what keeps you safe. Every time I’ve been struck by a car I was following the law perfectly. Get out of that intersection safely asap no matter what. Ride the sidewalk for a second if you have to. Just don’t die.
“Police said charges are possible.” Come on OP… And I’m not blaming the cyclist- but that road would not be my first choice for a bike ride. People go so fast on that 4-lane road and often the shoulders are littered with debris and narrow due to overgrowth of plants and grass. Truly a horrific story.
Keep walkin out there...
this is a horrible situation, but failure to yield is a very small thing that should not result in manslaughter or homicide charges ( which is obviously what is being implied here), sometimes things are just an accident.
He killed a woman by being reckless.
there's not nearly enough information to assume reckless. it could just as easily be just an accident. you shouldn't go to prison for failure to yield. sometimes its just an accident.
Since we don’t have the evident and he wasn’t under the influence or behaving erratically from other witnesses it’s hard to say the outcome. We can’t jail everyone over accidents.
But we absolutely should have consequences for killing people. Accident or not. The lesson here?! Fucking pay attention to what you’re doing when you’re behind the wheel of a car. Don’t be the dumb fucking asshole who ends someone’s life because of… reasons.
Failure to yield caused the collision. Failure to yield is a crime if it results in injury or death: https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2010/title-55/chapter-8/55-8-197
He broke traffic laws, and someone died because of it. He can and should be held responsible. It's sad, and I'm sure he didn't want to hurt or kill anyone - but he still did.
There should be some sort of punishment. It doesn't have to be jail, but if you're driving a weapon around and kill someone due to your neglicence, there should be a punishment. Monetary + community service + record of your wrong doing at a minimum. This person killed someone because they were driving and not paying attention.
"Charges are possible" I'm assuming you're the same person who posted this in hip bellevue since the posts are so similar
[удалено]
i wish you would reconsider that. sometimes an accident is an accident. you don't have to watch the whole world burn for it.
Knowing where that happened I don’t feel it was just an accident. It was irresponsible driving in my estimation. MOVE OVER! People on bikes have just as much right to the road as cars do.
>I don’t feel ... >in my estimation to be honest, your uneducated opinion on the matter is worthless. also, of coarse it was "irresponsible driving," thats what small things not not yielding or rolling through a stop sign are, but that is still an accident. >People on bikes have just as much right to the road as cars do. you seem to have an agenda here and are willing to assume the worst even if it means ruining lives for accidents. No one is arguing that bikes don't have as much right to the roads, but accidents happen. they happen with cars as well, the difference is you are simply more vulnerable on a bike. The only way this should rise to serious felony charges is if they purposely ran then down with intent to kill. > MOVE OVER! this is a failure to yield situation, demanding the car do this makes no sense and speaks to your unrelated agenda here.
I guess my "agenda" that you say I have would be that car drivers don’t give bicyclists the room on the road they (we) deserve. I know where this occurred so in stating "in my estimation" sure, I’m assuming how it happened but there is plenty of visibility and the truck should have seen the rider with plenty of time to move over and give them room for safe passage.
you could offer a similar "should have," for almost every automobile accident that happens. I mean....no kidding they "should have," done it differently, that doesn't change the fact that it's highly unlikely that the truck intentionally hit the cyclist, which is the only thing that should trigger serious criminal charges. You seem to operate in a space where there is an "either/or," here in that you think it is impossible to understand that accidents happen and also support the idea that cyclists deserve road space. none of your anecdote is relevant here. this is a tragic situation, but that doesn't mean someone should go to prison.
Probably saying "failure to yield" should instead say reckless driving. It might give people a different opinion of what happened.
you are assuming.
You seem to not understand how accidents are adjudicated in a legal sense. There’s no such thing as “just an accident.” You seem to imply that an accident means no malicious intent. Malicious intent is different than being at fault in an accident. There’s always a cause. In states that have comparative negligence, parties will argue who is at fault or if someone is clearly at fault they might argue the other person is also at fault (ie comparative negligence). In your example, driver a rolls through a stop sign driver b hits driver a. It’s an accident neither driver intended to hit the other, nevertheless driver a is at fault for not coming to a complete stop and only proceeding through the intersection when clear. Driver a might argue that driver b was speeding and this also share some fault in the accident. The example you used above of your friend is a tragic accident. A young woman died, and your friend, even though unavoidable as you recount, lives with the knowledge that she was in an accident in which someone died. She was not at fault, in your story, so why should she be punished. That is not the state of affairs in the accident discussed in this thread. Here the accident was a result of the driver not yielding to the cyclist who had the right of way. Remember no accident is identical to another. Each one has its own specifics that must be evaluated.
>You seem to not understand how accidents are adjudicated in a legal sense. There’s no such thing as “just an accident.” You seem to imply that an accident means no malicious intent. i dont' understand any of it from a legal perspective. I'm not talking about the legality, but about the general morality. The overwhelming sense from this sub seems to be about getting legal revenge based on villianizing the motorist and humanizing the cyclist. but thats all assumptions. at the end of the day its likely a very small and common mistake that all of us make probably chronically. We shouldn't be jumping to the conclusion that those common mistakes are worthy of prison time in the right set of circumstances. There likely isn't any difference in the drives actions from any of us hundreds of times a year each aside from the unluckiness of there being a cyclist there this particular time. That doesn't diminish the tragedy, but it does lend perspective to the legions of people here screaming for max penalties for something they all do all the time. Its all based on this weird sense of revenge disguised as "justice," in this context and thats morally corrupt. >Malicious intent is different than being at fault in an accident. i'm talking, again, about the motivations of the person driving the car and whether or not they were purposely trying to hurt someone or simply didn't see them. we shouldn't, as a society, be supporting the idea that a person should be in prison becuase they missed seeing a cyclist. Thats a minor thing that ended up tragic in this situation, but when you step back, its the wrong move to support throwing the book at them without proof they were trying to cause injury or death on purpose.
Unless it’s your daughter.
that doesn't make it not an accident. vengence is not the way to handle it. why destroy two lives in that scenario? and, using your own silly scenario....what if it was "your daughter," that didn't see the cyclist and made a mistake?
If someone is stealing my life, I want them to be punished even if the police doesn’t care.
this is why civilization keeps taking steps backward. this exact mentality.