ColaJacket

Apparently, the driver didn't even slow down.

GH

Jarrett2

The driver wasn't even supposed to be on the road...

That's terrible.

trailangel

Driving with revoked license to me = manslaughter.

abbynormal

I'm glad I am used to both driving defensively, and walking the same way. When I am riding my bike I am going to watch the cars as best I can. Accidents will happen I know, but they get crazy. Unfortunately, I see cyclists as well, taking too much for granted, getting too close to the car lane, riding in a row/side by side in the bike lane, which puts the outside person more in harms way. I don't count on drivers seeing me, let alone caring enough to give me a bit of extra room

abbynormal

At the very least, I agree 100%. Even if a bike is close to the drive lane, a person in a car needs to slow down and even stop if they can't move over a bit, which I always do with cyclers. I don't understand the mentality of speed-freaks, they have to hurry up to get dead in a vehicle seems like And sadly, it's usually someone else that has to die for their negligence

Leisesturm

Your logic escapes me.

Chris0516

I was actually talking to my doctor today about sad situations like this that result in a cyclist dying.

Because, I have had physical neurological(and incurable) health problems all my life, and been hit several times. But, I have never needed to go to the hospital following a crash.

Because of that, I have immense guilt of the 'why them instead of me' variety.

To give you an idea of what I am getting at. My younger cousin died June 24, 2016. She was only 40yrs.-old, and 8.5yrs. younger than me. Her only health problem was being a chain-smoker. That is serious, in and of itself. But she had not been a chain-smoker since birth. I have had my health problems since birth.

RIP to the cyclist

RIP Carrie(my cousin)

kevindsingleton 

His license was revoked, and he was driving, anyway. That makes it "willful" (intentional), which makes any crime committed while willfully driving on a revoked license more serious, thus warranting a more severe punishment.

Unless you were suggesting that "manslaughter" was too light a sentence?

Leisesturm

the majority of drivers that kill people with their cars are NOT driving with revoked licenses. In many cases the only citeable offense that might be connected to the incident is some kind of moving violation like "failure to yield". In fact many jurisdictions require the simultaneous occurrence of two different moving violations before an accident can be considered a criminal case. Your opinion falls squarely in that huge legal loophole. THIS incident should be considered manslaughter because the driver's license was revoked. How about, even if the driver's license was in perfect order, and his driving history unsullied, the occasion of the present tragedy be considered for and what it clearly is: manslaughter. The conditions are purely a distraction. They represent our fascination with the moral turpitude of others. Someone is NOT a worse individual because they are doing something illegal at the time of a tragedy anymore than someone is a "better" person because they are not doing something illegal at the time of a tragedy.

1989Pre 

The driver was charged with "misdemeanor death". I have a couple of problems with this, 1.) Since when is the killing of another human through sheer negligence a "misdemeanor"? 2.) The charge is "death"? That sounds euphemistic, to me. Death is a condition.., not an action: Murder, manslaughter, vehicular homicide...all actions. Death, paralysis, pain are conditions.
It sounds like someone is trying to protect the guilty party.

JoeyBike

No presidential politics in here, please.
.
.
.

Equinox

Our fascination with the moral turpitude of others? I don't understand. Your wording makes this crash sound like a random un-avoidable occurrence, like a tree branch falling on someone's head.
For good reason, society decided that the perpetrator should not be driving. This decision was made to protect innocent members of society from precisely this type of incident. By ignoring this restriction, it does make this person a "worse" individual. It makes the person a sociopath. The bottom line is that the cyclist would still be alive had the perpetrator obeyed the restrictions imposed upon him/her by society.

mconlonx

It's a charge based on state MV statute -- the "someone" trying to protect the guilty party in this case is state law, and if anyone from that state doesn't like it, they can certainly lobby for changes to the law.

What is the "good reason" for which this driver's license was revoked? Did the reasoning include as you claim, "to protect innocent members of society from precisely this type of accident"? The "worse" part of this situation may include aggravated charges not reported, but the driver was also charged with driving with a revoked license, so that would be an additional charge. It certainly does not definitively make this person a sociopath. And were this driver not on the road, it is no guarantee that the cyclist would still be alive.

indyfabz

Try investigating before speculating. It's based on NC statutory law. And, FYI, until a few years ago, a guilty party couldn't even get jail time:


Law stiffens penalties in death-by-motor vehicle cases :: WRAL.com

Leisesturm

It does not. It is a rational observation that a cyclist is dead because a driver hit them. The drivers incompetence is what killed the cyclist. We do not know what their license was suspended for. It may, or may, not have anything to do with actual driving proficiency. In my 20's I had friends whose licenses had been suspended for failure to pay insurance. That didn't automatically make them incompetent drivers. All of them continued to drive without incident and none killed anyone. Am I to understand that you are o.k. with the present system of treating drivers who kill people as victims as long as their papers are in order? They can demonstrate egregious carelessness or incompetence and the issue of their complicity in a death becomes purely a civil matter? You would change your tune if a careless driver hit someone you cared about. If you do not have the financial resources to launch a wrongful death lawsuit the driver gets on with the rest of their life after paying the State whatever fines might be relevant pursuant to their specific infractions against the motor vehicle code.

alathIN

I've been following this back and forth, which appears to me mostly different ways of phrasing things, and different ways of filling in the blanks on a rather sparse article.

But man, you're really reaching here.

This could be said about any crime or misbehavior whatsoever. If Al Queda hadn't crashed those planes on 911, there's no guarantee all those people would still be alive because some other terrorist organization could have done the same thing.

The fact that some other miscreant might have done the same thing in no way modifies the culpability of the person who actually did do it.

alathIN

The other problem with treating negligent deaths as a purely civil matter is that the deterrent applies only to people with substantial assets. If you get run over by a jillionaire, great. If you get run over by a person of average or below average means, the civil route is essentially a dead end.

mconlonx

True -- it's more anti-hyperbole to make a point about the hyperbole that crops up in threads like this.

And of course it does not modify the culpability of the person who actually did it. It was not implied and should not have been inferred. Since the driver is facing charges already, it's been established that there is cause to suspect the driver is responsible.

I hope that the aggravating circumstance of driving with a revoked license is good enough reason for the prosecutor in the case not to plea down from the misdemeanor death charge.

RidesaJapanese

Now I have yet another reason to despise the American judicial system.

Chris0516