I think of you intentionally run over anybody you should be charges with murder

In Texas he would be a hero and get a cash prize.

They're calling it manslaughter right now.

Obviously intent is important.

However, even when their is intent, or gross negligence on the part of motorists, they very often walk away, with relatively speaking minor charges - even when there has been serious injuries, or a fatality of a pedestrian or a cyclist.

When you step back and look at many, many cases, they all start to have the same feel to them - stacked AGAINST the cyclist/pedestrian and FOR the motorist. It seems the whole of the system in North America is set up, to absolve motorists of as much responsibility as possible for their actions behind the wheel when they are driving.

I know that locally, here in Ontario, motorists are influenced and encouraged by their lawyers to agree quickly to "careless driving charges" - which removes any criminality, and is really a misdemeanor type of offence. You pay a fine, maybe some demerit points, and away you go. Motorists are encouraged to just keep saying over and over again "I did not see them" - whatever "them" is that they struck! Judges unfortunately seem to go for this frequently - like it's OK to NOT be seeing where you are going when you are driving!!

Change is slowly coming. Again, in Ontario, the Ontario government is planning on introducing new rules and legislation that will better protect "Vulnerable Road Users" - pedestrians & cyclists, and start to put more default responsibility back onto drivers - similar to the way it is in some European jurisdictions, where, the motorist is at fault, until proven otherwise. Of course, their will be MASSIVE push-back here in North America, when the Car is King, for any kind of legislation like this - but it's a small start of a movement in the right direction

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Good luck anyone proving intent or malice aforethought (the CA requirement for murder). He'll say he reached for a phone, or fell asleep or... and that's why he swerved. and he ran cuz he was scared.

Automatic felony when you leave the scene. In Ca, this fuck stick will be enjoying some prison love soon.

The dorkter in LA that slammed on his brakes so the cyclists would rear-end him, he got 5 years.

But, in this state, who knows how long a criminal will actually stay in prison. These days, you get 10 years, your out in one.

Automatic felony when you leave the scene.

Again - one would hope think something like this will stick, but there was a case here in Canada, guy drove right into a group of cyclists, bodies flying everywhere, broken wind-shield etc . . Did not really realize anything was amiss until he got home to his house. Said he was not sure her hit something (Thought his wind-shield cracked spontaneously). I seem to recall that he was charged with something but it was a much lesser charge than you would think.

Afterwards, I'm trying to think what sort of judge can sit in a court-room, and listen to BS stories like this guy made up with a straight face! It's repetitive outcomes like this, where I again, get the sense that the whole of the system in North America, is stacked FOR the motorist and AGAINST anyone else (pedestrians/cyclists)!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Unique vehicle. Should be easy to find this MFer.

When there are witnesses, they tend to catch them quickly. And all those camera's. I havent seen any updates to the story.

The witness is named "Vladimir?" That's just sketchy

For the driver to run them over, then stop to [possibly] admire his work "before leaving the area at a normal rate of speed" is beyond ... I have no words ... just beyond

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Because motorists and the judiciary view cyclists as scum, rated somewhere between smegma and pond scum

In certain part of domestic 'communities', only illegal Aliens who can't get a DL or can't afford a car ride bikes. This very often coincides with those who make minimal wage and can't afford a lawyer to come after the well protected resident motorist in a private suit.

Calculated gamble that there is nothing to loose.

But why should they have to go after anyone in a private suit?
The law should protect all equally. Its just those driving vehicles are more equal under the law than cyclists or pedestrians

I agree.