Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Bus driver jailed for attack on cyclist
- Thread starter i_got_a_mohawk
- Start date
From a legal perspective, the phrase "attempted manslaughter" is actually a contradiction in terms.
To understand why, you need to understand how various homicides are traditionally defined.
Murder is the intentional killing of a human being with "malice aforethought." "Malice aforethought" refers to a premeditated act, and can be either the intent to actually kill someone, or the intent to commit an act with a high probability that death or serious injury will result. In this particular case, if the bus driver intended to maim the cyclist but did not intend to kill him, and he ended up killing him nonetheless, he could be charged with murder.
To commit an "attempt," on the other hand, you need to have the specific intention to commit the crime in question. Thus, unlike murder, which requires only an intent to cause serious bodily harm, attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill someone. Thus, if the bus driver had the specific intention of killing the cyclist, but failed to do so, he could be charged with attempt. If he had the intention of merely harming him, and in fact did not kill him, he could not be charged with attempted murder.
Manslaughter is traditionally defined as the unlawful killing of another human being without malice aforethought. In other words, manslaughter is a killing with no premediation or specific intent to cause death.
Since "attempt" crimes require the specific intention to cause the crime, but the hallmark of manslaughter is the absence of a specific intent, there is really no "attempted manslaughter."
Caveat: it's been 20 years since my criminal law classes.
To understand why, you need to understand how various homicides are traditionally defined.
Murder is the intentional killing of a human being with "malice aforethought." "Malice aforethought" refers to a premeditated act, and can be either the intent to actually kill someone, or the intent to commit an act with a high probability that death or serious injury will result. In this particular case, if the bus driver intended to maim the cyclist but did not intend to kill him, and he ended up killing him nonetheless, he could be charged with murder.
To commit an "attempt," on the other hand, you need to have the specific intention to commit the crime in question. Thus, unlike murder, which requires only an intent to cause serious bodily harm, attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill someone. Thus, if the bus driver had the specific intention of killing the cyclist, but failed to do so, he could be charged with attempt. If he had the intention of merely harming him, and in fact did not kill him, he could not be charged with attempted murder.
Manslaughter is traditionally defined as the unlawful killing of another human being without malice aforethought. In other words, manslaughter is a killing with no premediation or specific intent to cause death.
Since "attempt" crimes require the specific intention to cause the crime, but the hallmark of manslaughter is the absence of a specific intent, there is really no "attempted manslaughter."
Caveat: it's been 20 years since my criminal law classes.
Only if the prosecution can establish that the bus driver had the specific intention of killing the cyclist.
While I agree that the bus driver should be held accountable for his actions, I'd make one other point to the "take the lane" crowd:
When you start getting aggressive with your riding behavior, you're going to encourage more and more behavior like this. And while your spandex and plastic helmet might make you more aerodynamic, it will not protect you in any way from an automobile. It's like walking into a biker bar with a can of mace and picking a fight.
When you start getting aggressive with your riding behavior, you're going to encourage more and more behavior like this. And while your spandex and plastic helmet might make you more aerodynamic, it will not protect you in any way from an automobile. It's like walking into a biker bar with a can of mace and picking a fight.
If bikers want to be treated just like cars, then they can't expect other driver to be held to a different standards when they get hit.
There are some strict "vehicular cyclists" who would argue that a cyclist should always take the lane and act like any other vehicle on the road. I am not in that camp. I believe that there are times when taking the lane is the safest and most appropriate way to cycle, and times when other options (bike lanes, shoulders, etc.) are safer. Based on what I see in this video, however, this is a situation where I would take the lane for sure. Taking the lane in this situation is not "aggressive." It is the safe way to ride.
Different standards from what? If this bus driver lost his temper and ran a car off the road causing serious injuries to the driver or passengers of the car, I would expect the driver to be prosecuted for that just as this bus driver was prosecuted for the injuries he caused to the cyclist.
There are some here asking for the driver to be prosecuted for murder, simply because he hit a cyclist. I'm guessing they would not be making the same demands had he pulled this stunt on a car. Don't get me wrong, he definitely needs to be punished.
The whole "take the lane" concept is very controversial, even among cyclists. I would just remind those that participate in the behavior that it is an AGGRESSIVE one, and they should expect other motorist to react as such. If someone in a car intentionally cut me off doing half my traveling speed, I'd be pissed. The same holds true when that person is on a bike.
I don't think that anyone is calling for him to be prosecuted for (attempted) murder "simply" because he hit a cyclist. They're calling for it because he intentionally used his vehicle as a weapon to injure a cyclist. Big difference.
I don't know, Febs. I doubt we'd be talking about this if it had been two cars..........
We also probably wouldn't be talking about it if the driver had accidentally "left hooked" the cyclist because he didn't see him. It's the intentional nature of the incident that makes it noteworthy, not the fact that a bus and a bicycle were involved.
We'll just have to agree to disagree here. I just can't imagine this would garner 4 pages of responses without the bike, regardless of perceived intent.
Febs said:
Well, don't leave out the fact that, as a driver of an enormous vehicle like a bus, you have to know that slamming it into a human body like that is quite likely to kill or seriously injure someone - something you can't do if the other person is in a car.
I agree. My point is only that what makes this particular incident stand out is not merely the fact that it involved a cyclist, but the fact that it involved a bus driver who intentionally injured a cyclist.
I don't mean to suggest that there is no difference between cyclists and motorists with respect to vulnerability to serious injury. I've been intentionally run off the road by buses (and while riding in a bike lane), so I am acutely aware of the danger. The only thing that separates me from the cyclist in this video is that I saw the bus coming in my mirror and was able to stop before slamming into the side of the bus.
Febs said:
Yes, I think there are two things really. 1. the apparent intentionality of the bus driver, enough said about that. 2. the disparity between the large bus and the unencumbered human frame. To make an analogy, if two people get in a fist fight and one is injured, it's a little different than if one of them has a gun - even if the other guy started the fight.
Ultimately, though, this incident points out (to me at least) that at some point traffic officials need to recognize that bicycles and automobiles really can't coexist in the same lanes of traffic. A whole line of 3000 lb vehicles travelling 35 mph getting mixed in with a 25 lb bicycle (plus the rider) doing 15 mph ? Giving the bike the same rights to the roadway as a car may have worked in 1950 when a car came by once every couple of minutes, but now virtually every urban road has a non-stop line of cars in both directions. Asking hundreds or thousands of drivers to slow down to a crawl to accomodate one bicycle is absurd.
Don't get me wrong, I wish more people would take to bikes. They need bike lanes though. Of course, anytime people propose that the government spend money on bike lanes, mass transit or other transportation alternatives, the opposition is quite vocal.
Don't get me wrong, I wish more people would take to bikes. They need bike lanes though. Of course, anytime people propose that the government spend money on bike lanes, mass transit or other transportation alternatives, the opposition is quite vocal.
All too often, bike lanes create the illusion of safety rather than actually making cycling safer.
I realize this may need some further explanation, so here is an example:
Spruce and Pine Streets in Center City, Philadelphia used to be one way streets, with two lanes of traffic proceeding in the same direction. About 2 years ago, they were re-striped, with one of the traffic lanes removed and converted to a "buffered" bike lane. Now, instead of having two traffic lanes going in the same direction, there is a single traffic lane, a buffer zone, and then a bike lane on the far right. I think that the bike lanes are much more dangerous than the old system with no bike lanes.
To understand why, think about what happens when a car wants to turn right. It used to be that a cyclist would be in the right lane, and right-turning motor vehicle traffic would also be in the right lane. If a cyclist took the lane in the right lane, then right turns were fine. A car wanting to turn right could either pass the cyclist and make his right turn from the right lane, assuming there was time and space to do so safely, or get behind the cyclist and make the right turn once the cyclist has passed the intersection. Left turns worked pretty much the same way.
Under the new system with the bike lanes, there is only a single lane for motor vehicle traffic, which means that cars turning right are forced to do so from what is, from the perspective of the cyclist, the left lane. The potential for "right hook" type accidents is significantly increased. Moreover, since there is only a single lane of motor vehicle traffic, if the driver of a car wanting to make a right turn waits for the bike lane to clear so that he can cut across it to make his turn, the traffic behind him is also delayed. When there were two lanes of traffic shared by bikes and cars, the cars proceeding straight could get into the left lane to pass cars waiting to turn right.
Left turns are also a problem. Under the old system, with two lanes in each direction, a cyclist could simply move to the left lane to make a left turn. Cars had the option of using the right lane to pass the cyclist as he approached his turn. Under the new system, there is only a single lane of motor vehicle traffic, so to make a left turn, cyclists have to move into a lane that now has twice as many cars as it used to, at the risk of angering drivers who think, "why is this cyclist in the car lane when there is a perfectly good bike lane there?" Moreover, since the right lane is now a dedicated bike lane, cars can no longer use the right lane to pass the cyclist who is approaching his left turn. It's a lose-lose situation compared to having no bike lane at all.
That's just one example. Many "bike lanes" are also just paint slapped onto the gutter, which direct bikes to ride in places that are filled with gravel, rain gutters, etc.
I'm not saying that all bike lanes are bad, but many of them are. Painting a line on a street and telling a cyclist "ride here" does not make him safer.
There are no guarntees out on the road, hec, even cops and highway patrol get whacked by some inattentive or drunk driver while trying to issue a citation, Im sure you,ve seen the videos. There are rules of the road for good reason but the wildcard is always the operator, be it a bus, a car or a bicyclist. The best policy is to pay attention. Cyclists if your going to put yourself out there with cars and busses use some common sense, there are blind spots everywhere, no one has 360 degree vision. I dont care how great of rider you think you are your still no match for tons of steel. Everybody play nice out there and please use your damn turn signals.
