Joined
·
68 Posts
Chattanooga lost a good guy yesterday morning.
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
"Charges in the incident are pending further investigation."
Nice piece of 'journalism' there, it sounds like they felt very sorry for the poor driver, who apparently already admitted he didn't see the guy.
So sorry for your community's loss. I hope cyclists in the area contact every politician up to the GD governor to ensure that is one thorough investigation.
Nice piece of 'journalism' there, it sounds like they felt very sorry for the poor driver, who apparently already admitted he didn't see the guy.
So sorry for your community's loss. I hope cyclists in the area contact every politician up to the GD governor to ensure that is one thorough investigation.
Here is the unfortunate but predictable result outlined by a local paper:
"A Hamilton County Grand Jury has decided not to indict a truck driver who fatally struck a bicyclist.
Investigators said 51-year-old David Meek of Red Bank was thrown to the pavement and killed March 6 when a saddlebag on his bike got caught on the footboard of a passing truck, jerking the bicycle from under him. Meek owned a bicycle shop and was well-known among Chattanooga's biking community.
The traffic investigator testified the driver could have seen the bike, but it was not likely that he should have seen it.
The driver told police he didn't see Meek until the victim was lying in the street.
The driver was not cited at the time of the accident for violating a state law that requires drivers passing a cyclist to leave a safe distance of at least three feet."
Could have seen the bike, but not likely that he should have seen the bike? That is total B.S.! How can it be concluded that a driver is not responsible for seeing a legal vehicle that is sharing the same traffic lane? This is an outrage in my opinion.
"A Hamilton County Grand Jury has decided not to indict a truck driver who fatally struck a bicyclist.
Investigators said 51-year-old David Meek of Red Bank was thrown to the pavement and killed March 6 when a saddlebag on his bike got caught on the footboard of a passing truck, jerking the bicycle from under him. Meek owned a bicycle shop and was well-known among Chattanooga's biking community.
The traffic investigator testified the driver could have seen the bike, but it was not likely that he should have seen it.
The driver told police he didn't see Meek until the victim was lying in the street.
The driver was not cited at the time of the accident for violating a state law that requires drivers passing a cyclist to leave a safe distance of at least three feet."
Could have seen the bike, but not likely that he should have seen the bike? That is total B.S.! How can it be concluded that a driver is not responsible for seeing a legal vehicle that is sharing the same traffic lane? This is an outrage in my opinion.
A easily preventable tragedy.
Complaining though won't do a bit of good. Everyday there are pedestrians and others drivers killed in traffic accidents and barring gross negligence the vast majority end up with no charges laid. As long as the driver remains at the scene and shows genuine remorse then the investigating officers may choose not to lay charges. The emotional toll that this takes on all involved is sometimes more than any sentence that the court can levy through a traffic charge.
Does it make it right, no. The family has legal recourse through the civil courts where the burden of proof is lower and the insurance company liable.
It's awful for all parties involved and I am sure the truck driver wasn't looking to mow down a cyclist.
Complaining though won't do a bit of good. Everyday there are pedestrians and others drivers killed in traffic accidents and barring gross negligence the vast majority end up with no charges laid. As long as the driver remains at the scene and shows genuine remorse then the investigating officers may choose not to lay charges. The emotional toll that this takes on all involved is sometimes more than any sentence that the court can levy through a traffic charge.
Does it make it right, no. The family has legal recourse through the civil courts where the burden of proof is lower and the insurance company liable.
It's awful for all parties involved and I am sure the truck driver wasn't looking to mow down a cyclist.
I have been cycling for 12 years or so on the road in this area. I can assure you that most of the time when a motorist gets too close to me, it is not because they are a responsible driver who just happened to not see me. 90%+ of the time it is a low-life ******* that is trying to "send a message" that he does not like sharing the road with cyclists. I can't conclusively condem the driver in this situation, because I was not there, and really only he knows what truely happened. But if you do the math, I would say that most (or at least many) cycling accidents are due to drivers who use thier trucks/autos to bully cyclists. Such invividuals should be in jail. Period.
Joined
·
0 Posts
I hope the family sues.
Given the repeated failure of law enforcement to charge drivers in cases such as these, the burden falls to the civil courts to bring some judgments against dangerous drivers.
A few million-dollar settlements ought to wake up a lot of drivers, employers and insurance companies.
Given the repeated failure of law enforcement to charge drivers in cases such as these, the burden falls to the civil courts to bring some judgments against dangerous drivers.
A few million-dollar settlements ought to wake up a lot of drivers, employers and insurance companies.
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Join the discussion
