3 ms·

If you try to run someone down, and end up killing them, that would be considered murder. If you try, but don't end up killing them, it would be assault with a

If you try to run someone down, and end up killing them, that would be considered murder. If you try, but don't end up killing them, it would be assault with a deadly weapon at the very least, or possibly attempted murder. If you just so happen to kill someone without intending to, it could be considered vehicular manslaughter.

wutbrodo 6y ago
> If you just so happen to kill someone without intending to, it could be considered vehicular manslaughter. There's an additional constraint of acting negligently. If you're going 45 on a road where the speed limit is fifty and someone sprints out in front of your car, you won't be convicted of vehicular manslaughter (assuming obviously that you didn't have time to react).
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Right, that's why the word "could" is in there. All of the crimes I mentioned have an element of either intent or fault attached to them. Coming close to someone, even at speed, without intending to do any harm is not "attempted murder" or assault in any form. This is fortunate, because to pass a cyclist, one often is forced to come within a few feet of them to accomplish the maneuver.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    ... to pass a cyclist, one often is forced to come within a few feet of them to accomplish the maneuver. Somehow I'm reading "within a few feet" as "six inches". IME bicycles are much narrower than automobiles. If it's safe to pass an automobile, it's safe to pass a cyclist while leaving at least eight feet. If it's not safe to pass, don't pass.
    - taeric 6y ago
      Cyclist get pushed by the air more than cars. Give a bit of extra room.
      - adrianN 6y ago
        Cyclists are also much more likely to swerve because a bee hit their eye or their chain slipped.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Sounds like you're a little biased when you're reading "within a few feet" as "six inches."
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        I'm biased by experience. Why did you write "within"? Three feet is an acceptable distance to allow if you're traveling less than 40mph. Less than three feet is not. This seems beside the point? Above you seemed to imply it is inherently challenging to pass a cyclist. That is only the case if one attempts to pass in inappropriate situations. Cyclists have at least as much right to the road as motorists have.
daniel-cussen 6y ago
Yeah, I think that's the phrase I'm looking for, "assault with a deadly weapon". Happens a lot when marriages break up, from what the person who introduced me to the term described, divorcées-to-be chasing their husbands down in their cars. We talk so much in America about gun control, why not also car control?
Rebelgecko 6y ago
At least where I live, you can get "vehicular manslaughter" for intentionally running over a cyclist. It's easier to give a murderer a plea deal for a lesser charge so you don't have to take the time to convict them and prove it was intentional. (https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/claremont-woman-who-intentionally-ran-over-and-killed-bicyclist-gets-16-years-in-prison/2458118/ https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/claremont-woman-who...)

wutbrodo 6y ago

> If you just so happen to kill someone without intending to, it could be considered vehicular manslaughter. There's an additional constraint of acting negligently. If you're going 45 on a road where the speed limit is fifty and someone sprints out in front of your car, you won't be convicted of vehicular manslaughter (assuming obviously that you didn't have time to react).

pmiller2 6y ago
Right, that's why the word "could" is in there. All of the crimes I mentioned have an element of either intent or fault attached to them. Coming close to someone, even at speed, without intending to do any harm is not "attempted murder" or assault in any form. This is fortunate, because to pass a cyclist, one often is forced to come within a few feet of them to accomplish the maneuver.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  ... to pass a cyclist, one often is forced to come within a few feet of them to accomplish the maneuver. Somehow I'm reading "within a few feet" as "six inches". IME bicycles are much narrower than automobiles. If it's safe to pass an automobile, it's safe to pass a cyclist while leaving at least eight feet. If it's not safe to pass, don't pass.
  - taeric 6y ago
    Cyclist get pushed by the air more than cars. Give a bit of extra room.
    - adrianN 6y ago
      Cyclists are also much more likely to swerve because a bee hit their eye or their chain slipped.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Sounds like you're a little biased when you're reading "within a few feet" as "six inches."
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      I'm biased by experience. Why did you write "within"? Three feet is an acceptable distance to allow if you're traveling less than 40mph. Less than three feet is not. This seems beside the point? Above you seemed to imply it is inherently challenging to pass a cyclist. That is only the case if one attempts to pass in inappropriate situations. Cyclists have at least as much right to the road as motorists have.

daniel-cussen 6y ago

Yeah, I think that's the phrase I'm looking for, "assault with a deadly weapon". Happens a lot when marriages break up, from what the person who introduced me to the term described, divorcées-to-be chasing their husbands down in their cars. We talk so much in America about gun control, why not also car control?

Rebelgecko 6y ago

At least where I live, you can get "vehicular manslaughter" for intentionally running over a cyclist. It's easier to give a murderer a plea deal for a lesser charge so you don't have to take the time to convict them and prove it was intentional. (https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/claremont-woman-who-intentionally-ran-over-and-killed-bicyclist-gets-16-years-in-prison/2458118/ https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/claremont-woman-who...)