The Virginian-Pilot
©
VIRGINIA BEACH
Mark Hardman, the challenger in the race to be commonwealth's attorney, accused incumbent Harvey Bryant on Thursday of failing "to pursue justice against drivers who injure or kill cyclists."
Hardman, a former collegiate cycling national champion, issued the statement a week after Bryant announced he did not intend to file charges in the April 19 crash that killed Daniel Hersh, an ex-SEAL and civil engineer.
"Harvey Bryant has made the decision to turn this tragedy into a travesty," Hardman said. "It is unacceptable that Mr. Bryant has refused to so much as charge the driver who killed Daniel with a misdemeanor."
Hardman, 27, was a prosecutor in Portsmouth for about five months. He was fired after announcing his bid for Virginia Beach commonwealth's attorney.
Bryant's decision outraged many in the cycling community, but he said there was no evidence the driver broke any law. The driver claimed she never saw Hersh, pedaling east on Shore Drive near Starfish Road before 6 a.m., until after the impact, Bryant said. Hersh was wearing a helmet and yellow windbreaker with reflective stripes.
Bryant, 62, said the woman passed a blood-alcohol test and there was no sign she was distracted.
He dismissed Hardman's claim, saying he'd file charges only "when there is substantial, admissible evidence... To do otherwise is considered unethical and unprofessional."
Hardman's comment "comes from someone with almost no experience in criminal law," Bryant said.
Shawn Day, (757) 222-5131, shawn.day@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
2 miler..
My mistake. But per Bruce Smith, he REFUSED to be tested for drinking, then issued a statement where he says he regrets dringking and driving!
But, as you said, have a nice day!
justtheguyfromChesapeake,
if you had really understood what you read in my comment, you'd realize the reference to DUI testing was in relation to b4reals' comment on Bruce Smith's case. Have a good day.
From 2miler...
"One can't be determined to be under the influence, while diving, if no testing is done."
Umm, the article most definitely said that a blood-alcohol test was administered to the driver, and she passed them..
Because, b4real,
if one driver hits another operator of a vehicle in the rear of said vehicle, that driver is following too close to the other driver, period. Or how else do you think the driver in the rear could strike the vehicle in front of it? It doesn't matter if the vehicle in front stopped suddenly, swerved or anything else. It's the obligation of the driver behind to allow for such contingencies. At least that's what we were taught in the police academy during my career. One can't be determined to be under the influence, while diving, if no testing is done. That's the difference.
Need a better understanding of the legal process?
Harvey, I appreciate your comments to help clarify this issue. Clearly your career has given you extensive knowledge of the workings of the Virginia justice system. A conclusion in a case like this that the driver of the SUV may not be responsible is an acceptable outcome. However, the conclusion does not bother me so much as your process. The Commonwealth of Virginia strives to maintain public safety. If you go through a stoplight, speed, fail to yield and a police officer investigates you usually are issued a citation and you have a responsibility to go to court and explain your actions. This is all in the interest of public safety. In this case (unless you were misquoted by the VA Pilot) you have ruled that since there is no proof that the SUV driver was distracted that there is no grounds for further action by the Commonwealth. Following this logic it sounds as if you are saying that if you are paying attention while driving and an accident occurs then you are absolved. How many drivers have been let off in court with this defense? I just don’t get it. I would think that in a case such as this that involves vehicular homicide that a public investigation is warranted
Oh Opus...
"Do me a favor, replace the word "cyclist" or "bicycle rider" in whatever permutation it appears with the word "Negro" or "Woman", and see if it does not sound like a terroristic threat against blacks or women."
A good guy has died in a tragic ACCIDENT, but now it's TERRORISM, it's 'legalized murder', it's all them 'haters' who so evilly drive cars who, when they see a bicycle rider, gleefully rub their hands and lick their lips at the prospect of running that rider over, no doubt with the EXPRESS hope of killing him/her, and all because they know they can get away with being the 'terrorists' you have labeled them as such. With GOD AND THE LAW on their side as well, no doubt...
Please, post more of the same. My laughter has overtaken my puzzlement as to how someone comes up with such an inane, bizarre evaluation of this...
Yeppers...
all the arm chair legal eagles are in full swing here. None were there, none were part of the police investigation, but we see all sorts of pronouncements that it's "legal to run down cyclists".
The dummying down of America continues unabated...!!
Other people that don't use bike lanes
There is another class of cyclist that doesn't use bike lanes: the transportational bicycle rider. This is the guy that uses a bicycle to get from A to B. If there is a bike lane on the way they might use it, if it is on the direct route they need to take. The cyclist could retort to the driver that there are hundreds of thousands of miles of Interstate Highway out there, why don't they drive on them? How many trillions of dollars have been spent on the Interstate system and yet people continue to drive on surface streets where the bicycles have to go.
Haters
Well just from this article's comments I have:
jasonwebb1969
nfkstateofmind
ed baskins
santa
895000
rayr41591
desert_divine
Wm Tabor DDS
russb757
muerte
corey63443
xsnipe
Conservative CPA
daniel 30825
Who have expressed the opinion that killing cyclists on the roads because they are riding bicycles is just fine and dandy.
Do me a favor, replace the word "cyclist" or "bicycle rider" in whatever permutation it appears with the word "Negro" or "Woman", and see if it does not sound like a terroristic threat against blacks or women. If it does read like a threat against blacks or women then it was a threat against bicycle riders in its original form.
That is the definition of "hater"
awaiting staff approval
Not seeing any other way to get in touch,what about my comments requires staff approval? When will that occur? How long does it take? Don't the subjects of these comments get an opportunity to respond? My comments are intended to educate and inform. Isn't it fair and important for readers of these comments to know that I met with leaders of the cyclists community yesterday morning?
Should this end getting posted without the necessity of staff approval,Let me say to commenters that I posted 2 reponses last night that you can't see right now because they are "awaiting staff approval".
Would staff please call or e-mail me with a response asap? Shawn Day, a couple of editors,and Kerry D. have my phone contact numbers.Or maybe I give all the comments awaiting staff approval to Channel 10 by 2pm today.
Thanks,
Harvey Bryant