NOV 17, 2008 – 12:00AM

“No Justice in Douglas County,” blared the Kansas Cycling News Web site.

”This is (expletive) outrageous,” one cyclist posted to the Lawrence Bicycle Club’s electronic mailing list.

Reaction was swift and overwhelmingly negative – at least from the cycling community – to District Attorney Charles Branson’s announcement Friday that criminal charges would not be filed against a motorist who allegedly struck and killed a Douglas County sheriff’s lieutenant who was riding his bicycle.

Quick recap: Back on June 28, Lt. David Dillon was struck and killed from behind as he was riding his bicycle between Lawrence and Eudora in the 1900 section of North 1400 Road (Old K-10) by a car driven by 21-year-old Kyle Van Meter, according to the Kansas Highway Patrol.

In a news release, Branson said Van Meter admitted to being distracted by his radio and told authorities he did not see Dillon until he hit him.

A highway patrol report said Van Meter, of Eudora, also was distracted by his cell phone.

But Branson decided not to file charges against Van Meter, and, at first, my knee jerked as quickly as those who found the decision (expletive) outrageous.

But the more I thought about it this weekend – and I thought about it a lot, fittingly just about every time I was on the bike – the more I softened.

One the one hand, sure, it’s galling a man can – however unintentionally – kill another with a car and suffer no legal consequences except for being cited for his traffic offenses.

Legally, I’ve come to learn, Branson’s hands were tied. The courts have established that mere negligence is not reason enough for a driver to be held criminally liable for the death of another. So while negligence may have been involved in this case, it apparently wasn’t enough to warrant criminal charges.

It’s not a bias against bikes; case law on the subject has plenty of examples of car-on-car incidents.

But even before I learned that, I found myself wondering if a long jail term would do anybody any good in this case.

I’ve ridden my bike on that road many times, in large part because it’s long, straight and flat and visibility is excellent. In other words, as a cyclist, I feel safe there.

When I first heard of the accident, my first thought was, “That could have been me.”

But as I turned the latest development over in my mind over the weekend, I couldn’t help but think I could have been the driver, too.

Distracted by the radio? That’s why they’re in cars in the first place. Music and talk radio never made anyone a better driver.

Distracted by a cell phone? I might be the only person I know who actually has pulled over to have a conversation on the phone, but I’ve also chatted as I’ve driven.

And I’m not alone.

I frequently count the number of drivers on their cells as they drive past me at intersections. Generally, the result is that half are on their phones.

And if it’s not cell phones and radios, it’s meals or newspapers or makeup or … you get the idea.

Everybody gets distracted by something, but fortunately the kind of accident that happened in June was a rarity.

Should the driver have been put through the penal wringer? I honestly don’t know.

I think he could become an outstanding resource in the battle against distracted driving. Imagine the impact he could have if he had been sentenced to hours of community services, say, speaking to driver’s ed courses about the dangers of distracted driving.

There still could be a civil suit, too, so it’s not accurate to say he’ll escape without any kind of punishment.

This weekend, as I mourned the death of a man I’d never met, I couldn’t suppress a little sympathy for the man who killed him.