Driver that killed Cincinnati cyclist last year is sentenced
 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2...s-house-arrest

Currently there is an unrelated video attached to it.

The gist though is that he was sentenced to two years house arrest, three years probation, three years license suspension, 100 hours of community service if his health allows and must give $1000 (which is the max fine) to a bike safety program, which is likely Queen City Blinkies, which gives out free lights.

He had been driving over 10 mph in excess of the speed limit, in fog. The cyclist did have lights and a helmet and was doing everything correct (though you woudn't know it from the comments at the time, why wasn't he on the bike path just a few feet away etc.)

Maybe they updated the posted article, because there was no video that I saw, nor any flame comments.

Horrid as it is that a cyclist was killed, I can't really fault the judge; he did the best he could with what he had. The driver's health itself was an (ancillary) issue, you don't put a person in a position to be put to death by CONDITIONS when a death penalty isn't warranted. I do believe, though, that the license should have revoked for life.

The video was corrected, the picture is now correct. The flame comments were during the original incident when it first made the news. There is a MUP along the road that the accident occurred. Though that particular section is essentially a wide sidewalk with driveways for various airport companies.

Absolutely agree . . . I think the death penalty should only be a possibility if it can be demonstrated that a driver knowingly, willfully, and deliberately ran a cyclist down. In a situation like that, its an option that should be on the table, but it is ridiculous for even the most militant cyclist to have any expectation of the death penalty for a motorist who runs down a cyclist if it cannot be demonstrated to be a knowing, willful, and deliberate act.

I also absolutely agree that the defendants privilege of driving a large and fast vehicle and thus dangerous to others if not operated correctly and with due caution should be revoked for a long time, potentially for life depending on the specific case should be cut off in cases like this. I do not agree with or like the "except for work and other needful travel" exceptions judges usually make. There are a lot of other ways to get to work and make other needful travel besides allowing an individual to operate a large and fast heavy vehicle who has already proven they can't handle that kind of responsibility - a bike being one of those alternatives.

I can't believe I'm gonna be the first to say it.. the judge should have sentenced that guy to commuting by bicycle, look at him he f-ing needs it!!!!!!!!

There was one thing the driver did correctly, he stayed at the scene and cooperated with police. Also, we have a jail overcrowding issue (like most places) and he may not have actually stayed there for the full sentence. Even Andrew's parents felt that if his health was at risk, don't put him in jail.

There are some comments that he should be made to ride a bike to work, though he does seem to have significant health issues. Maybe a recumbent?

I seem to recall from reading the article earlier that he used a brace (assuming on a leg); that does not prohibit, but can INhibit, use of a bike. Maybe a step-through trike.....

OR, just make Pudgely buy bus passes for life.

His health issues are of his own making and thus don't warrant any special treatment in my opinion. The death was the result of the killer's disregard for the laws governing the operation of motor vehicles. It doesn't exactly require significant intellectual prowess to realize that such reckless disregard dramatically increases the probability of harming or killing someone. I wish we would change our legal system to consider such acts as premeditated. This person is getting off with a slap on the wrist for his casual killing of a human being. I'm disgusted and the picture of him isn't helping me any.

I am normally as disgusted as you with such sentencing, but let us think about this one specific case (not joking either):

Two years of house arrest, may make this guy so bed ridden that he never drives again. I have images of a 800 lb guy that cannot even sit up in bed.

Good point. He has clearly sentenced himself to a short uncomfortable life. Hopefully he can manage to not shorten any other people's lives before he departs us.

His sentence is an fing joke, 2 years house arrest, 3 years probation, 100 hours of community service(health pending), and 1000 dollar fine is all a joke, hell leaving the scene of an accident, alone, has heavier penalties in NJ. I do understand giving him a light sentence because he stayed on the scene but this is a slap on the hands without real time.

I have personally had cycling deaths in my life, when 2 of my coworkers at a restaurant I worked at were hit by a driver who was under drugs and drunk. It outraged me so much and when I heard that the driver was given only 12 years, but to hear that the cincinnati cyclist's parents are strong enough people to give this guy walk away with as little damage as possible speaks volumes to how great these people really are. It sucks that a cyclist was killed by someone's careless actions but his parents have something that has eluded me at my young age and that is the ability to forgive. I just hope that there is a way for people to grow from this and help raise awareness to groups other than the family and the cycling community because it will continue to just happen.

Age has nothing to do with it. I am 60 and would never forgive these killers.

It is one thing to forgive, that is a matter of individual choice.

It is quite another thing to allow an individual who has proven themselves beyond any reasonable doubt to be not responsible enough to operate certain dangerous equipment without being a lethal danger to others around them to continue to be allowed to operate such lethal equipment around innocents in a public place.

As part of the judgment he lost his drivers license for only three years, the rest of the stuff besides that really isn't a huge matter of concern for me. My questions are:

----- Why only three years?
----- What provisions have been made to ensure that the defendant won't still be driving just without a license? Are the enforcement measures on that strict enough to ensure that won't be happening?
----- Once the three years have been fulfilled, what measures have been taken to ensure that the defendant will only receive another license to operate a heavy, high speed, large vehicle that can be potentially lethal to others if he proves himself responsible enough to be granted that privilege? Are there any extra precautions that will be taken along those lines AT ALL ???

----- Does anyone in the justice system give a flying ^@#$^@ $^&@%$ #!^&^ &&*&* (%&%# %$@^% &^*#^@^ &#&#& about the most important point of all. Namely, ensuring that individuals like this one that have proven themselves beyond a doubt to not be responsible enough to be entrusted with the privilege of operating such a dangerous device in public around innocent others should be prevented from doing so as the primary concern for the future even ahead of any other potential punishment concerns at least when it comes to acts of negligence rather then acts of deliberate aggression? Or have the lost sight of the most important concern of all?

I don't think the judge had much of a choice in the matter. Ohio law has a maximum sentence in jail of six months and a $1000 fine. The judge obviously was able to extend the sentence because it was house arrest but there probably is a maximum for that as well.

From the comments I've heard from cycling representatives in the room, the judge did not take this lightly. Maybe ohiobikelawyer will offer his thoughts here, he was in the courtroom.

As usual another slap on the wrist!!!!!!!

Well, the comments on the article have started back up, why wasn't he on the bike path, why was he biking in the fog etc etc

This is where it happened, the bike route sign is where the ghost bike is. Looks like this street view was taken after it happened, there are some flowers at the base. The ghost bike was there as of a week or two ago. And yes, that is the MUP that commenters say Andrew should have been on. In defense of the path, there are other sections that are much better. The portion along the road is the worst part.

https://www.google.com/maps/preview#...7!4f13.1&fid=5

I don't get how the cyclist got hit? There's a nice separated bike path right along that road. Was he not using it? Or did the driver go off the road? Very sad either way.

False: MUP = Bike Path
False: Bikes Don't Belong on the Road
False: Bikers Wouldn't Get Hit if They Used Side-Paths Instead of the Road
False: Bikers Who Ride on The Road Deserve What They Get
False: It Was the Bikers Fault He Got Hit from Behind While On the Road, He Should Have Gotten Out of the Way of the Car

True: The Cyclist at the time he was hit was following all the laws regarding legal biking in the area where he was AS CONFIRMED BY THE COURT ITSELF AS CLEARLY STATED IN THE LINKED TOO ARTICLE !!!

True: The Motorist who hit and killed the cyclist did so fully as at the bare minimum 100% negligence on his part and PLEADED NO CONTEST TO VEHICULAR HOMOCIDE IN A COURT OF LAW !!! (You don't do that unless you know your guilty and you know the evidence is so clear you ain't going to be able to squirm out of it.)



Yet you choose to continue to perpetrate false information in a continued attempt to blame the poor guy who got killed due to someone else's negligence (assumably negligence since it couldn't be proven a deliberate act) for merely exercising his rights and privileges fully within the law? If it weren't for my strong support of the 1-st amendment rights of even slime like you I would suggest you be banned from the forum for that post.

I don't blame the cyclist. The driver was for speeding in bad weather conditions. He certainly isn't blameless. Even if the cyclist wasn't on the road I'm sure that reckless driver would have ended up smashing into another car and possibly killing someone else. But as a cyclist you have to know there are risks involved when you're riding on a narrow high-speed road in poor weather.

I guess when people are young as this cyclist was at 27 they tend to think of themselves as invincible and bad things won't happen to them. He probably thought his rear blinkers were enough to protect him. But even with rear blinkers on a road where cars are going so fast they may not see you in time to avoid hitting you. Makes it harder for them to see the edge of the road very clearly. At speed, their reaction time is slowed and compounded by bad weather, will be even slower. I can't say either of them were totally faultless...I would say 80/20 driver fault.

Road rage much? Jeez calm down dude. No need for childish insults.

If his license suspension is like many states, he will be able to drive under circumstances like going to work, going to the doctor, picking up kids from school...... It's called a hardship exception, and in South Carolina it's almost always given.

Also, this guy is eating himself to death... diabetes, CHF, and a brace at 50 years of age. All of which would go away if he would perhaps.... start riding a bike?

That part of the MUP is definitely not nice. Further up ahead, technically speaking if you follow the signs, you have to get off your bike and walk it past the airport terminal. It is fairly narrow, crosses driveways and a small parking lot. The driveways aren't as big of an issue as they are normally, they are all gated since it's all related to companies at the airport but still. In another place on that trail, there is a pothole that goes all the way through the bed. The biggest saving grace for the trail itself is that the connector to a trail in another park has a fun downhill, and it links to the Ohio River Trail and hopefully the Little Miami rail trail in the future. Plus you sometimes see cool airplanes or a Goodyear blimp.

Andrew was likely going at a decent speed and was in the road as he should have been. Plus, the trail wasn't going where he was anyway.

This article from the time of the accident shows a different view of the area. That strip of pavement is the MUP.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2...ed-near-Lunken

Personally, I think 40mph on that road is too high of a speed limit. It's foggy many times as it's right by the river.

So after saying you don't blame the cyclist and give a bunch of of supposed reasons why the cyclist shouldn't have been there in the first place you then state that you believe the cyclist is 20% to blame just for being on the road. You are indeed blaming the cyclist for daring to be on the road going about his business in peace and in full compliance with the law. So, are you going to blame the guy who gets gunned down in a drive by shooting because he dared to be there and dared not to be wearing body armor - don't he know that those guns nuts run around shooting things all the time and he is supposed to get out of their way and take proper precaution?

I was being 100% serious. I actually meant that and I looked over that post for a several minutes before I hit the post button. It is absolutely true that the only reason I do not call for your banning from a bike forum for making a post like that, where you are blaming the cyclist for just daring to be on the road and say that it is their fault (at least partially) for just daring to use another form of fully legal and fully road legal transportation - Yah, how dare that cyclist get in my way - that is the level of attitude you displayed. And on a bicycle forum, a forum that is dedicated to that very form of alternate transportation, I can certainly see how that kind of attitude could get you banned. I, however, believe that even your kind have a right to spout off that kind of smut that drips with the same kind of ingrained prejudice and hate that one person of one race would say about another person of another race "getting what they were asking for" just for being on the other races turf. "XYZ race in ABC race turf is to blame for just being there (at least partially) even if they have a legal right to do so." = "Bicycle rider in the road which is car turf is to blame for just being there (at least partially) even if they have a legal right to do so." In my mind those two statements are equivalent and come from the same deep down rotten to bone place. But, yes, I will defend your right to spout of that kind of trash. Just be assured that if you do it when I'm watching I'm not going to let it go unanswered, I would be shamed to the core if I let that kind of clear and open raw rotten prejudice go unanswered by my voice if no other.

Not a childish insult - I meant exactly what I said and I make no apologies. In fact if I was aware of this thread and had read your post and hadn't spoken up I would find need to apologize for that.

There are plenty of situations where the cyclist is at fault, or at least partially at fault. In those cases, the cyclist absolutely should be punished in some way, though of course in the cases that involve a car, not much can increase the punishment than the accident itself.

But to say Gast was partially at fault, that is almost to say that the driver should be able to sue Gast's estate for his part in the accident. I might feel a bit differently if Gast didn't have a rear light, though there still is the fact that the driver was going way too fast. Maybe at that point there would be a bit of fault. I don't know what kind of light he had, but considering even a base model Roubaix generally isn't called cheap, he probably had a decent rear light as well.

The MUP may not be perfect but anything is better than being in high-speed traffic with the cars with no bike lane. It's just not safe, period. The surface of the MUP appears to be gravelly in many places, which is no problem when you're on a mountain bike or a hybrid. But of course not suitable for a road bike. Which explains why he was on the road instead of the MUP. But obviously when you're on the road the danger level and risk of getting struck by a car goes up about ten fold.



The speed limit is fine for cars. That's what the MUP is for. It was built for a reason, for the benefit of walkers, joggers and cyclists because the road is too dangerous for them to walk, run or ride on.

And when he got to the point where the MUP doesn't go where he was going? What then? Sorry, you can't go there, you need to stay on the MUP?

I don't ride alone on the road much, but just came back from a group ride, too much fun to miss out on. All street and bridge.

And yes, I do think on that road the speed limit should be around 30.