Advocacy & Safety - Cyclist charged in pedistrian's death

Anybody know more details about this?

Cyclist charged with manslaughter after hitting, killing pedestrian


CORVALLIS, Ore. (AP) -- A bicyclist has been charged with manslaughter after he struck and killed a pedestrian, police said.



Jean Calder, 71, died at Good Samaritan Hospital after she was struck Friday night as she crossed a street at an unmarked crosswalk, Corvallis police Capt. Ron Noble said.



Calder had the right of way when the bike rider struck her, Noble said.



Christopher A. Lightning, 51, was charged with manslaughter and reckless driving.

http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2005/09/12/news/community/mon02.txt

This is what confuses me when people say no test should be needed for a bicycle. And then go on to say stupid things like should there be a test to be a pedestrian?
Although a bike may not be as dangerous as say a car, a 15kg bike traveling at 15mph will do some damage. Whilst a nice squishy pedestrian walking at 5mph isn't!

Funny how they are quick to charge a cyclist with manslaughter, while it perfectly acceptable for motorized vehicles to mow down cyclists with impunity.

<snip> she crossed a street at an unmarked crosswalk <snip>
what is an unmarked crosswalk?

what is an unmarked crosswalk?

That's what I was wondering. At any rate, it looks like he failed to stop at a stop sign, perhaps?

Funny how they are quick to charge a cyclist with manslaughter, while it perfectly acceptable for motorized vehicles to mow down cyclists with impunity.

Just curious - where is it, exactly, that it is "perfectly acceptable for motorized vehicles to mow down cyclists with impunity"?

Thanks,
-B

That's what I was wondering. At any rate, it looks like he failed to stop at a stop sign, perhaps?
How else could a pedestrian have the right-of-way? Is it legal to cross the street w/o a stop sign for the cross-traffic or is that jay-walking? Or can you cross the street at any intersection, regardless if there is a stop sign to stop cross-traffic?

The other article doesn't much explain what happened -- and spells the cyclist's last name two different ways. I am still curious as to what actions this cyclist committed to merit manslaughter and reckless driving charges. I am assuming there was some kind of negligence involved, but there's no explanation of what it might be.

The other article doesn't much explain what happened -- and spells the cyclist's last name two different ways. I am still curious as to what actions this cyclist committed to merit manslaughter and reckless driving charges. I am assuming there was some kind of negligence involved, but there's no explanation of what it might be.
It appears that he ran a stop sign. If this is true then I think he should be charged the same as if he were in a car. If we as cyclists expect the same rights as motor vehicles we should be held to the same standards.


CORVALLIS, Ore. (AP) - A bicyclist was charged with manslaughter after he ran through a stop sign and struck and killed a 71-year-old woman, police said Monday.

Jean Calder died at Good Samaritan Hospital after she was struck Friday night as she crossed a street at an unmarked crosswalk, Corvallis police Capt. Ron Noble said.

Christopher A. Lightning, 51, was charged with manslaughter and reckless driving.

"A car and a bicycle are both vehicles and if they are operated in a way that could be criminal, then charges are filed equally in both situations," Noble said. "He was going right through a stop sign."

Lightning was being housed in Benton County jail with bail set at $57,500. He will be given a court-appointed lawyer at his arraignment in Benton County.

http://newsobserver.com/24hour/nation/story/2709927p-11269407c.html

Here's a photo of the guy:

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/M_IMAGE.105fcd830c3.93.88.fa.7c.4a615248.jpg
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_091105_news_cyclist_charged.4a5f2729.html

Just curious - where is it, exactly, that it is "perfectly acceptable for motorized vehicles to mow down cyclists with impunity"?

Thanks,
-B


New York City

what is an unmarked crosswalk?

In California there is an implicit crosswalk at every intersection, unless posted otherwise. So a pedestrian crossing at an intersection has the right of way.

How did the newspapers miss the headline... "Lightning strikes, kills woman!"

I am glad that they are charging this guy. It sends a message that cyclists need to obey all the laws if they want to use the roadway.

How else could a pedestrian have the right-of-way? Is it legal to cross the street w/o a stop sign for the cross-traffic or is that jay-walking? Or can you cross the street at any intersection, regardless if there is a stop sign to stop cross-traffic?

I don't know the law for Oregon but Mac, you are in California, and Keith99 is correct in regard to our laws. Also, it's not "jaywalking" unless there is a traffic light at either end of the block. Stop signs are insufficient, there have to be lights. It's also jaywalking if you step in front of traffic in an unsafe manner, but generally, cars and bikes are always supposed to yield the right of way to pedestrians.

In California there is an implicit crosswalk at every intersection, unless posted otherwise. So a pedestrian crossing at an intersection has the right of way.
Really? So it doesn't matter if I'm a pedestrian on a residential street or a business street, I can just walk out into the intersection and cars are supposed to stop? That doesn't make sense - that can cause a lot of accidents. Cars are driving down the road and then all of a sudden people step out into the street?? However, I have seen business intersections that had no traffic lights or stop signs, but did have the white crosswalk painted. Maybe that's what an "unmarked crosswalk" means?

I don't know the law for Oregon but Mac, you are in California, and Keith99 is correct in regard to our laws.
Wow, you guys are right - about residential streets. I looked up the CA DMV laws regarding pedestrians and intersections. I'm still unsure about business streets (i.e. ones with traffic lights). Pedestrians can not cross at intersections w/o a Walk/Don't Walk signal, right?



LAWS AND RULES OF THE ROAD

RIGHT OF WAY RULES

General Information

Right-of-way rules help people drive safely. These rules go along with courtesy and common sense. Bicyclists, moped riders, and pedestrians must follow these rules, too.

Never insist on taking the right of way. If another driver does not yield to you when he or she should, forget it. Let the other driver go first. You will help prevent accidents and make driving more pleasant.

However, if another driver expects you to take your legal turn, take it. If you don’t, you may delay traffic or cause an accident.

Pedestrians

Pedestrian safety is a serious issue. One in six traffic fatalities is a pedestrian. Drive cautiously when pedestrians are near because they may cross your path.

A pedestrian is a person on foot or who uses a conveyance such as roller skates, skateboards, etc., other than a bicycle. A pedestrian can also be a person with a disability in a self-propelled wheelchair, tricycle, or quadricycle.

• Always stop for any pedestrian crossing at corners or other crosswalks. Do not pass a car from behind that has stopped at a crosswalk. A pedestrian you can’t see may be crossing.

• Do not drive on a sidewalk, except to cross it at a driveway or alley. When crossing, yield to any pedestrian.

• Do not stop in a crosswalk. You will place pedestrians in danger.

• Remember—if a pedestrian makes eye contact with you, he or she is ready to cross the street. Yield to the pedestrian.

• Pedestrians have the right of way at corners with or without traffic lights, whether or not the crosswalks are marked by painted white lines.

• Allow older pedestrians more time to cross the street. They are more likely to die as a result of a crash than younger pedestrians.

Information regarding pedestrians who are blind is on page 53.

Crosswalks

A crosswalk is that part of the pavement where the sidewalk lines would extend across the street and it is set aside for pedestrian traffic. Every intersection has a pedestrian crosswalk whether or not there are painted lines on the street. Most crosswalks are at corners but they can also be in the middle of the block. Before turning a corner, watch for people about to cross the street. Pedestrians have the right of way in crosswalks. emphasis in original document

Crosswalks are often marked with white lines. Yellow crosswalk lines may be painted at school crossings. Most often, crosswalks in residential areas are not marked.

Some crosswalks have flashing lights to warn you that pedestrians may be crossing. Look for pedestrians and be prepared to stop whether or not the lights are flashing.

Really? So it doesn't matter if I'm a pedestrian on a residential street or a business street, I can just walk out into the intersection and cars are supposed to stop? That doesn't make sense - that can cause a lot of accidents. Cars are driving down the road and then all of a sudden people step out into the street?? However, I have seen business intersections that had no traffic lights or stop signs, but did have the white crosswalk painted. Maybe that's what an "unmarked crosswalk" means?

No, the pedestrian cannot step suddenly into traffic where an accident could occur. Essentially, the ped is still required to be relatively safe in order to maintain this right of way. So, I cannot legally step out into traffic RIGHT IN FRONT of a rich cyclist and then sue him. Establishing this in a court of law would be difficult, though.

Wow, you guys are right - about residential streets. I looked up the CA DMV laws regarding pedestrians and intersections. I'm still unsure about business streets (i.e. ones with traffic lights). Pedestrians can not cross at intersections w/o a Walk/Don't Walk signal, right?You guys are both correct, just in different circumstances. Yes, there's an implicit crosswalk. The grey area is when you do not have a sidewalk that ends at the intersection since the lines of the sidewalk is used to draw the imaginary crosswalk:



CVC-275 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc275.htm) -Crosswalk

275. "Crosswalk" is either:

(a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersection where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street.

(b) Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, there shall not be a crosswalk where local authorities have placed signs indicating no crossing.Also contrary to popular urban-legend and myth that "pedestrians always have right of way", they only have it in crosswalks:



CVC-21954 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21954.htm) - Pedestrians Outside Crosswalks -

21954. (a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard.

(b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway.Even in intersections, pedestrians don't automatically have all right-of-way. They can't suddenly jump out into the crosswalk and expect cars to stop:



CVC - 21950 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21950.htm) - Right-of-Way at Crosswalks

21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.

(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.

(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

CVC-21456 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21456.htm) - Walk, Wait, or Don't Walk

21456. Whenever a pedestrian control signal showing the words "WALK" or "WAIT" or "DON'T WALK" or other approved symbol is in place, the signal shall indicate as follows:

(a) "WALK" or approved "Walking Person" symbol. A pedestrian facing the signal may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal, but shall yield the right-of-way to vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time that signal is first shown.

(b) Flashing or steady "DON'T WALK" or "WAIT" or approved "Upraised Hand" symbol. No pedestrian shall start to cross the roadway in the direction of the signal, but any pedestrian who has partially completed crossing shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety zone or otherwise leave the roadway while the "WAIT" or "DON'T WALK" or approved "Upraised Hand" symbol is showing.

CVC-21451 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21451.htm) - Circular Green or Green Arrow

21451. (a) A driver facing a circular green signal shall proceed straight through or turn right or left or make a U-turn unless a sign prohibits a U-turn. Any driver, including one turning, shall yield the right-of-way to other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk.

(b) A driver facing a green arrow signal, shown alone or in combination with another indication, shall enter the intersection only to make the movement indicated by that green arrow or any other movement that is permitted by other indications shown at the same time. A driver facing a left green arrow may also make a U-turn unless prohibited by a sign. A driver shall yield the right-of-way to other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk.

(c) A pedestrian facing a circular green signal, unless prohibited by sign or otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, may proceed across the roadway within any marked or unmarked crosswalk, but shall yield the right-of-way to vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time that signal is first shown.

(d) A pedestrian facing a green arrow turn signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, shall not enter the roadway. Basically crosswalks exists at intersections explicitly or implicitly. The grey area is when you do not have a sidewalk that ends at the intersection since the lines of the sidewalk is used to draw the imaginary crosswalk. Crosswalks in the middle of the street beween intersections have to be drawn explicitly. And pedestrians can only cross at crosswalks or else they're jaywalking. Pedestrians can only cross when it's safe if there's no light. If there's a light, pedestrians can only cross on a green light in their direction of travel. And if there's a walk/no-walk signal, this takes precedence over a green light. So if the light's green, but the no-walk signal is lit, then pedestrians cannot cross.

Then there's the driver's responsibility as outlined in the CVC above. But there's also criminal statutes which basically says that a driver only has to make a "reasonable" effort to avoid a pedestrian that's in violation, say... jumping out into a crosswalk when the lights' are not in their favor, or jumping out from between two parked cars and jaywalking. The "reasonable" part is up to a jury to decide, but the onus is not overly heavy on the driver. Better to hit the pedestrian in violation when have right-of-way than to make a extravagant move and swerve into oncoming traffic or onto the sidewalk. Both of which cause more severe damage, death and carnage than running over a pedestrian.

CORVALLIS, Ore. (AP) -- A bicyclist has been charged with manslaughter after he struck and killed a pedestrian, police said.

Jean Calder, 71, died at Good Samaritan Hospital after she was struck Friday night as she crossed a street at an unmarked crosswalk, Corvallis police Capt. Ron Noble said.



Calder had the right of way when the bike rider struck her, Noble said.



Christopher A. Lightning, 51, was charged with manslaughter and reckless driving.

WTF is an "unmarked crosswalk"? If a car had hit her, it would be chalked up as an "accident" and the driver would get free grief counseling, if the driver felt any grief, which they'd probably not.

I'm still unsure about business streets (i.e. ones with traffic lights). Pedestrians can not cross at intersections w/o a Walk/Don't Walk signal, right?
Sure they can, Mac. If there's a traffic light but no Walk/Don't Walk signal, then pedestrians cross on the green light, and vehicles turning left or right on the green are required to yield to them. The Walk signals are only used at intersections where vehicle or foot traffic is heavy enough that things would get chaotic or dangerous without the extra layer of traffic control.

WTF is an "unmarked crosswalk"? If a car had hit her, it would be chalked up as an "accident" and the driver would get free grief counseling, if the driver felt any grief, which they'd probably not.

Check out the CVC-275 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc275.htm) code listed above. Eve when there's no white lines on the road, there's an implied crosswalk in the intersection that connects the sidewalks on each side.

OK, what is an intersection and how close was she to a marked crosswalk? Don't you legally have to use a marked crosswalk if you're within a certain number of feet?

And pedestrians can only cross at crosswalks or else they're jaywalking.

Not exactly. See elsewhere in the Vehicle Code:


21954. (a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than
within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an
intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the
roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of
a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any
pedestrian upon a roadway.

21955. Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control
signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross
the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk.

In other words, you can cross the street anywhere you want -- not just at crosswalks, marked or unmarked -- as long as you yield the right-of-way to any vehicles where failing to do so would cause an immediate hazard, or unless the intersections on either side of you are equipped with traffic control devices or manned by traffic cops.

(The only reason I know this arcane bit of law is that my father is a tiny bit pedantic about the vehicle code and taught it to me long ago, and I doublechecked it one time for the lawyer for a guy who was sent away for 25-life for possession of crack cocaine, and his original arrest was for jaywalking. In the middle of an empty street with no traffic control devices on either side. No jaywalking, illegal arrest, crackhead back on the street. I love America.)

Not exactly. See elsewhere in the Vehicle Code:



In other words, you can cross the street anywhere you want -- not just at crosswalks, marked or unmarked -- as long as you yield the right-of-way to any vehicles where failing to do so would cause an immediate hazard, or unless the intersections on either side of you are equipped with traffic control devices or manned by traffic cops.

(The only reason I know this arcane bit of law is that my father is a tiny bit pedantic about the vehicle code and taught it to me long ago, and I doublechecked it one time for the lawyer for a guy who was sent away for 25-life for possession of crack cocaine, and his original arrest was for jaywalking. In the middle of an empty street with no traffic control devices on either side. No jaywalking, illegal arrest, crackhead back on the street. I love America.)

Sorry, I guess "jaywalking" is not a proper term here since you don't ever get written up for "jaywalking". So basically the two codes you cited can be summarized as follows:

21954. A pedestrian can cross anywhere they want as long as they give right-of-way to cars on the road.

21955. If there's traffic-lights at either end of the street, of if there's police controlling traffic, pedestrians can only cross at the crosswalk.

This does bring up some grey areas, such what rules apply to streets with traffic-lights only at one intersection, but nothing at the other end?

Wow, you guys are right - about residential streets. I looked up the CA DMV laws regarding pedestrians and intersections. I'm still unsure about business streets (i.e. ones with traffic lights). Pedestrians can not cross at intersections w/o a Walk/Don't Walk signal, right?
Pedestrians have the right-of-way only at intersections not controlled by signal lights; whether they are in business or residential areas is irrelevant. If it's says DON'T WALK, they don't have the right-of-way.



21461.5. It shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to fail to obey any sign or signal erected or maintained to indicate or carry out the provisions of this code or any local traffic ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a local traffic ordinance, or to fail to obey any device erected or maintained pursuant to Section 21352.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21461_5.htm

But if there is no traffic signal at an intersection, the pedestrian has the right-of-way. I honestly thought everyone knew that. All you have to do is put one foot on the roadway, and motorists are supposed to stop. I often have to hold up my hand to get them to stop. Now I know why...

It appears that he ran a stop sign. If this is true then I think he should be charged the same as if he were in a car.

<sarcasm>
Oh, so in other words he should get off scott free.
</sarcasm>

This does bring up some grey areas, such what rules apply to streets with traffic-lights only at one intersection, but nothing at the other end?
Streets with traffic-lights only at one intersection, but nothing at the other end? Other end of what? The street? Huh?

Do you mean streets with traffic lights at one intersection, and no traffic lights at the next intersection? If so, the traffic light rules apply at the first, and the normal rules (ped has right-of-way, even without crosswalk) applies at the next.

Oh, so in other words he should get off scott free.

Where has a car run a stop sign and killed a pedestrian and got off scott free?

Or were a car ran a stop sign killed a cyclist and got off scott free?


WTF is an "unmarked crosswalk"? If a car had hit her, it would be chalked up as an "accident" and the driver would get free grief counseling, if the driver felt any grief, which they'd probably not.

It wouldn't be an accident if you ran a stop sign in your car and killed a pedestrian in the intersection. Unless you know of a case......


Some people seem to look past the fact that this guy ran a stop sign and therefore, hit someone........

If she had stepped out somewhere where there was no stop sign or light (or even an intersection) and was hit, it would probably be a different story......

Where has a car run a stop sign and killed a pedestrian and got off scott free?

Or were a car ran a stop sign killed a cyclist and got off scott free?



http://bicycleaustin.info/justice/index.html

In California there is an implicit crosswalk at every intersection, unless posted otherwise. So a pedestrian crossing at an intersection has the right of way.
Same here in Ohio.

[url]This is what confuses me when people say no test should be needed for a bicycle. And then go on to say stupid things like should there be a test to be a pedestrian?
Although a bike may not be as dangerous as say a car, a 15kg bike traveling at 15mph will do some damage. Whilst a nice squishy pedestrian walking at 5mph isn't!
At 6' and 210 pounds, I bet I could do a significant amount of damage running on the sidewalk at 12 mph to some poor 120 pounder. Should I or should I not be required to have a runners test? As a runner, am I classified as a pedestrian? :rolleyes:

I have a problem with using criminal law to prosecute someone who was involved in an accident, particularly when motorist/bicycle accidents don't result in similar prosecutions.

I read a lot of posts here about people on bikes who get hit by cars. Some die, but I never read about criminal charges being brought against the motorists.

I hope it isn't a case of the prosecutor wanting to make a splash in the local papers by prosecuting an unusual case. I wonder how many motorists who have hit people on bikes have been prosecuted by him.

If one of you were in the unfortunate situation of hitting a pedestrian, and the pedestrian died, do you think prosecution would be fair after what you've seen motorists do?

Sept. 12, 2005
Associated Press

Ore. Bicyclist Charged With Manslaughter

CORVALLIS, Ore. - A bicyclist was charged with manslaughter after he ran through a stop sign and struck and killed a 71-year-old woman, police said Monday.

Jean Calder died at Good Samaritan Hospital after she was struck Friday night as she crossed a street at an unmarked crosswalk, Corvallis police Capt. Ron Noble said.

Christopher A. Lightning, 51, was charged with manslaughter and reckless driving.

"A car and a bicycle are both vehicles and if they are operated in a way that could be criminal, then charges are filed equally in both situations," Noble said. "He was going right through a stop sign."

Lightning was being housed in Benton County jail with bail set at $57,500. He will be given a court-appointed lawyer at his arraignment in Benton County.

<sarcasm>
Oh, so in other words he should get off scott free.
</sarcasm>


I'm not sure what is sarcastic about that. Drivers are rarely charged in cyclist or pedestrian deaths in my neck of the woods. The police would have to catch them, and then the driver would have to be drunk or something like that. "I didn't see him" is a valid excuse in the 5 boroughs of New York City.

Which is why I have screamed at people as well as punched a cabby.

Drivers who have no respect get none from me.

That said, it sounds like this guy broke a traffic law and killed an old lady. Just because motorists get away with it, doesn't make it right.

In the cold light of ethics however she was old. The chances of a young person dying from being hit by a bike are near zero. It's a very sad occasion for everyone involved but manslaughter may still carry too great of a penalty for something like this.

This is better for the Advocacy forum wouldn't you think?

what is an unmarked crosswalk?

a neighbourhood street with 4 ways often has no painted crosswalks. They are still there.

This 'event' was on the newscroll on CNN during their coverage of the LA blackout and NO cleanup. When was the last time a cyclist being hit and killed by a car made the CNN scroll?

Yeah, he should be charged, but c'mon media?! WTF?

"A car and a bicycle are both vehicles and if they are operated in a way that could be criminal, then charges are filed equally in both situations," Noble said. "He was going right through a stop sign."


So why is he being charged with manslaughter? Shouldn't he get a $5 fine or something?

because if you blow through a stop sign in a car and kll someone then you'll get charged with vehicular manslaughter. same applies to this guy

umm, last I checked, unmarked crosswalk means jay-walking. which cleared a guy of all charges when he hit a girl in front of my middleschool. I guess the running a stop sign may negate that? Although aren't you supposed to look both ways and assess the situation before crossing? Jumping in front of a semi doesn't place the blame on the drive of the semi... any lawyers in the house?

umm, last I checked, unmarked crosswalk means jay-walking. which cleared a guy of all charges when he hit a girl in front of my middleschool. I guess the running a stop sign may negate that? Although aren't you supposed to look both ways and assess the situation before crossing? Jumping in front of a semi doesn't place the blame on the drive of the semi... any lawyers in the house?

Oregon is a different state. pedestrians are allowed to cross at intersections. The rider blew the stop sign and killed a guy. So much for some of you out there that think that ignoring the law isn't hurting anyone.

I think the implicit argument is that ignoring the law (and not hurting anyone) is not hurting anyone. That cyclist broke the 11th commandment.

This 'event' was on the newscroll on CNN during their coverage of the LA blackout and NO cleanup. When was the last time a cyclist being hit and killed by a car made the CNN scroll?

Yeah, he should be charged, but c'mon media?! WTF?
The reason it is on the news is because it is thankfuly a rare occurance. Not to many people are killed by being hit by bicycles.

I can't beleive all the debate about this. If it would have been a car blowing a stop sign hitting a cyclist walking across the street none of this "what crosswalk" debate would be happening. I sometimes get the feeling in this section of the board that people have the view that cyclists can do no wrong.

i see that alot (bikes blowing through stop signs )quite often and it iratates me to see this, we get mad when cars dont treat us with respect and when the bike can do what they want on the road, this is why cars treat us this way, the croswalk issue does not matter, he ran a stop sign and should get charged with at least somthing
stop signs and stop lights are there for a reason and us on bikes have to obey the same rules as the cars,

this is a no brainer he should have stoped at the sign

But if there is no traffic signal at an intersection, the pedestrian has the right-of-way. I honestly thought everyone knew that. All you have to do is put one foot on the roadway, and motorists are supposed to stop. I often have to hold up my hand to get them to stop. Now I know why...It's not that clear-cut black & white, as that. Please review CVC-21950b:



CVC - 21950 - Right-of-Way at Crosswalks (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21950.htm)

21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.

(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.

(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

It says specifically, "No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk." So you can't just jump out and expect cars to stop if they're only 10-20ft away and can't stop in time. And you can't hold up traffic as well. Now that's a subjective judgement for a cop to figure out and a judge to uphold or dismiss.




Streets with traffic-lights only at one intersection, but nothing at the other end? Other end of what? The street? Huh?

Do you mean streets with traffic lights at one intersection, and no traffic lights at the next intersection? If so, the traffic light rules apply at the first, and the normal rules (ped has right-of-way, even without crosswalk) applies at the next.I was referring to a combination of CVC-21954 and CVC-21955. It's simple when you have a city-block with no traffic-lights at either intersection. Pedestrians can cross anywhere as long as they give cars right-of-way. And if there are traffic lights at either end of the block, pedestrians can only cross at the intersection.

But what about streets that have stop-lights at one end, and at the other end of the block, have only a stop-sign or no sign at all. Then which rule governs? The one for having traffic lights CVC-21955 or the code for streets without traffic lights CVC-21954? I suspect the judge may interpret this based upon a combined code of sorts by dividing the street into 50/50. The 50% of the street closer to the traffic light has to cross at the intersection only. Then the other 50% of the street can be crossed anywhere as long as the pedestrian give cars right-of-way....

WTF is an "unmarked crosswalk"? If a car had hit her, it would be chalked up as an "accident" and the driver would get free grief counseling, if the driver felt any grief, which they'd probably not.

Not sure what you're trying to say.
Why would it have been classed as an accident in a car?
And why would a car driver not feel grief?

As long as the pedestrian is crossing at a stop sign, or intersection and its unmarked they have the right of way.

At an intersection pedestrians allways have the right of way. Meaning if an accident happens the pedestrians are in the right, whether they are allowed to cross at the given time or not. Now if a pedestrian was j walking and then was hit, it wouldn't be the drivers fault. What Im thinking is, well unforunitely both the bicyclist and the woman were old. Im sure the bicyclist didn't see her in the dark, and im sure she didn't see him in the dark.

As long as the pedestrian is crossing at a stop sign, or intersection and its unmarked they have the right of way.

At an intersection pedestrians allways have the right of way. Meaning if an accident happens the pedestrians are in the right, whether they are allowed to cross at the given time or not. Now if a pedestrian was j walking and then was hit, it wouldn't be the drivers fault. What Im thinking is, well unforunitely both the bicyclist and the woman were old. Im sure the bicyclist didn't see her in the dark, and im sure she didn't see him in the dark.

The intersection was well lighted. A person who was not incontrol of his vehicle blew though a stop sign and struck a senior citizen, killing her. While it is possible that this was some sort of super senior citizen who leapt in front of the cyclist like a squirrel in a Geico commercial, the odds are that that is not what happened. Even a cyclist of moderate skill can avoid an elderly person stepping into a roadway if the cyclist is paying attention. If he's stopping for a stop sign, he should certainly be able to avoid the pedestrian.
NEWSFLASH: The fact that the guy was on a bicycle does not automatically make him right. It also does not automatically make him a victim.
He ignored the rules of the road. He killed somebody because he ignored the rules of the road. Each time one of you defiantly proclaims that you never stop at stop lights or signs, and nothing bad has happened, add the silent word "yet". The odds caught up with this particular guy. He deserves to be charged.

Just curious - where is it, exactly, that it is "perfectly acceptable for motorized vehicles to mow down cyclists with impunity"?

Thanks,
-B


Kentucky, apparently.

Two questions on this:

1. Does this mean that the state of Oregon does acknowledge that the Bicycle is a vehicle, with the same rights and responsibilities of all vehicles?

2. Will law enforcement in other states take notice of this?

New York City

Werd.

Poor woman, what a way to go. What can you say? If the guy was riding recklessly, down he should go. I'm a liberal stop sign and red light runner on the bike (as is 99.999% of NYC, this is the way we operate so off ye trolls!) but I always, always look carefully for peds and make efforts to allow them to cross safely if they are there. I'll even suprise them by slowing down quickly enough for them to cross leisurely and tell them "you have the right of way!" (they're usually quite shocked :D). Anyhow, like I said, if this guy was being an idiot, he should get the book thrown at him.

I'm not sure what is sarcastic about that. Drivers are rarely charged in cyclist or pedestrian deaths in my neck of the woods. The police would have to catch them, and then the driver would have to be drunk or something like that. "I didn't see him" is a valid excuse in the 5 boroughs of New York City.

Which is why I have screamed at people as well as punched a cabby.

Drivers who have no respect get none from me.

That said, it sounds like this guy broke a traffic law and killed an old lady. Just because motorists get away with it, doesn't make it right.

In the cold light of ethics however she was old. The chances of a young person dying from being hit by a bike are near zero. It's a very sad occasion for everyone involved but manslaughter may still carry too great of a penalty for something like this.

What kind of ethics would change her value as a human being change because she was old? Possibly the same kind of ethics that would disvalue a cyclist because he/she wasn't traveling by car?