I shall now don my flame-proof suit and devil's advocate underwear, and offer a few comments:
If a driver has two drinks in less than an hour, and pulls this move, would we question bringing charges?
I'm not sure who "We" would be in this case, but I'm sure most people would still want all the facts first.
I realize that the anti-car sentiment runs deep in the advocacy forum, but I fail to see the benefit in letting a personal bias get in the way of any objectivity one might otherwise have.
Agreed, thank you.
MY attorney is Gary Brustin [snip]. When my wife was hit by a driver that "didn't see her", Gary said, "saying that you did not see her is the same as admitting guilt".
And that proves what, that the world is round? Flat? What did you expect the driver to say. "I saw her, but decided to take my chances anyway"?
We don't have the facts of this accident, but that hasn't stopped some of you from determining who was at fault. When it comes to jury selection, I hope most of you will be back home in time for lunch. We do not even know if they were both travelling the same direction, or opposite directions.
Now, for those of you that have never driven a car, or never driven a very large/heavy vehicle, let me enlighten you a bit. If they were going the same direction, and the driver was planning on making a right turn onto a small lane in his 26,000lb vehicle, he'd have to be going pretty damn slow. Did he fail to signal? Or was she looking right to make sure no vehicles were exiting the same lane? We'll never know. I can only conjecture that their speeds would have been closely matched, and she would have been next to the truck, perhaps even passing it. Was he looking for the street sign, or was this his regular route? Is it that unreasonable to think that he made a right turn without knowing there was a cyclist in his blind spot?
Since all that we know is that she was travelling east, let's try the scenario where he's going west. I don't know how wide the roadway is, the speed limit, the traffic density, the position of the sun, or if there is a central turn lane (suicide lane, if you will) in the middle of the road. So, he's preparing to make his left turn - does he have to wait for a break in traffic, or is the roadway free of cars? Hello? Anyone? Did he look down the roadway, not see any cars, but fail to see the cyclist and strike her? Or did he wait for a car or two or six to pass, then make his turn, not realizing that passing cars had obstructed his view of the cyclist? 26,000lbs! That wouldn't accelarate too quick from a dead stop now, would it? Would a cyclist keep going, knowing the truck about to cross her path won't get there until she's well past? We'll never know. And at that weight, I don't imagine you can dart into traffic. You probably wait for a break in traffic, and make your move slowly. It would be tragic if the driver failed to see the cyclist, much as it would be tragic if the cyclist failed to notice a truck that size about to invade her personal space. Of course, I find it just as tragic that people would be so quick to jump to conclusions without any facts at all.
Brian
09-26-05, 02:49 PM
Wow, guess it's safe to remove my Nomex. :D
mirona
09-27-05, 03:31 PM
Update:
No negligence in fatal cycling crash, probe finds
BY KIMBERLY ASHTON STAFF WRITER
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
NORTHAMPTON - The driver of the armored truck that killed 23-year-old
Margaret Sanders on Elm Street Thursday will not face charges.
Police announced today that there is no evidence that Rafael Sevilla, 25,
of Indian Orchard, was driving negligently or committed a criminal act
when his car collided with Sanders' bicycle at Smith College, directly
across the street from St. Mary's Church.
'It's an unfortunate tragedy, that's what it is,' said lead investigator
and accident reconstructionist Officer Robert Powers of the Northampton
police.
Sevilla had been driving on Elm Street, toward downtown, when he turned
right into a driveway at Smith and collided with Sanders, who was also
riding toward downtown.
By all witness accounts, Sevilla was driving slowly and there was nothing
sudden or abrupt about his turn, but many questions remain unanswered.
'There are things we don't know, things we will never know,' Powers said.
No witnesses actually saw the accident; police only have witnesses who saw
Sanders and the armored truck right before or right afterward.
Among those unknowns are how fast Sanders was traveling, whether she was
on the side of the truck, whether the truck had its right directional on
and whether she was in Sevilla's blind spot.
If Sevilla did have his directional on, Sanders might have thought he
planned to turn onto West Street, but police will never know.
Powers said he cannot say for sure how fast Sanders was traveling. He
noted that there was no bike lane in the area of the accident.
Both Powers and Northampton Police Capt. Michael Wall said they don't want
to say anything that would seem to blame the victim in this accident.
But Wall noted that bicyclists need to ride defensively, anticipate the
actions of motor vehicles and always know that they have an out.
The accident investigation has been officially closed.
I actually felt a welling in my chest when I read this :(
noisebeam
09-27-05, 03:39 PM
He
noted that there was no bike lane in the area of the accident.
(
Why is this relevant? If anything a BL contributes to this kind of accident by encouraging cyclist to be at far side of road. No bike lane in this case means the cyclist was at least in main travel lane where they should have been more noticed. (No BL debate here, move to that other sticky thread if so desired - I'm just pointing out how authorities noting this seem to be implying that no BL put the cylist more at risk, which is wrong.)
Al
genec
09-27-05, 03:42 PM
At some point driver Sevilla had to pass cyclist Sanders who it sounds was on the same street (also heading toward downtown) or on the sidewalk.
I guess she had been rendered invisible by her action of being on a bike.
noisebeam
09-27-05, 03:47 PM
I know this area quite well and used to ride thru it alot. Still do a 1-2x times a year when back east. While it is a 'major thoughofare' it is quite congested, busy, hectic at times, on street parking, etc. It is a very easy and comfortable place to ride if you stay well in the lane as traffic is moving relatively slow, but its easy to get 'lost' in the clutter (and get doored) if you hug the edge. But we do not know where in the road she was riding and it would be bad taste speculation to say how the accident could or could not have been avoided.
Al
sentinel
09-27-05, 03:47 PM
Have any one you ever ridden into the morning sun or late afternoon sun and couldn't see what was there? Everyone is sure quick to blame the driver over the rider. Sometimes things just plain happen. I have investigated several fatal crashes where the pedestrian or bike were at fault. One was where a bike ran a red light into the path of a car with a green light. The way some on this site think it is always the fault of the car. I investigated one fatal several years ago and the driver of the vehicle still hasn't driven since. Sometimes their personal hell is much worse than anything the justice system can do.
Brian
09-27-05, 03:48 PM
At some point driver Sevilla had to pass cyclist Sanders who it sounds was on the same street (also heading toward downtown) or on the sidewalk.
I guess she had been rendered invisible by her action of being on a bike.
There's no mention of your theory in either article, so it seems rather unlikely.
Bikepacker67
09-27-05, 03:57 PM
Sometimes things just plain happen.
If he had hit a car, his insurance would have to pay, BECAUSE IT WAS HIS FAULT.
But he only killed a cyclist, and she really shouldn't have been there in the first place, because there wasn't a bikepath.
:rolleyes:
sentinel
09-27-05, 03:58 PM
There's also a big difference between being criminally negligent and civilly liable.
linux_author
09-27-05, 03:59 PM
Sorry, but no excuse there. If a driver can't see properly s/he sould slow down. A very basic driving rule!
I certainly dont hold with the cyclist=good, driver=evil idea. I'm both!
- btw, the owner of the shopping center has just trimmed all the trees in the line-of-sight for turning drivers..
- good risk management...
Keith99
09-27-05, 04:00 PM
If he had hit a car, his insurance would have to pay, BECAUSE IT WAS HIS FAULT.
But he only killed a cyclist, and she really shouldn't have been there in the first place, because there wasn't a bikepath.
:rolleyes:
From all else that is written it would seem he was turning right in a legal manner and she decided to pass him on the right. If a car had done that the car driver would be paying and would at the least have several points towards losing his license. Still a small penalty compared to dying.
From the followup since it seems some are too lazy to read before commenting:
Sevilla had been driving on Elm Street, toward downtown, when he turned
right into a driveway at Smith and collided with Sanders, who was also
riding toward downtown.
By all witness accounts, Sevilla was driving slowly and there was nothing
sudden or abrupt about his turn, but many questions remain unanswered.
If Sevilla did have his directional on, Sanders might have thought he
planned to turn onto West Street, but police will never know.
So it would seem the one just before West Street.
webist
09-27-05, 04:24 PM
Well, she was going straight - not at an intersection and the car was TURNING.... so you do the math, buddy.
Basically, he didn't have enough time to turn, and should have yielded to her going straight... very simple.
Since it is so simple, can you advise whether or not she was traveling faster than the truck and attempting to pass on the right? Perhaps you are also certain whether or not the truck was turning right or left?
Life in this country would be so much simpler if we could, with a few scanty details, convict and sentence someone without recourse to investigation or trial. Why do we need witnesses to bicycle accidents at all? Just declare the motorist at fault no matter what. :mad:
Brian
09-27-05, 04:27 PM
Many of you are responding to old posts on this thread that were rendered moot by the second newspaper article. No need to bring up baseless arguments again.
genec
09-27-05, 04:34 PM
There's no mention of your theory in either article, so it seems rather unlikely.
Remember, no witnesses... so perhaps....
brokenrobot
09-27-05, 04:41 PM
it would be bad taste speculation to say how the accident could or could not have been avoided.
Exactly. Which is why we can count on the usual VC suspects for just such speculation!
:D :D :D
Brian
09-27-05, 04:45 PM
VC suspects? Is that the forum equivalent of an armchair quarterback?
mirona
09-27-05, 04:50 PM
What the heck is VC?
Keith99
09-27-05, 04:56 PM
What the heck is VC?
Vehicluar cycling. I.e. your bike is a vehicle just like a car. The V.C. purists sometimes get a bit out there.
Brian
09-27-05, 04:59 PM
What the heck is VC?
Ventura County, a couple hours north of the OC. :D
scarry
09-27-05, 04:59 PM
Just declare the motorist at fault no matter what. :mad:
That ought to cut down on driving. :D
Keith99
09-27-05, 05:06 PM
Since it is so simple, can you advise whether or not she was traveling faster than the truck and attempting to pass on the right? Perhaps you are also certain whether or not the truck was turning right or left?
Life in this country would be so much simpler if we could, with a few scanty details, convict and sentence someone without recourse to investigation or trial. Why do we need witnesses to bicycle accidents at all? Just declare the motorist at fault no matter what. :mad:
We do know the truck was turning right. It never said so in so many words, but it is clear. First she and the armored car were traveling the same direction. Combine that with witnesses that say the truck had slowed and did not turn in an abrupt manner and a left is pretty much ruled out. Add the map noisebeam posted and the part saying it was before West and there is no way it was a left turn.
I would really like to know where the impact point was, but that seems to get left out.
Brian
09-27-05, 05:15 PM
And no acknowledgment from anyone that what I posted at the top of page 3 is pretty much spot on.
scarry
09-27-05, 05:20 PM
And no acknowledgment from anyone that what I posted at the top of page 3 is pretty much spot on.
Are you kidding? :p
Brian
09-27-05, 05:26 PM
Are you kidding? :p
I forgot - you guys only point out when someone makes a mistake, not when they make a valid point.
MaryAnn
09-27-05, 05:28 PM
Every time something like this gets posted, a number of people make the same two assumptions:
a) the motorist is an idiot and should be brought up on charges
b) the cyclist couldn't possibly have done anything wrong
While it's always sad when a cyclist gets killed, there is nothing in the story as posted that supports either of the above assumptions. I realize that the anti-car sentiment runs deep in the advocacy forum, but I fail to see the benefit in letting a personal bias get in the way of any objectivity one might otherwise have. Just because someone rides a bike does not make them perfect. Cyclists are people, and are therefore just as capable of screwing up as anyone else - even motorists.
-B
I have to agree with you having been behind the wheel of a car and suddenly having had to respond to a cyclist coming out of nowhere. Most times the cyclist was oblivious and not following the rules of the road. And sometimes I was just daydreaming. I am so much more aware on two wheels than I am on 4. Been doing the 4 wheel thing now for 45 years and the two wheel thing for 1.5 years. It happens to all of us. If it doesn't happen to you then let me cannonize you right now. I would absolutely be devistated to accidentally run into or hurt anyone or anything. Dogs and cats and rodents and birds included. Sad story. Sorry about it all. And I am not insinuating that it was her fault at all because I wasn't there to witness. Just sorry to hear about it and let's all of us-- drivers who are also cyclists --swear that we will KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR BIKES ALWAYS!
scarry
09-27-05, 05:52 PM
I forgot - you guys only point out when someone makes a mistake, not when they make a valid point.
Now you're getting it. ;) Remember, don't take this internet thing too seriously.
Brian
09-27-05, 05:53 PM
Now you're getting it. ;) Remember, don't take this internet thing too seriously.
Yeah, I suppose I should be happy they're no longer arguing about yesterday's news.
Helmet Head
09-27-05, 05:55 PM
I know this area quite well and used to ride thru it alot. Still do a 1-2x times a year when back east. While it is a 'major thoughofare' it is quite congested, busy, hectic at times, on street parking, etc. It is a very easy and comfortable place to ride if you stay well in the lane as traffic is moving relatively slow, but its easy to get 'lost' in the clutter (and get doored) if you hug the edge. But we do not know where in the road she was riding and it would be bad taste speculation to say how the accident could or could not have been avoided.
Al
Well, I think we can reasonably speculate that she was not riding in the center of the lane, waited until the truck driver was aware of her presence, and then moved aside, because if she had done all that, she would have been noticed and would not have been hit.
Please do not misunderstand, I'm not blaming the cyclist. I am saying that there are things we can do in how we choose to ride to make motorists more aware of our presence, and thus reduce the likelihood of them not being aware of us and hitting us when our paths cross.
Brian
09-27-05, 06:03 PM
Well, I think we can reasonably speculate that she was not riding in the center of the lane, waited until the truck driver was aware of her presence, and then moved aside, because if she had done all that, she would have been noticed and would not have been hit.
How many lanes of travel did this road have?
Helmet Head
09-27-05, 06:05 PM
Every time something like this gets posted, a number of people make the same two assumptions:
a) the motorist is an idiot and should be brought up on charges
b) the cyclist couldn't possibly have done anything wrong
While it's always sad when a cyclist gets killed, there is nothing in the story as posted that supports either of the above assumptions. I realize that the anti-car sentiment runs deep in the advocacy forum, but I fail to see the benefit in letting a personal bias get in the way of any objectivity one might otherwise have. Just because someone rides a bike does not make them perfect. Cyclists are people, and are therefore just as capable of screwing up as anyone else - even motorists.
-B
The sad reality is that the most likely scenario is that neither one did anything "wrong" per our cultural norms for vehicle driving and cycling in traffic. That that is the most likely scenario, I find to be unacceptable. Something has to change.
He was probably driving along and didn't even notice that he was passing a cyclist when he passed her. She was probably riding along the right side of the road, like good cyclists are supposed to do. When he slowed to make his right turn, she probably didn't realize what was going on. After all, she was riding where she was "supposed" to be riding. It probably never occured to her to not start to pass on the right. She had probably done it scores of times, without incident. She'd probably seen hundreds if not thousands of other cyclists do it. If she did pass on the right, can you blame her? I can't.
Who I blame is the cycling culture... us. I blame us for not making it UNACCEPTABLE to pass a vehicle on the right. Jeez, "cycling advocates" in Oregon just supported changing a law that (rightfully) made it illegal for cyclists to pass on the right, to make it legal. Is that acting in the cyclists' interests?
genec
09-27-05, 06:18 PM
Jeez, "cycling advocates" in Oregon just supported changing a law that (rightfully) made it illegal for cyclists to pass on the right, to make it legal. Is that acting in the cyclists' interests?
If two motor vehicles are in parallel lanes on a multi laned road and one passes the other... on the right... it is OK.
If a cyclist is in a regular narrow right lane on a multi laned road passing a motorist on the right, that too is OK. Or is it?
If there is a motor vehicle in a lane and a cyclist is passing on the right in a BL, that is not right... why? Could it be the lack of recognition by motorists that the BL is part of the regular roadway?
If motorists would treat the BL just like any other lane, and look, signal and move over like the do any other lane, the issue would be resolved. Period.
If you continue to insist that BL are the problem... then cyclists should just use the right lanes of any multi-laned road just like any other vehicle... and forget the nonsense of "looking in the mirror to ensure that they are not blocking any one and then pull over." Motorists don't do that, why should cyclists have to do this "mirror paranoia" thing?
A single lane road is a different story, and ANY slow driver can and should pull over to allow faster traffic to pass, WHEN it is SAFE. And SAFE is determined by the driver of vehicle that has to pull over... not by the vehicles behind.
Brian
09-27-05, 06:18 PM
Who I blame is the cycling culture... us.
Hey, keep your guilt to yourself, and take your preaching elsewhere. I know how to ride a bike.
Helmet Head
09-27-05, 06:33 PM
If a cyclist is in a regular narrow right lane on a multi laned road passing a motorist on the right, that too is OK. Or is it?
If there is a motor vehicle in a lane and a cyclist is passing on the right in a BL, that is not right... why? Could it be the lack of recognition by motorists that the BL is part of the regular roadway?
Yes, ultimately the problem is the lack of recognition by motorists that the BL is part of the regular roadway. In this case, apparently there was no bike lane, but it's a similar problem - the path used by cyclists is not treated like a lane of traffic by motorists.
Now you can whine and hand wring all day about this, but go to any midblock busy driveway on a street with a bike lane in it, and see how many right turning motorists treat it like a regular lane. I'd be surprised if as many as 10% did. That's the reality. You can choose to ignore it, or face it, and ride accordingly.
If motorists would treat the BL just like any other lane, and look, signal and move over like the do any other lane, the issue would be resolved. Period.
I agree, but I recognize that's not going to happen with the next 1,000 generations of the human race. Maybe it could happen where cycling is really popular, but, for the most part, where cycling is light, you can count on humans developing bad habits with regard to how they treat almost-always-empty bike lanes. That's not going to change.
If you continue to insist that BL are the problem... then cyclists should just use the right lanes of any multi-laned road just like any other vehicle... and forget the nonsense of "looking in the mirror to ensure that they are not blocking any one and then pull over." Motorists don't do that, why should cyclists have to do this "mirror paranoia" thing?
It's not paranoia. By the way some motorists do do it. The other day I saw a show about antique cars - we're talking the original from the 1890s. These are the orginal low-power vehicles. Much of what they said about dealing with traffic sounded a lot like what cyclists say. But guess what, they drive in the center of the lane, and pull over to the side to allow others to pass when safe and reasonable to do so. It's not paranoia when they do it, and it's not a paranoia when I do it. It's common courtesy, akin to opening the door for someone because their hands are full of items they're holding, and yours are free. But I'm not going to stand there holding the door open like some idiot when there is nobody there who want to walk through it, and I'm not going to ride at the side of the road like some idiot in the bike lane when there is nobody that needs to pass me.
genec
09-27-05, 06:50 PM
It's not paranoia. By the way some motorists do do it. The other day I saw a show about antique cars - we're talking the original from the 1890s. These are the orginal low-power vehicles. Much of what they said about dealing with traffic sounded a lot like what cyclists say. But guess what, they drive in the center of the lane, and pull over to the side to allow others to pass when safe and reasonable to do so.
They do this on a multi laned road???
Helmet Head
09-27-05, 07:39 PM
Like I've said many times before, I've seen slow vehicles like bulldozers move aside (without stopping) on a multi-lane road (Torrey Pines Road) into a bike lane to let faster traffic (including me on a bicycle) pass.
It might not be required by law, but moving aside to allow faster traffic to pass, when it's safe and reasonable to do so, is the decent vehicular thing to do, even on a multi-lane road.
pseudobrit
09-27-05, 08:05 PM
What did you expect the driver to say. "I saw her, but decided to take my chances anyway"?
The response from an attentive and responsible driver would be "I couldn't react in time." If there's a kid in the street and I run him down and tell the cops I didn't see him, I'm going to jail. If the kid runs out in front of me and I tell the police I had no time to stop, I'm going free.
We don't have the facts of this accident.
We have an admission of driver negligence ("didn't see her") and that's all we need.
Helmet Head
09-27-05, 08:23 PM
How is, "I didn't see here" an admission of driver negligence?
All it really means is he didn't remember seeing her. Do you remember everything you see? Quick, take a look around the room, close your eyes and name everything in the room. If you don't mention the stapler, does that mean you didn't see it?
Drivers see things all the time that they don't think about and instantly forget. Is it incompetent to see but not think about a cyclist as you pass her? If so, then all drivers are incompetent, because I bet you can't find a single driver who has never done that. A standard that finds everyone incompetent is absurd. Next time you're in a car driven by someone else, pay attention to any cyclists. After you pass one, as soon as the cyclist is out of sight, ask the driver the last time he saw a cyclist. Most likely, he didn't "see" that cyclist you noted to yourself. Unless, of course, that cyclist was me. If it were me, then the driver will have noticed him, because prior to passing him, I would have been in his path up ahead, forcing him to notice me. Only after getting feedback from him that he sees me would I have moved aside.
But anyway, if a cyclist chooses to ride on the sidewalk, at the side of the road, in a bike lane, it's unreasonable to expect every passing motorist to "see" him, and to accuse them of incompetence when they don't.
Brian
09-27-05, 08:25 PM
The response from an attentive and responsible driver would be "I couldn't react in time." If there's a kid in the street and I run him down and tell the cops I didn't see him, I'm going to jail. If the kid runs out in front of me and I tell the police I had no time to stop, I'm going free.
We have an admission of driver negligence ("didn't see her") and that's all we need.
Don't try to confuse the issue, or change it to suit your needs. This has nothing to do with reaction times. Please explain how his comment makes him negligent. We have no idea where she was, and how fast she was going, or if she saw his indicator. Your assumption won't hold up in court, or even in an argument about liability, without having more facts. There is no doubt that he didn't see her, because if he did, there's a good chance this accident would not have happened. Perhaps she was daydreaming, and didn't notice he was turning right into her path. We'll never know.
Helmet Head
09-27-05, 08:28 PM
Like I said before, she probably didn't realize the peril in passing him on the right.
Dchiefransom
09-27-05, 10:46 PM
Like I said before, she probably didn't realize the peril in passing him on the right.
Where does it say she passed him on the right?
Dchiefransom
09-27-05, 10:50 PM
How is, "I didn't see here" an admission of driver negligence?
But anyway, if a cyclist chooses to ride on the sidewalk, at the side of the road, in a bike lane, it's unreasonable to expect every passing motorist to "see" him, and to accuse them of incompetence when they don't.
It is NOT unreasonable to expect drivers to actually pay attention to all users of the road. It is NOT unreasonable to accuse them of incompetence if they don't. You're just "lowering the bar" like the rest of society.
royalflash
09-28-05, 01:43 AM
the reason that motorists are not suitably punished for killing cyclists IMO is one of empathy- most people are drivers therefore the first reaction of the people who have the power to decide is sadness, anger and indignance iike - "yes thats really bad he was careless and killed someone- he must be punished" - then they stop and think "well can I totally exclude the possibility that I will kill a cyclist on my way home in my car tonight?".
The answer is of course "no". Driving is an inherently unsafe activity due to human flaws that sometimes results in death and serious injury. So then they put themselves in the shoes of the accused and start to think well perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on him as it was maybe only an accident.
The reason the guy on the bike (edit: the one from another thread who hit an old lady crossing the road) got no sympathy from the police was that the police just had no empathy for him. They could not picture themselves mowing down some poor old lady on a bike (while looking like one of the Mansons to boot). He probably also did not do himself any favours while being interviewed by the police and said something like "well I saw the old bag and decided to teach her a lesson for stepping out in front of me".
pseudobrit
09-28-05, 06:39 AM
Don't try to confuse the issue, or change it to suit your needs. This has nothing to do with reaction times. Please explain how his comment makes him negligent. We have no idea where she was, and how fast she was going, or if she saw his indicator. Your assumption won't hold up in court, or even in an argument about liability, without having more facts. There is no doubt that he didn't see her, because if he did, there's a good chance this accident would not have happened. Perhaps she was daydreaming, and didn't notice he was turning right into her path. We'll never know.
From what I can gather from the articles, he turned into her, hit her with the front of his truck and ran over her head.
A driver is directly responsible for where his vehicle is heading and what his vehicle runs into as he's heading there.
Miracle Whip
09-28-05, 09:38 AM
From what I can gather from the articles, he turned into her, hit her with the front of his truck and ran over her head.
A driver is directly responsible for where his vehicle is heading and what his vehicle runs into as he's heading there.
Can you cite a reference to back up that statement?
Keith99
09-28-05, 11:54 AM
From what I can gather from the articles, he turned into her, hit her with the front of his truck and ran over her head.
A driver is directly responsible for where his vehicle is heading and what his vehicle runs into as he's heading there.
Yes where is this or any hint of it? I've read both articles a couple of times looking for any direct reference to the point of impact and it is noticable missing, let alone a reference to running over her head.
Brian
09-28-05, 02:44 PM
He made that part up to suit his needs. Who was it that said "Don't go confusing the issue with facts"?