NORTHAMPTON - A 23-year-old woman who had devoted her life to helping others after her parents died of AIDS when she was 9 was killed yesterday morning when she was struck by a truck as she rode her bike past Smith College.
Margaret "Meg" Alene Sanders, of 3 Hill Ave., Easthampton, who for the last two summers had participated in the Mass. Red Ribbon Ride to raise money for agencies that work with people with AIDS, was pronounced dead at the scene of the 9:08 a.m. accident on Elm Street.
Sanders was struck by a 26,000-pound armored truck owned by AT Security Systems and driven by Rafael Sevilla, 25, of 40 Oak Ridge St., Indian Orchard, who told police he did not see Sanders.
Sevilla, visibly distraught after the accident, was treated and released from Cooley Dickinson Hospital.
Sgt. Andrew Trushaw said police have not yet determined whether charges will be brought and are looking for anyone who might have witnessed the accident. Anyone with information should call police at (413) 587-1105 and ask for Trushaw or Officer Robert Powers, the lead investigator.
Although Sanders was wearing a helmet, she suffered severe head injuries, police said. She was traveling east on Elm Street in front of the Brown Fine Arts Center when the truck turned into a small lane into the college between the Center and College Hall, police said.
After the accident, Sevilla had to remain in the truck with his foot on the brake until authorities could place "chock blocks" behind the wheels to ensure the vehicle did not roll backward, police said. He was visibly shaking and crying, before being helped from the truck.
In an interview with The Republican earlier this year, Sanders said she loved cycling and didn't even own a car.
"I lost my parents to AIDS when I was 9. Combine that with my passion for cycling and I couldn't resist joining the (Mass. Red Ribbon) Ride," Sanders said.
Friends and colleagues of Sanders, who attended Hampshire College and worked part-time at Safe Passage, recalled her as a safe and motivated rider and volunteer.
"She was an absolute inspiration. I know she rode for her parents. She was a very good rider. That's why I'm so completely shocked," said Monica A. Rose, communications director for Tapestry Health who rode with Sanders the last two years.
Andy Genser, a spokeswoman for the Red Ribbon Ride, said her organization is "devastated" to hear of Sanders' death.
"Meg was a shining light and epitomized what we are trying to do with our bike ride. She worked hard to get others to ride and spread the word. She's an amazing young woman who really tried to make the world a better place," Genser said.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
the prospect of actually getting hurt yourself makes you more careful- once you think that the worst that can happen is dented bodywork then the need to look out reduces considerably
cheebahmunkey
why are they "considering" charges will be brought? The guy killed her. At least Man Slaughter.
pseudobrit
why are they "considering" is charges will be brought? The guy killed her. At least Man Slaughter.
but your honor, he felt reeeeealy bad about it.
jdtschida
To those of you ready to lynch the driver:
Maybe he really didn't see her... seriously. Try placing yourself in the drivers shoes, what if you honestly didn't see someone that you accidentally killed?
cheebahmunkey
I find it hard to believe that he was paying attention to the road and still didn't see her. Unless there was an obstruction of sorts, he's at fault. I have a feeling he wasn't paying attention and simply turned right into her.
Dchiefransom
To those of you ready to lynch the driver:
Maybe he really didn't see her... seriously. Try placing yourself in the drivers shoes, what if you honestly didn't see someone that you accidentally killed?
If a driver has two drinks in less than an hour, and pulls this move, would we question bringing charges? Yet, when a stone cold sober driver does EXACTLY the same thing, our society says that it's different.
pseudobrit
Try placing yourself in the drivers shoes, what if you honestly didn't see someone that you accidentally killed?
I would man up, admit fault; beg the family, friends and community to forgive me, and let the justice system have its pound of flesh.
recursive
To those of you ready to lynch the driver:
Maybe he really didn't see her... seriously. Try placing yourself in the drivers shoes, what if you honestly didn't see someone that you accidentally killed?
Then I should have been looking where I was driving.
Sammyboy
Until they've thoroughly investigate, they'll ALWAYS say the haven't decided. If there's no witness, how are they to prove it?
TMX
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
Bikepacker67
I'm sorry, I just don't buy this "I didn't see her" crap.
If you can't see where you're going, you have NO BUSINESS stepping on the accelerator and going anyway.
Bikepacker67
there is nothing in the story as posted that supports either of the above assumptions.
-B
Nonsense.
He TURNED into her (either left or right cross) so he was COMPLETELY at fault for not paying attention.
Like I said, if he couldn't see where he was going, he had no business GOING.
Little Darwin
Nonsense.
He TURNED into her (either left or right cross) so he was COMPLETELY at fault for not paying attention.
Like I said, if he couldn't see where he was going, he had no business GOING.
Editting... I reread! Deleted comments
TMX
Nonsense.
He TURNED into her (either left or right cross) so he was COMPLETELY at fault for not paying attention.
Like I said, if he couldn't see where he was going, he had no business GOING.
The article doesn't say that he "TURNED into her". It says "She was traveling east on Elm Street in front of the Brown Fine Arts Center when the truck turned into a small lane into the college between the Center and College Hall, police said."
That could mean anything - that she was already in the street and he did in fact turn into her, or that he was in the middle of his turn and she shot out in front of him. I don't know, and neither do you.
-B
pmilne
I make a two different assumptions, which I naturally think are more reasonable and realistic than those two:
a) Someone in charge of a lethal weapon has a duty not to hit anyone with it.
b) A vulnerable cyclist, particularly adult & experienced, will try very hard to avoid being hit, especially by a truck.
I think it is pretty reasonable to make an initial presumption of fault on the driver's part in any driver/cycle (or pedestrian) conflict. A legal presumption like that might make drivers pay more attention.
In the UK there are frequent cases of dead cyclists where the driver is blatantly at fault but gets away with a vey light sentence as 'it was an accident'. I go with cheebahmunkey - manslaughter.
brokenrobot
To those of you ready to lynch the driver:
Maybe he really didn't see her... seriously. Try placing yourself in the drivers shoes, what if you honestly didn't see someone that you accidentally killed?
He knew damn well he was getting behind the wheel of a deadly weapon when he started his day - or he should have - and he would have been wise to behave accordingly, which would require extreme vigilance. If he didn't see her, it's because he wasn't looking hard enough. How do I know? Well, if he'd been paying enough attention to not kill anybody, he wouldn't have killed anybody. QED.
Keith99
We have virtually no information on this one. What we do have is consistent with the cyclist hitting the side of the truck. If that is the case whose fault is it? Still the truck drivers?
Of course the little we have is also consistent with many other things, many of which put the driver at fault.
One thing I find interesting on this one is that it seems the guy did all the right things after the fact and people still want to lynch him. They are looking for witnesses, yet he waited with his foot on the brakes to prevent the truck from rolling back over her until the wheels could be chocked. Just how long did that take? Who called the police and ambulance? Could it have been the driver?
TMX
I make a two different assumptions, which I naturally think are more reasonable and realistic than those two:
a) Someone in charge of a lethal weapon has a duty not to hit anyone with it.
b) A vulnerable cyclist, particularly adult & experienced, will try very hard to avoid being hit, especially by a truck.
I understand what you're trying to get at, but it still carries the same cyclist=good motorist=evil spin. I'm sure the driver, especially being a professional, tries very hard not to hit people.
I've never counted, but I'll bet there's at least one post per day to these forums by someone complaining about the stupid, dangerous and unthinking things they've seen other cyclists do during the course of their day. From time to time you'll also see a post from someone expressing disbeleif at the stupid thing they themselves did while riding. I think it's disingenuous, at best, to then turn around when the situation suits us and act like bikers are perennial victims.
I didn't get a halo when I bought my ride, and I don't think anyone else here did either. Maybe I need a new LBS? ;)
-B
dedhed
Not to stick up for anyone but an armored truck has less than optimum visibility and many more blind spots than any car.
recursive
Not to stick up for anyone but an armored truck has less than optimum visibility and many more blind spots than any car.
Are you suggesting that the manufacturer is culpable?
Avatar
I like pmilne's view of both sides of the issue.
I remember when I was an absolute newbie rider, I was so aware of traffic that I made a lot of stops. Of course it took longer, but now that I'm more used to the traffic, I find myself dismissing things that I would have considered dangerous as a newbie.
We can never be too cautious as cyclists sharing the road.
mirona
I know that area, and people jet in and out of those side streets like crazy. I can't recall an image of that specific spot where it happened, so I can't comment on any obstructions.
The man probably knew he was at fault because of his distraught state. We'll probably never know all the details, but theres a good chance he is very much in the wrong and should get what he deserves. When you're driving a big ass vehicle like that, you have to be especially careful because those things don't stop on a dime.
linux_author
Are you suggesting that the manufacturer is culpable?
- actually, that's kind of insightful...
- i shop at a supermarket about a block or so around the corner... a main thoroughfare is a 90-degree turn around a corner... a line of trees blocks left exiting drivers' view to the right, where motorists coming off a 50mph road have turned right (and frequently exceed the 25mph speed limit by 10mph or more)
- poor landscaping, bad landscape architecture, and a retarded physical geography have been combined by the shopping center designer/owner to create a perfect recipe for pedestrian, cyclists, handicapped, and vehicular accidents...
- hell yes, there is culpability if views are blocked or impeded by structure, etc.
genec
To those of you ready to lynch the driver:
Maybe he really didn't see her... seriously. Try placing yourself in the drivers shoes, what if you honestly didn't see someone that you accidentally killed?
Then one of three things must have happened. Either the driver failed to actually look, or the driver proceeded inspite of poor visibility, or the cyclist magically appeared out of thin air.
The first two issues are more likely, and happen often... far too often. Drivers fail to actually look or really ensure that the way is clear and collisions then occur.
"Cyclists magically appearing out of thin air" is a rare event usually accompanied by fanfare of music and a puff of smoke.
Little Darwin
The man probably knew he was at fault because of his distraught state.
My most traumatic moments had nothing to do with my guilt in a given situation.
I remember being very disturbed to see someone else hit a dog with their car... I would probably be distraught to see someone else kill a cyclist regardless of who was at fault... and it would be the same if I was the driver, regardless of whether I could have prevented it or not.
scarry
O the poor, poor driver. And to those that claim the "not seeing her" is some kind of defense, I (and my lawer) disagree. Admitting that you "did not see them" is admitting guilt. Driving a motor vehicle is assuming the responsability of operating it safely. No excusis.
scarry
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
How nice, another motorist apologist. Take it to carsareus.com
richardmasoner
[QUOTE=jdtschidaTry placing yourself in the drivers shoes, what if you honestly didn't see someone that you accidentally killed?[/QUOTE]
I don't know the circumstance of this particular collision, but in my experience armored car drivers drive (and walk) like nobody else is around. Fer instance, an armored car driver carrying a bag of money stepped off the curb right into me -- not in front of me, but into me --- as I rode my bike in a strip mall parking lot. I should've called the police on him for battery.
RFM
pmilne
- poor landscaping, bad landscape architecture, and a retarded physical geography have been combined by the shopping center designer/owner to create a perfect recipe for pedestrian, cyclists, handicapped, and vehicular accidents...
- hell yes, there is culpability if views are blocked or impeded by structure, etc.
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!
pmilne
At least the guy didn't just drive off, like the ex-policeman who rear-ended a cyclist on a clear, straight road near here. She was injured for life, he just got £1000 ($1500) fine and a two year ban IIRR. Justice? Well, 'it was only an accident'. As someone said, after a couple of beers he'd have been in jail; sober, it couldn't possibly be all his fault.
watchman
How many of you that automatically blaim the driver use your cell phones while driving? I would bet a couple of you who are making claims of the driver obviously not paying attention and such are guilty of talking on the cell and driving.
There are alot of unknowns with what was told in the story, yes the driver may have been at fault, but she may have done something incorrect too.
bikiola
also i'd like to point out she was wearing a helmet. adds to the debate, when you get hit by a 26k pound truck, a helmet means sh1t
dobber
O the poor, poor driver. And to those that claim the "not seeing her" is some kind of defense, I (and my lawer) disagree. Admitting that you "did not see them" is admitting guilt. Driving a motor vehicle is assuming the responsability of operating it safely. No excusis.
Your lawyer? Must be the most piss-poor excuse for a lawyer if he's casting judgement on something he has little if any information about.
Oh, wait, it's Scarry. Your bias is well know, so we can disregard any comment you bring to the table.
scarry
Your lawyer? Must be the most piss-poor excuse for a lawyer if he's casting judgement on something he has little if any information about.
Oh, wait, it's Scarry. Your bias is well know, so we can disregard any comment you bring to the table.
MY attorney is Gary Brustin the best cycling attorney on the west coast. 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".
She won a nice settlement, out of court. Yup, piss poor lawyer.
http://www.bicyclelawyer.com/bicyclelawyer.com/index.html
Bikepacker67
http://freedesktop.org/~krh/kapow.png
You GO SCARRY!
chemcycle
why are they "considering" charges will be brought?
Because you don't want to file criminal charges just for the fun of it. With the nonexistent details in the article, I'm not sure how you are determining fault....
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".
The courts will be the judge of that.......but if a lawyers says so.......
Bikepacker67
Assuming the cyclist was obeying the law (and this was a seasoned wheel-woman so that's hardly a leap of faith) the driver's admission that "he didn't see her" certainly makes him as culpable as he would be if it were another vehicle that he smashed into because of his momentary loss of sight.
chemcycle
Assuming the cyclist was obeying the law (and this was a seasoned wheel-woman so that's hardly a leap of faith)
Yes, no exprienced bike riders ever bend the rules of the road...pretty large assumption......
Bikepacker67
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.
dobber
MY attorney is Gary Brustin the best cycling attorney on the west coast. 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".
She won a nice settlement, out of court. Yup, piss poor lawyer.
http://www.bicyclelawyer.com/bicyclelawyer.com/index.html
So your lawyer witnessed this accident?
Bikepacker67
So your lawyer witnessed this accident?
She was traveling east on Elm Street in front of the Brown Fine Arts Center when the truck turned into a small lane into the college between the Center and College Hall, police said.
"Elm Street" is Route 9
What the hell is there to witness?
She was going straight on a major thoroughfare - not at an intersection - he was taking a turn onto a side street and admitted that "he didn't see her"
It's vehicular manslaughter, plain and simple.
slvoid
From time to time you'll also see a post from someone expressing disbeleif at the stupid thing they themselves did while riding.
I see you've been reading my posts about going into the middle of 3 lanes of 30mph opposing traffic..
BUT... if she's traveling on the road and I'm making the assumtion he ran her over, then yes its totally his fault. He wasn't looking.
L2006
If a bicyclist is going to ride in the street then he has to make himself known. Some of you are way too biased.
slagjumper
It seems like it would be difficult to see out of the sides of an armored car, particularly if you where short and looking out the right side.
http://www.mooersrealty.com/armored-car.jpg
TMX
How nice, another motorist apologist. Take it to carsareus.com
"Motorist apologist"? Why, because I won't blindly condemn the driver without knowing the facts? Sorry pal, a reasonable person doesn't jump to conclusions, but perhaps reason isn't your strong point.
-B
TMX
I see you've been reading my posts about going into the middle of 3 lanes of 30mph opposing traffic..
jeez....nope, haven't seen that one yet.
BUT... if she's traveling on the road and I'm making the assumtion he ran her over, then yes its totally his fault. He wasn't looking.
Well....look, if he just flat-out ran her over with no extenuating circumstances thrown in the mix, of course it would be his fault. That scenario is certainly within the realm of possibilities, but so are various scenarios involving her making a careless move. I suppose the rest of the story will come out eventually, but regardless of how it turns out, I find the position taken by some that cyclists simply are not capable of being at fault, ever, to be rather irrational.
-B
TMX
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".[/url]
I'm sure he said that, and perhaps it was an accurate statement in context, but it's not something that you can apply globally. Surely you realize that.
-B
brokenrobot
If a bicyclist is going to ride in the street then he has to make himself known. Some of you are way too biased.
Traffic law requires that drivers be aware of other vehicles on the road. Not just other trucks. That's not a bias - that's the law!