Bicyclist hit by truck dies in hospital (No charges filed)

[fholt]

Sounds as if run down from behind - not sure that there's any more information available as to the decision that the truck driver wasn't at fault.

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/371571.html

A bicyclist who was hit by a pickup truck Friday morning died at Duke Hospital while being treated for his injuries, police said.

Jose Elias Carrillos Cruz, 38, suffered internal injuries after he was hit by the truck on Hope Valley Road near Surrey Green Lane.

No charges had been filed Saturday against James Howard, 42, of Bexley Avenue, who was driving the Chevrolet that hit Cruz from behind. Neither alcohol nor excessive speed appeared to be a factor, according to a police news release.

Cruz lived on Southpoint Crossing Drive. Relatives could not be reached Saturday.

[michaelnel]

Awful.

Sounds just like what happened to our very own Sydney last Friday.

[Bikepacker67]

How can they NOT file charges?
If I accidently shoot someone because I was handling a firearm irresponsibly I would be charged. Why, when the weapon is a multiple ton vehicle is it any different?

[filtersweep]

How can they NOT file charges?
If I accidently shoot someone because I was handling a firearm irresponsibly I would be charged. Why, when the weapon is a multiple ton vehicle is it any different?

Because the public blames cyclists for being in the way... they don't belong on the road in the first place. Killing cyclists is decriminalized in the US.

[mechBgon]

I'm just speculating, but if he lacked visibility equipment and it was dark, then that might explain why no charges were filed. Like a lot of us here, I've been in the driver's seat when completely-unlit/unreflectorized cyclists materialize out of nowhere at very close range. Not much I can do for 'em except pray for their safety as they vanish into the darkness... :(

[Blue Order]

I'm just speculating, but if he lacked visibility equipment and it was dark, then that might explain why no charges were filed. Like a lot of us here, I've been in the driver's seat when completely-unlit/unreflectorized cyclists materialize out of nowhere at very close range. Not much I can do for 'em except pray for their safety as they vanish into the darkness... :(That's the thing-- there may be perfectly legitimate reasons not to prosecute, and without knowing all of the facts, we can only guess. On the other hand, I've read some accounts here that indicate a sometimes less-than-zealous enforcement of the law when cyclists are hit. Again, it all depends on the facts of the situation. If the police/D.A. are declining to treat a vehicular homicide with the seriousness due when the facts warrant a zealous enforcement, we need to make sure the D.A. hears the outrage.

[slvoid]

I'm gonna write a letter to the DA responsible in sydney's area and ask them why it is so easy to get away with premeditated murder by running someone over in a car but shooting someone is considered such a horrible crime.

[chemcycle]

How can they NOT file charges?

For what? You don't even know the details.....

If I accidently shoot someone because I was handling a firearm irresponsibly I would be charged.

Who said the vehicle was being handled irresponsibly?

Man, I hope some of you don't make it to the jury room....

[Eatadonut]

Who said the vehicle was being handled irresponsibly?



responsibly handled vehicles don't run people over.


I hope you never make it behind the wheel of a car.

[TMX]

responsibly handled vehicles don't run people over.

Are you saying that you can't envision any possible scenario in which the cyclist could have been at fault?

-B

[Eatadonut]

Are you saying that you can't envision any possible scenario in which the cyclist could have been at fault?

-B

absolutely not.

but I can't envision any plausible scenario in which the car was driven responsibly, and hit a cyclist from behind.

If I leave an unlocked gun safe in my house, some people break in and steal my guns, is that my fault? Of course not, they broke into my house! However, I was still handling the guns irresponsibly.


As the driver of a vehicle, it's your responsibility to not injure people, not simply not Causing the accident.

Another example: I'm driving my car, stopped at a red light. The light turns green, and I go. Someone runs the red. If I had been handling my car responsibly, I would have checked to make sure there were no red light runners before going.

[humancongereel]

i don't normally post on this forum, but...this is my $0.02:

i know everyone's got responsibilities for safety on the road, and legally there are certain absolutes, etc...BUT, i think that at least morally, if you have something weighing 3000 pounds and is potentially fatal, you've got a hell of a responsibility to not hurt anyone.

[mechBgon]

i don't normally post on this forum, but...this is my $0.02:

i know everyone's got responsibilities for safety on the road, and legally there are certain absolutes, etc...BUT, i think that at least morally, if you have something weighing 3000 pounds and is potentially fatal, you've got a hell of a responsibility to not hurt anyone.All the desire to be responsible is great, but if you can't see what you're supposed to avoid colliding with, it's not easy in practice.

Example: I'm driving my Caravan at night. I stop at a 4-way stop sign. I mean, when I stop, I STOP. Look around. Nothing coming. Begin rolling again WHOA!!! WHERE'D THAT CYCLIST COME FROM OMG IF HE HAD MADE A LEFT TURN I WOULD'VE HIT HIM. What are we supposed to do, stop at the stop sign and then take mass-interferometer readings of the surroundings before proceeding? People who choose to illegally ride ninja at night get 100% of the responsibility for avoiding a collision, in my book.

[dobber]

It's always easy to assess blame when the facts aren't evident.

[Eatadonut]

All the desire to be responsible is great, but if you can't see what you're supposed to avoid colliding with, it's not easy in practice.

This guy was hit in the morning.

[slvoid]

I'd like to point out two things.
A) The guy was hit from behind in the morning. There are a few scenarios in which it could've been the cyclists fault. However, there are overwhelmingly more scenarios in which it could have been the drivers fault. People in this country have become more and more calloused to the fact that as the driver of a multi-ton vehicle, they assume the ultimate responsibility to be aware of what is in front of, behind, and to the side of their vehicles.
B) A mass-inferometer would not be my first choice of instrument for detecting an invisible cyclist. Moving air currents would certainly mask the signature of the cyclist. Plus the distance for the forks would be significantly greater than your minivan could bear. A 360 degree reflected infrared scope mounted on a boom above your minivan would work better.

All the desire to be responsible is great, but if you can't see what you're supposed to avoid colliding with, it's not easy in practice.

Example: I'm driving my Caravan at night. I stop at a 4-way stop sign. I mean, when I stop, I STOP. Look around. Nothing coming. Begin rolling again WHOA!!! WHERE'D THAT CYCLIST COME FROM OMG IF HE HAD MADE A LEFT TURN I WOULD'VE HIT HIM. What are we supposed to do, stop at the stop sign and then take mass-interferometer readings of the surroundings before proceeding? People who choose to illegally ride ninja at night get 100% of the responsibility for avoiding a collision, in my book.

[cydewaze]

Understood that we don't know all the facts.

Also understood is that for most people, hitting a cyclist is barely a step up from hitting an animal that happened to be in the road.

Below is a transcript of a conversation that took place between me and a lady at my gym several years back. We were talking about a cyclist who was hit by a car in broad daylight. She knew I was a cyclist, and had just asked me if I'd had good riding during the past weekend.

Me: Yep, I got a few good miles in. But I heard that someone on a bike got run over on Saturday.
Her: Yeah I heard about that.
Me: It's rough. You never know if that car coming up behind you is minding the road, or half alseep, or drunk.
Her: Yeah, well yanno you're not really supposed to be out there, so you can't blame the driver.
Me: Did someone tell you that, or did you just make it up on your own.
Her: (stumbling) Well my ex used to be a cop.
Me: Your ex lied to you then. You should check the law before you hurt someone.
Her: Whatever that means. You're still not supposed to be out there. They have sidewalks and bike paths for that.
Me: Well now I think you're not supposed to be out there.
Her: How so?
Me: Because you've just stated your disregard for the law concerning bicyclists. I figure it's only a matter of time before you disregard the laws concerning speed limits or drunk driving.
Her: Oh please (getting up and leaving).
Me: I hope you don't kill someone.

She never spoke to me after that, but I didn't know her very well to begin with. No great loss if I had.

We need to start treating car vs bike accidents as if they were car vs car or car vs pedestrian. Hopefully the rider hit by the truck bore some blame for the accident, and the driver isn't getting away with murder because it was "only a bike".

[mechBgon]

This guy was hit in the morning.And morning starts at midnight. update: it appears the collision occurred at 6:36AM. Sunrise occurred at about 7:00AM on that day in North Carolina.

[slvoid]

I think he meant civil morning twilight, which begins when the sun is 6 degrees below the horizon, as opposed to nautical (-12) and astronomical (-18).

[mechBgon]

See update above. Looks like it was before sunrise.

[scarry]

responsibly handled vehicles don't run people over.


I hope you never make it behind the wheel of a car.

I'm with you, friend. But this is something the AUTO APOLIGISTS don't want to hear.

[dobber]

Also understood is that for most people, hitting a cyclist is barely a step up from hitting an animal that happened to be in the road.


Can you cite a source for such a moronic statement? Or is this just another sound bite meant to inflame?

[scarry]

Can you cite a source for such a moronic statement? Or is this just another sound bite meant to inflame?

Makes sense to me. But I guess in your book all motorists are driving around with halos around their heads.

[jmoule]

This guy was hit in the morning.

from a newspaper perspective, anything after 12 a.m. is considered morning.

[LittleBigMan]

There is really no information about fault in the article.

[desertlove]

The biker obviously knew before he got on his bike that he would be riding next to fast moving 3000+ pound cars. Accadents happen! Who knows that exact situaton that the biker was in beside the biker and the truck that hit him.

[Eatadonut]

And morning starts at midnight. update: it appears the collision occurred at 6:36AM. Sunrise occurred at about 7:00AM on that day in North Carolina.


I don't know what the weather's like in your part of the world, but here, pitch black ends about 45 minutes short of sunrise.

It's after sunset here, and it is light enough that there are still one or two cars driving around without headlights.


Not that it matters, unless people can remain invisible on their bikes even when in view of your headlights. This cyclist was hit from behind, remember.

[dobber]

Makes sense to me. But I guess in your book all motorists are driving around with halos around their heads.

Typical response, all fluff and no fact.

[Daily Commute]

The article said no charges had yet been filed. I didn't see where it said that the police/prosecutor had decided not to file charges. We need to know a lot more. Was the driver speeding? Was the cyclist using lights?

[scarry]

Was the driver speeding? Was the cyclist using lights?


I drove my seldom used car recently, and traveled at or below the speed limit. It felt like I was on my bike, EVERYONE was speeding.

[chemcycle]

responsibly handled vehicles don't run people over.

Well, there you have it..........see how simple it is to determine fault?


And just think of all the money they spend on accident reconstruction....


P.S. Since there was no one "run over" in the article, could you be talking about another case?

[raleigh_fan]

I don't know what the weather's like in your part of the world, but here, pitch black ends about 45 minutes short of sunrise.


At 6:36 am in Raleigh this morning it was pitch-black dark.

I'm not defending the driver, but if someone is riding in the dark with no reflectors, no lights, dark clothing, etc (which we do not know to be the case here, but which I see all too often) then the rider must share part of the blame. Drivers can't react to what they can't see -- you either make yourself seen, or make sure you're out of harm's way....

My 2¢

[Eatadonut]

At 6:36 am in Raleigh this morning it was pitch-black dark.

I'm not defending the driver, but if someone is riding in the dark with no reflectors, no lights, dark clothing, etc (which we do not know to be the case here, but which I see all too often) then the rider must share part of the blame. Drivers can't react to what they can't see -- you either make yourself seen, or make sure you're out of harm's way....

My 2¢


Of course part of the blame lies with the cyclist. There's almost no plausible situation in which some of the fault DOESN'T. Unless you have other objections, I'll go ahead and assume we both agree that everyone involved was being somewhat irresponsible.

That being said, I still push the position that most of the responsibility, and therefore blame, lies with the car.

[Helmet Head]

Understood that we don't know all the facts.

Also understood is that for most people, hitting a cyclist is barely a step up from hitting an animal that happened to be in the road.

Below is a transcript of a conversation that took place between me and a lady at my gym several years back. We were talking about a cyclist who was hit by a car in broad daylight. She knew I was a cyclist, and had just asked me if I'd had good riding during the past weekend.

Me: Yep, I got a few good miles in. But I heard that someone on a bike got run over on Saturday.
Her: Yeah I heard about that.
Me: It's rough. You never know if that car coming up behind you is minding the road, or half alseep, or drunk.
Her: Yeah, well yanno you're not really supposed to be out there, so you can't blame the driver.
Me: Did someone tell you that, or did you just make it up on your own.
Her: (stumbling) Well my ex used to be a cop.
Me: Your ex lied to you then. You should check the law before you hurt someone.
Her: Whatever that means. You're still not supposed to be out there. They have sidewalks and bike paths for that.
Me: Well now I think you're not supposed to be out there.
Her: How so?
Me: Because you've just stated your disregard for the law concerning bicyclists. I figure it's only a matter of time before you disregard the laws concerning speed limits or drunk driving.
Her: Oh please (getting up and leaving).
Me: I hope you don't kill someone.

She never spoke to me after that, but I didn't know her very well to begin with. No great loss if I had.

We need to start treating car vs bike accidents as if they were car vs car or car vs pedestrian. Hopefully the rider hit by the truck bore some blame for the accident, and the driver isn't getting away with murder because it was "only a bike".
(RED emphasis mine)

Note the highlighted in red part of her statement above: "You're still not supposed to be out there. They have sidewalks and bike paths for that."

Now consider all the people out there who already think like her... that cyclists don't belong on the roads. Now add all those people who are prone to think like her - they are open to believing that cyclists don't belong on the roads. Now imagine the effect of cyclists advocating for segregated cycling facilities like bike lanes and bike paths, so they don't have to share the roads with cars, on all these people.

In particular, do you think segregated cycling facility advocacy is likely to bolster or diminish the kind of segregationist thinking exemplified by "Her" above? Why?

[dobber]

That being said, I still push the position that most of the responsibility, and therefore blame, lies with the car.

And if the cyclist didn't have proper lighting, he was breaking the law. A tough penalty for breaking the law to be sure, but some laws are in place to protect. Seatbelt laws are in place, not to be punative and raise money, but to cut down on the needless deaths.

Riding ones bicycle in pre-dawn darkness without adequete lighting is criminal.

[genec]

(RED emphasis mine)

Note the highlighted in red part of her statement above: "You're still not supposed to be out there. They have sidewalks and bike paths for that."

Now consider all the people out there who already think like her... that cyclists don't belong on the roads. Now add all those people who are prone to think like her - they are open to believing that cyclists don't belong on the roads. Now imagine the effect of cyclists advocating for segregated cycling facilities like bike lanes and bike paths, so they don't have to share the roads with cars, on all these people.

In particular, do you think segregated cycling facility advocacy is likely to bolster or diminish the kind of segregationist thinking exemplified by "Her" above? Why?


How about going an even cheaper route... teach the laws to the drivers. The very drivers that tell you that you aren't supposed to be "out there" even when bike lanes, paths and sidewalks don't exist. The very drivers that can't tell you how to make left turns and say "you figure it out."

Tell the drivers that cyclists are allowed on the road and that they have to share and then perhaps facilities won't be needed.

As long as motorists believe that they own the road, then cyclists will always be treated as second class users of the road.

Strike up a conversation this holiday with folks that don't know you as a cyclist... ask them what they think... You'll get an earfull of misinformation. No form of "predictable cycling" is going to change their minds.

[Helmet Head]

Gene, you're assuming the problem is their ignorance of the law.
People, rightfully so, have opinions contrary to the law. Regardless of what the law says, these people are not going to think that cyclists are supposed to be "out there".

And building and supporting more and more segregrated cycling facilities, which are built on basically the same segregationist premise (since cyclists don't belong "out there", they should have their "own space"), can only reinforce that kind of segregationist thinking, and spread it to more and more people (cyclists and motorists alike).

How are non-cyclists ever going to stop thinking that cyclists don't belong "out there" when we cyclists and even cycling advocates continue acting like we don't belong "out there" by riding in the danger zone near the side of the road rather than "out there" and continuing to clamor for more and more segregated cycling facilities?

[genec]

Gene, you're assuming the problem is their ignorance of the law.
People, rightfully so, have opinions contrary to the law. Regardless of what the law says, these people are not going to think that cyclists are supposed to be "out there".



I am not assuming anything... I have conversations with motorists that tell me that cyclists are not supposed to be "there."

Until motorists understand that cyclists have a right to use the road that is equal to their "granted privilege" to use the road, motorists will continue to treat cyclists as second class citizens and insist that they belong somewhere else... even if "somewhere else" doesn't exist.

I make no assumptions. Motorists have told me this to my face. I don't go around guessing what they think.

You need to talk to a few directly... Don't make assumptions. Ask folks.

[TMX]

I was thinking about this thread while out riding earlier this evening, and it occured to me that there were at least a couple dozen times on this ride alone that I could have made a bad move - a swerve to avoid a pothole, for instance, that would have put me directly under someone's front bumper, and there would have been nothing, N-O-T-H-I-N-G, the driver would have been able to do to keep from hitting me. I don't care who they were or how careful they were being, they would have creamed me. End of story.

Now, who among you would assign blame for the above scenario to the driver of the motor vehicle? Be honest, because there are at least three of you involved in this thread who would.

-B

[Dchiefransom]

I was thinking about this thread while out riding earlier this evening, and it occured to me that there were at least a couple dozen times on this ride alone that I could have made a bad move - a swerve to avoid a pothole, for instance, that would have put me directly under someone's front bumper, and there would have been nothing, N-O-T-H-I-N-G, the driver would have been able to do to keep from hitting me. I don't care who they were or how careful they were being, they would have creamed me. End of story.

Now, who among you would assign blame for the above scenario to the driver of the motor vehicle? Be honest, because there are at least three of you involved in this thread who would.

-B

Yet, if a car made a sudden lane change in front of another one, and got hit from behind, the driver in the rear car would still be cited for the accident.

[dobber]

Now, who among you would assign blame for the above scenario to the driver of the motor vehicle? Be honest, because there are at least three of you involved in this thread who would.

-B

But, but, but...........................

I'd wager that there are, percentage wise, more poor cyclists then drivers. Unfortunately, when one meets the other, the cyclist will lose.

[TMX]

Yet, if a car made a sudden lane change in front of another one, and got hit from behind, the driver in the rear car would still be cited for the accident.

No he wouldn't. The driver who made the lane change without sufficient room to do so would get cited for an improper/unsafe lane change, as well as for any other charges the cops might deem appropriate for causing the accident. The factor that generally makes the trailing motorist automatically liable in a rear-end collision, following distance, wouldn't apply here since the vehicles were initially traveling in two different lanes.

-Bob

[Eatadonut]

I was thinking about this thread while out riding earlier this evening, and it occured to me that there were at least a couple dozen times on this ride alone that I could have made a bad move - a swerve to avoid a pothole, for instance, that would have put me directly under someone's front bumper, and there would have been nothing, N-O-T-H-I-N-G, the driver would have been able to do to keep from hitting me. I don't care who they were or how careful they were being, they would have creamed me. End of story.

Now, who among you would assign blame for the above scenario to the driver of the motor vehicle? Be honest, because there are at least three of you involved in this thread who would.

-B


what I'm seeing here is that the car was following too closely, and was not paying enough attention to the road to predict unusual motions from you, the rider.

Your fault MOSTLY, but there are ways for the driver to avoid it, and it would be irresponsible for them not to.

[* jack *]

Motorist charged in cyclist's death
From Staff Reports: News & Observer

James Howard of Durham was charged Thursday in the hit-and-run death of a bicyclist.

In a news release, police said Howard, 42, of Bexley Avenue, was cited on a charge of misdemeanor death by vehicle.

Jose Elias Carrillos Cruz, 38, of Southpoint Crossing Drive died Nov. 25 after he was struck by a pickup truck on Hope Valley Road near Surrey Green Lane.

[Redrom]

Update... Motorist charged with misdemeanor death by vehicle.
http://www.newsobserver.com/664/story/373360.html

Published: Dec 02, 2005 12:30 AM
Modified: Dec 02, 2005 04:43 AM

Motorist charged in cyclist's death
From Staff Reports
James Howard of Durham was charged Thursday in the hit-and-run death of a bicyclist.

In a news release, police said Howard, 42, of Bexley Avenue, was cited on a charge of misdemeanor death by vehicle.

Jose Elias Carrillos Cruz, 38, of Southpoint Crossing Drive died Nov. 25 after he was struck by a pickup truck on Hope Valley Road near Surrey Green Lane.

[bandregg]

I'm glad that Redrom has brought us back on topic with some real information in this case. I live very close to where this happened and have driven down this road regularly; I have not biked on it. I cannot speak to what kind of cyclist Mr. Cruz was or to what he was wearing or how well lit he was. I can say that Hope Valley Road is a non-ideal road to ride on when it's dark, or worse dusk/dawn as that generally makes it harder to see. There is no more than two inches of pavement off of the road way on either side of the road. The road is narrow to begin with in both directions and there are several near-blind corners and many near-blind intersections. I have seen confident road riders on this road less than ten times in the five years that I've lived here because it's just a crappy road to ride on. But, and here is the big deal for me, if you must bike to work and you need to go where this road goes, it's the only way to get there. That creates a dangerous situation and one that the DOT should address. Of course, this is in a part of Durham that doesn't have sidewalks anywhere either, so if you want to walk somewhere you're in a dangerous situation as well. It's very unfortunate that this happened, but I wouldn't say it coulnd't have been forseen, without a driver commiting error no less.

And to those who say an accident is always avoidable by a car: you need to drive around people who use a bike for transport without any training. Just the other day I was using a right hand turn lane around a sharp bend in the road and had to swerve almost into the concrete median to avoid hitting a cyclist riding against traffic on the blind side of the turn. I was going the speed limit and it was getting dark and he was wearing all black. It would be unfortunate, but I wouldn't place blame on another driver hitting him under the same conditions. My wife response when she could breath again in the passanger seat was, "We'll be reading about him in the paper tomorrow." Said without any irony or malice.

Lastly, why do people expect the police to file a charge right away when things like this happen? Do we not expect them to investigate or question what did transpire? I certainly hope the police have time to figure out what really happened before filing charges. Then again, I don't immediately jump to the conclusion that all drivers are out to run me down (when I'm on the road) or that all government officals are anti-cyclist.

[dobber]

Lastly, why do people expect the police to file a charge right away when things like this happen?

Modern day lynch mob advocates.

[chemcycle]

Motorist charged with misdemeanor death by vehicle

How can this be? I've been told that "Killing cyclists is decriminalized in the US."



Some people just got those chips knocked of their shoulders.......

[* jack *]

I should mention that although the News & Observer article cited above mentions that this was a 'hit-and-run' accident, this tragic event was in fact not a hit-and-run.

It occured on a city street with a 45mph speet limit (read: 60+ mph) with no provisions for pedestrains, much less cyclists. Many of the roads in our area are too narrow for an ambulance and a school bus to pass in opposite lanes without one having to go off the shoulder.

[froze]

I'm gonna write a letter to the DA responsible in sydney's area and ask them why it is so easy to get away with premeditated murder by running someone over in a car but shooting someone is considered such a horrible crime.

Wait wait wait; an accident is just that, and accident. Sidney's death was NOT premeditated murder. Please look the word premeditated in a dictionary. Premeditated means that the kid that hit Sidney would have had to wanted to kill Sidney and planned it then carried it out. It was a stupid, howbeit careless accident. The DA will tell you the same the thing. And shooting someone in cold blood, or in a rage of anger or jealousy is totally different thing; however if your out hunting and are shooting at a deer and another hunter suddenly appears in your line of fire and the hunter dies instead of the deer...it's an accident and not premeditated murder. So shooting someone also has it's definition as to whether or not it's murder.