Driver fled scene after hitting a 50-year-old cyclist, leaving him with serious brain injuries

By Peter Hegarty

STAFF WRITER


Alameda police are again appealing for information as they try to track down a driver who struck a bicyclist last month -- leaving the man with serious brain injuries -- and then fled the accident.

Officer Craig Rodrigue said the 50-year-old cyclist, who lives on Bay Farm Island, was recently moved from the intensive care unit at Highland Hospital to Kaiser Hospital in Oakland, where his injuries have prevented him from giving his account of the accident.

The man's injuries are similar to "shaken baby syndrome," which means his brain is not sending the proper signals to his body so that it can function properly.

Teenagers who witnessed the accident told investigators that they saw the car hit the cyclist about 1 a.m. Nov. 26 on Island Drive near Earhart Elementary School and briefly slow down before it drove off.

Police described the vehicle as a dark, possibly black, four-door sports car.

Rodrigue said an article that appeared in the Alameda Journal last month about the accident gave police some leads, but that he still hopes anyone with information will call 510-337-8340.

----------------------------------------------

May the ******* rot in hell.

I think if society wants to get serious about hit & runs, we need to make the penalty for hit & run far, far worse than the penalty for causing the accident. Kind of like the "use a gun to commit a crime laws." Hit & run-- fines/prison time automatically triples, quintuples, whatever it takes to get their attention. Sure, some people are going to still take the chance, but after a few headlines about some idiot getting a decade in prison on what would otherwise have been a short stint in jail, the majority of people are going to realize it's not worth he risk. Right now, it's still worth the risk to run.

In my region, I am convinced that we have so many hit & run accidents because the penalty for hit & run is less than drunk driving.

To be effective, I think at a minimum the penalty for hit & run should be at least as severe as any traffic citation that could have theoretically been issued, including DUI.

I do like the idea that hit & run should be one of those things that multiplies fines, just like fines being doubled in work zones. However, I don't think the idea carries over well to jail time.

For some good examples of horror stories involving mandatory prison sentences, I would suggest reading Reefer Madness : Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618446702/qid=1133991024/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-8761147-8930435?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) by Eric Schlosser. Part of the book deals with mandatory sentences for drug offenders, and how they tie the hands of judges.

This is a book whose conclusion finally solidified some ideas for me. I agree with at least one of his theses, and that is that the legal system would be best served if there were relatively few laws, and those that are written should be strictly enforced.

This is part of the reason that I oppose trying to outlaw cell phones in cars, because it is going to just be another one of hundreds of laws... even though I understand the emotion around Jim Price's death (and others) and want to do something.

If instead a law was written and enforced:

"Operating a vehicle in a manner that causes death or serious bodily harm to any person, or in such a way as to significantly increase the risk of death or serious bodily harm to any person is a felony punishible by... fine / prison term / caning / ??? "

This would lead to a law that if enforced would make the roads safer, and if not enforced, would be no worse than the hundreds of laws that are not enforced now.

I really think this is what the founding fathers in the USA wanted. A system where a police officer or other citizen makes a claim against another, and a judge and/or jury decides based on the evidence whether what the accused person did was wrong. It should not be decided based on whether there is an appropriate loop hole in the myriad of laws that exist, or whether the police officer submitted the paperwork properly, or who hires the best lawyer to find those loopholes or seduce the jury.

In my region, I am convinced that we have so many hit & run accidents because the penalty for hit & run is less than drunk driving.I think that's exactly what the problem is.


I do like the idea that hit & run should be one of those things that multiplies fines, just like fines being doubled in work zones. However, I don't think the idea carries over well to jail time.

For some good examples of horror stories involving mandatory prison sentences, I would suggest reading Reefer Madness : Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618446702/qid=1133991024/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-8761147-8930435?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) by Eric Schlosser. Part of the book deals with mandatory sentences for drug offenders, and how they tie the hands of judges.I'm generally not a fan of tying the hands of judges. However, because we've cracked down so hard on drunk driving, we need to address the effects of that crackdown-- hit & run. The only way somebody will stick around to face a drunk driving violation is if the alternative is far, far worse. Maybe where drunk driving means losing your license for a year, hit & run means losing it for life. As long as the penalty for hit & run remains the lesser of two evils, drunk drivers and others (e.g., driving with a suspended license) will make the rational choice to do a hit & run.



"Operating a vehicle in a manner that causes death or serious bodily harm to any person, or in such a way as to significantly increase the risk of death or serious bodily harm to any person is a felony punishible by... fine / prison term / caning / ??? "

This would lead to a law that if enforced would make the roads safer, and if not enforced, would be no worse than the hundreds of laws that are not enforced now.

I really think this is what the founding fathers in the USA wanted. A system where a police officer or other citizen makes a claim against another, and a judge and/or jury decides based on the evidence whether what the accused person did was wrong. It should not be decided based on whether there is an appropriate loop hole in the myriad of laws that exist, or whether the police officer submitted the paperwork properly, or who hires the best lawyer to find those loopholes or seduce the jury.The problem I see with such a vague standard is that there would be different outcomes in different cases for exactly the same (or similar) behavior. Vehicular homicide by cell phone distraction might net someone a prison sentence with one jury, while cell phone use might not even be considered contributory with another jury. Look at the jury in Kentucky for an example. They were told that under the law, the cyclist was entitled to use the road, and they disregarded that instruction, and substituted their own belief that cyclists are not entitled to use the road. And that was in a situation where the law isn't vague.

In my opinoin, a hit and run for any accident that resulted in injuries should be a mandatory lifetime license revocation, and mandatory maximum sentencing involved for all crimes committed at the scene or in the process of fleeing the scene. There should be no plea options or "easy breaks" allowed with this.

In cases involving vehicular assault, there should also be a mandatory revocation of driving privelages. It annoys me to no end how the govt states "driving is a privelage, not a right", yet they pretty much tend to go soft on these people, thus allowing people to take this "privelage" for granted.