"There's no indication of alcohol or any other violation that would cause us to believe he should be arrested," said Orange County sheriff Lt. Ted Boyne.
http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_126141015.html

Unbelievable.

How about manslaughter??? HEEELLLOOO, McFLY!!!

I just wrote to the mayor of the city in question requesting an investigation as the brief news story is both vague and perhaps misleading, but worrisome none the less.

More informative article at this location:

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/homepage/article_1133081.php

She rode at least 75 miles a week and was on her way to meet her riding group when she was hit on a narrow section of the Coast Hiway... an area made narrow by construction, and with "two electronic signs warning drivers about the construction zone stood on the side of the road nearby."

Earlier two joggers had been killed at the same location by a hit and run driver.

***********************

It sounds as if the driver failed to yield right of way... that alone is a "violation" certainly worth persuing.

I am awful tired of police and other public officials just throwing up their hands and saying... "well somebody is dead, but we can't prosecute the killer as we just can't think of a reason."

How about "reckless driving" for one...

I just wrote to the mayor of the city in question requesting an investigation as the brief news story is both vague and perhaps misleading, but worrisome none the less.

Surprisingly, the Mayor has responded...on a Sunday no less...and I have copied her reply below:


Thanks for your message. (I forwarded it to both our City Manager and Chief
of Police.) Ms. Tucker's death is a terrible tragedy. I don't know all the
details yet myself and an investigation is occurring. I do know that the
bike lane is of legal width and markings, so I'm eager to hear what the
investigation discovers. Public safety is something we take very seriously
here in Dana Point and all appropriate actions will be taken.

Lara Anderson
Mayor

Unbelievable.

How about manslaughter??? HEEELLLOOO, McFLY!!!

Yes, I'll get the rope, you pick out a good tree.

Until drivers are held legally accountable for this kind of inattentive driving BS, we will continue to see these type of stories in the media.

Yes, I'll get the rope, you pick out a good tree.

I see, so killing somebody in California, just like the rest of America, is perfectly legal and acceptable as long as a car is used?

It's high time to hold negligent people responsible. At the least he should loose his Driver's License for life.

It's high time to hold negligent people responsible.

Yes it is. But perhaps we should ascertain all the facts.

... It's high time to hold negligent people responsible. ...

Our society currently lacks the political will to prosecute negligent motorists, just as it once tolerated drunk drivers. It will probably take a movement akin to MADD to change public opinion regarding driving while distracted, careless, fatigued, or inattentive.

Yes it is. But perhaps we should ascertain all the facts.

I concur. One of my great frustrations in reading accounts in the media is the lack of crucial details.

Until drivers are held legally accountable for this kind of inattentive driving BS, we will continue to see these type of stories in the media.

Never made a mistake? Never going to make one? Ever?

And if you do make one, are you will in to stand in front of a judge and say "Give me the maximum penalty because I deserve it!" Because unless you are willing to make that kind of commitment, don't go casting stones...especially when the investigation is still under progress.

Never made a mistake? Never going to make one? Ever?

And if you do make one, are you will in to stand in front of a judge and say "Give me the maximum penalty because I deserve it!" Because unless you are willing to make that kind of commitment, don't go casting stones...especially when the investigation is still under progress.


Strike a nerve somewhere huh ?

How about "reckless driving" for one...

Before you start stringing people up, you ought to know the difference (this is from Colorado but I'm sure the definitions don't differ that much) between careless driving (making a mistake because of neglect) and reckless driving

CRS 42-4-1402. Careless driving - penalty.
(1) Any person who drives any motor vehicle, bicycle, or motorized bicycle in a careless and imprudent manner, without due regard for the width, grade, curves, corners, traffic, and use of the streets and highways and all other attendant circumstances, is guilty of careless driving. A person convicted of careless driving of a bicycle or motorized bicycle shall not be subject to the provisions of section 42-2-127.
(2) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense, but, if the person's actions are the proximate cause of bodily injury or death to another, such person commits a class 1 misdemeanor traffic offense.

CRS 42-4-1401. Reckless driving - penalty. State Statutes - CRS
(1) Any person who drives any motor vehicle, bicycle, or motorized bicycle in such a manner as to indicate either a wanton or a willful disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. A person convicted of reckless driving of a bicycle or motorized bicycle shall not be subject to the provisions of section 42-2-127.
(2) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, such person shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ten days nor more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Reckless Driving. One may be said to be guilty of wanton behavior when, although the defendant may not have deliberately intended to injure anyone, he consciously chooses a dangerous course of action which to a reasonable mind creates a strong probability that injury to others will result. Martin v. People, 179 Colo. 237, 499 P.2d 606 (1972).

One who commits reckless driving necessarily has been guilty of careless driving, for the greater degree of negligence includes the lesser. People v. Chapman, 192 Colo. 322, 557 P.2d 1211 (1977). This means careless driving is a "lesser included offense" of reckless driving, and if charged with reckless, a defendant may request a jury instruction on careless. Reckless driving is a "lesser included offense of vehicular eluding. People v. Pena, 962 P.2d 285 (Colo. App. 1997).

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CARELESS DRIVING & RECKLESS DRIVING

Both reckless and careless driving offenses consist of two elements: (1) the act of driving a motor vehicle, and (2) the state of mind in "disregard" of or "without due regard" for safety. People v. Chapman, 192 Colo. 322, 557 P.2d 1211 (1977).

The two offenses differ only in that the degree of negligence required is far more culpable in reckless driving than in careless driving, although it falls short of intentional wrongdoing.


So was the accident intentional or was it due to inattention? Do you know something we don't? And, because Colorado statues apply to bicycles, would you be so quick to judge if a bicyclist had killed a pedestrian? It has happened in Colorado - in Denver, actually. Should the bicyclist have been charged with a heinous crime and thrown in prison for it? Or do those rules only apply when a car is involved?

And trust me, the driver of the car will be punished in far worse ways then you can possibly imagine. He will pay monetarily, in civil penalties and, worst of all, in his own head. He was not and is not a horrible person. He is only a person who made a horrible mistake. He will not go one day for the rest of his life without thinking of this one horrible mistake, I know that for a fact!

two weeks ago, a drunk plowed into a group of four women on an morning jog on the same stretch of road (they were not killed, as Genec stated, but both are still in the hospital in pretty bad shape). It's very dangerous stretch of road, in extra crappy condition, un fortunately for cyclists, it is the only practical road from San Clemente to Dana Point. I don't ride it anymore.

As for runners, I don't know why people feel compelled to run on it (since there are some great areas to run very nearby)

This section of Highway extra special attention whether you are jogging/running/walking, riding or driving.

What I don't like are some of you guys pulling off a high and mighty attitude, before all the facts are in. As it stands right know, this is a very tragic accident.

Yes, I'll get the rope, you pick out a good tree.

...Then you rig them up, let them panic and start choking and realize that they will die horribly just like the cyclist they hit...

..then cut them down. I dont like the death penalty.

Strike a nerve somewhere huh ?

We've been over this ground many times before. And yes, even after several years, the nerve is still very raw. It never heals.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CARELESS DRIVING & RECKLESS DRIVING
...
The two offenses differ only in that the degree of negligence required is far more culpable in reckless driving than in careless driving, although it falls short of intentional wrongdoing.
So was the accident intentional or was it due to inattention? Looking at that quote, it appears that someone can be guilty of reckless driving even when the wrongdoing was not intentional (at least in CO).

One rarely knows all the details, yet it seems like a very experienced cyclist was hit by a car hard enough to kill her. It's a hard for me to imagine what could excuse the driver, though I concede my imagination on these things is a bit limited and some such facts might exist.

If the road is too dangerous to accomodate all vehicles, the state should redesign it, close it, or close it to those that make it dangerous for other users.

If the road is too dangerous to accomodate all vehicles, the state should redesign it, close it, or close it to those that make it dangerous for other users.

In some situations, we have to make our own choices. Me, I'm a chicken-**** that lives by the credo "he who fights and runs away lives to fight another day".

Give me a busy, congested road and I'm humping a 5 mile alternative.

One rarely knows all the details, yet it seems like a very experienced cyclist was hit by a car hard enough to kill her. It's a hard for me to imagine what could excuse the driver, though I concede my imagination on these things is a bit limited and some such facts might exist.

If the road is too dangerous to accomodate all vehicles, the state should redesign it, close it, or close it to those that make it dangerous for other users.

...and the minute a road is closed to cyclists or pedestrian traffic, all the advocates come out of the woodwork and start yelling discrimination.

I don't believe the road should be closed. Personally, I no longer ride it, but if a ride does decide to that section of PCH, they better be aware of the serious risks.

From what I've heard, the driver was travelling well below the posted speed limit, and Ms. Tucker was well to the right of traffic. Doesn't sound like anyone was doing anything wrong. Let the police do their investigation.

...and the minute a road is closed to cyclists or pedestrian traffic, all the advocates come out of the woodwork and start yelling discrimination.

I don't believe the road should be closed. Personally, I no longer ride it, but if a ride does decide to that section of PCH, they better be aware of the serious risks.

From what I've heard, the driver was travelling well below the posted speed limit, and Ms. Tucker was well to the right of traffic. Doesn't sound like anyone was doing anything wrong. Let the police do their investigation.

While I agree the investigation should be allowed to run its' course and due process be permitted, someone must have done something wrong for someone to wind up dead. They couldn't both have been acting properly if a collission occured. Logic is logic, after all. Hopefully, the investigation will reveal who did what and why.

...and the minute a road is closed to cyclists or pedestrian traffic, all the advocates come out of the woodwork and start yelling discrimination.

I think it should be closed to autos if drivers cannot avoid hitting cyclists and runners.

From what I've heard, the driver was travelling well below the posted speed limit, and Ms. Tucker was well to the right of traffic. Doesn't sound like anyone was doing anything wrong. Let the police do their investigation.

I would definitely like to hear the results of the investigation, but it certainly sounds as if someone was doing something wrong - after all, cars killing cyclists is not the way things should be.

I think it should be closed to autos if drivers cannot avoid hitting cyclists and runners.

Unfortunately thats not an option.

Its a necessary link of highway between San Clemente and Dana Point. It an old section of highway, pinched in with cliffs on one side, and traintracks and the ocean on the other. There isn't a lot of room to expand. if it were up to me. I would build a dedicated bikeway along the coast from San Clemente to Doheny Beach /Dana Point

The cliffs have already given away a few times to landslides are way too unstable to cut into or tunnel through.

Unfortunately thats not an option.

Its a necessary link of highway between San Clemente and Dana Point. It an old section of highway, pinched in with cliffs on one side, and traintracks and the ocean on the other. There isn't a lot of room to expand. if it were up to me. I would build a dedicated bikeway along the coast from San Clemente to Doheny Beach /Dana Point

The cliffs have already given away a few times to landslides are way too unstable to cut into or tunnel through.

Why isn't it an option? Because cars, but not bikes or pedestrians must use the road? I don't get it.

Manslaughter is easier said than done. In this case I'd imagine we're talking involuntary manslaughter because the death, by all accounts, was unintended. The state has to prove criminal negligence (a higher standard than civil negligence to say the least). Not an easy thing to prove. The facts have to come out some more, I think. Some deaths are mere accidents and no more. Some are indeed manslaughter. I think the DA knows better than us what to do with this.

Last time a DA chimed in here regarding her actions, she was all wet.

[...] close it to those that make it dangerous for other users.

So what you're saying is that they should close the road to cars, because it makes it dangerous to cyclists?

Yeah, that's an easy sell to the public.

So what you're saying is that they should close the road to cars, because it makes it dangerous to cyclists?

Yep. Or make it safe.

Yeah, that's an easy sell to the public.

Keep pleading with them to drive safely. Keep believing the DA. Keep getting run over.

And trust me, the driver of the car will be punished in far worse ways then you can possibly imagine. He will pay monetarily, in civil penalties and, worst of all, in his own head. He was not and is not a horrible person. He is only a person who made a horrible mistake. He will not go one day for the rest of his life without thinking of this one horrible mistake, I know that for a fact!

Meanwhile, the cyclist is dead, and the driver can never match that with all of their heartfelt guilt...

My big issue is that the authorities stated that since he was not drinking, nor were drugs involved... they could not persue for prosecution for anything... implying that killing with a vehicle is a "free" crime.

When are drivers going to realize the extent of their responsibilities when they take the wheel?

Was she invisible? How did he actually hit her? What possible reason could a driver have for not slowing and evaluating the entire situation? I too think this needs more investigation... but to have authorities just throw up their hands and say... "nothing we can do... ?"

My big issue is that the authorities stated that since he was not drinking, nor were drugs involved... they could not persue for prosecution for anything... implying that killing with a vehicle is a "free" crime.

When are drivers going to realize the extent of their responsibilities when they take the wheel?

Was she invisible? How did he actually hit her? What possible reason could a driver have for not slowing and evaluating the entire situation? I too think this needs more investigation... but to have authorities just throw up their hands and say... "nothing we can do... ?"

Is the investigation finished? Did she do something? Was she hugging the shoulder, playing 'jack-in-the-box"? How, indeed, did he actually hit her? There is a lot of stuff you seem to be assuming with very little information. Like "reckless" driving. Like the driver not slowing? Others here are calling for manslaughter. Based upon what? If you know something the authorities don't know, should you be talking to them? Otherwise you are speculating on something that you have almost no knowledge about.

We do this here all the time! "Bicycle" and "deadly accident" in the title of anything brings all the vigilantes out screaming for blood before they even know the circumstances. I'll assume that you have driven at some point in your life. Did you "...realize the extent of [your] responsibilities when [you] take the wheel?" Every time? Never drove over the speed limit-even a fraction of a mile per hour? Always followed every rule, regulation and law? Always? Then maybe you ought to apply for sainthood because you are way better than every other person on the planet!

Is the investigation finished? Did she do something? Was she hugging the shoulder, playing 'jack-in-the-box"? How, indeed, did he actually hit her? There is a lot of stuff you seem to be assuming with very little information. Like "reckless" driving. Like the driver not slowing? Others here are calling for manslaughter. Based upon what? If you know something the authorities don't know, should you be talking to them? Otherwise you are speculating on something that you have almost no knowledge about.

We do this here all the time! "Bicycle" and "deadly accident" in the title of anything brings all the vigilantes out screaming for blood before they even know the circumstances. I'll assume that you have driven at some point in your life. Did you "...realize the extent of [your] responsibilities when [you] take the wheel?" Every time? Never drove over the speed limit-even a fraction of a mile per hour? Always followed every rule, regulation and law? Always? Then maybe you ought to apply for sainthood because you are way better than every other person on the planet!


I think the spirit of this response is apt. We are free to assume whatever we want here, but in a court physical proof of some sort has to be brought before the jury. It appears the burden of proof is lower here then in an actual court.

It appears the burden of proof is lower here then in an actual court.

Odd comment. A lower standard than that used by a court would seem appropriate for conversation, otherwise there wouldn't be much to talk about on any subject.

There aren't too many places that have a higher standard for proof than a U.S. criminal court. Even European courts generally use a lesser standard.

Odd comment. A lower standard than that used by a court would seem appropriate for conversation, otherwise there wouldn't be much to talk about on any subject.

There aren't too many places that have a higher standard for proof than a U.S. criminal court. Even European courts generally use a lesser standard.


A somewhat lower standard would be approriate in general, but we play limbo sometimes. Instant villainy for the driver! :rolleyes:

A somewhat lower standard would be approriate in general, but we play limbo sometimes. Instant villainy for the driver! :rolleyes:

That's the way I feel even when a driver forgets to signal a turn! lol

Yes, I'll get the rope, you pick out a good tree.
Sounds good to me.

O, that's right, you're the motorist-apologist.

It can never be the motorists fault, yea, that's the ticket. Deny responsibility, never admit to anything

Sounds good to me.

O, that's right, you're the motorist-apologist.

It can never be the motorists fault, yea, that's the ticket. Deny responsibility, never admit to anything

Double edge sword. The way some of you clowns act, its NEVER the cyclists fault.

cyclists and motorists are all people, and people do make mistakes and do dumb things.

Double edge sword. The way some of you clowns act, its NEVER the cyclists fault.

cyclists and motorists are all people, and people do make mistakes and do dumb things.

O I don't say cyclists are all wearing halos, the first object of my wrath are the wrong way cyclist.
But there is no traffic law enforcment, unless it's some kind of harrasment, as NYC is conducting.

O, that's right, you're the motorist-apologist.


Nope, just a realist.

Do you have all the facts? Were you privy to the police report? Perhaps you were an eye-witness?

Or are you a shoot first, ask question later guy? Kill em all and let god sort em out?

Ass-clowns like you do more damage then good.

Meanwhile, the cyclist is dead, and the driver can never match that with all of their heartfelt guilt...

My big issue is that the authorities stated that since he was not drinking, nor were drugs involved... they could not persue for prosecution for anything... implying that killing with a vehicle is a "free" crime.

When are drivers going to realize the extent of their responsibilities when they take the wheel?

Was she invisible? How did he actually hit her? What possible reason could a driver have for not slowing and evaluating the entire situation? I too think this needs more investigation... but to have authorities just throw up their hands and say... "nothing we can do... ?"

There was a reporter doing the questions and the writing of the answers. The police are not speaking directly to us. Stories are edited so as to draw us in an irritate our sensibilities. Results of subsequent investigations are bland and not easily related to earlier stories and are often unpublished. I have a feeling that what the officers on the scene really said or meant to say was that there was no obvious behavior which would aregue for a presumption of guilt of commission of a crime. Thus there was no immediate cause for an arrest. I suppose it is possible that the investigation will reveal such a reason, in which case we may see a follow-up story.

Interesting also that the reporter/editorial staff kind of made reference to "An old Lady on a Bike" rather than using the term "cyclist."

Ever look back to the road after adjusting a radio, lighting a cigarette, inserting a CD, adjusting a visor, unwrapping a piece of candy or gum, or yelling at a kid to discover that you were at least partially over a line you probably would not have crossed if not distracted? If there had been a cyclist there, you'd have probably killed. ....Punishment???

The quote that got this all started is that there was no evidence of a violation that would get the driver arrested. That doesn't mean that the driver won't be cited. You typically don't get arrested for careless driving , even if it results in a death. And as for negligent homocide or involuntary manslaughter, drivers typically do not get charged with such a criminal charge unless there's some aggravating circumstance, such as drugs, alchohal, excessive speeding. From the limited facts, it would appear the driver's at fault, and should be cited and will be liable for damages in a civil proceeding. Doesn't mean there was a crime comitted. Not every accident, even accidents caused by someone's civil negligence constitutes a crime.

It amazes me how quick many on this forum are to lock people up and throw away the keys, simply because a bike is involved. Change the facts, and assume, the driver struck another car resulting in a death, just as a result of a moment's distraction or inattention. Clean driving record, no drugs, no alcohol, no cell phone, no speeeding. I bet the vast majority of you would say they should get a ticket, pay damges, but not go to jail. But put a bike in the picture, and you get very biased very quickly.

Didn't you know, reality is left-biased.


Nope, just a realist.

Do you have all the facts? Were you privy to the police report? Perhaps you were an eye-witness?

Or are you a shoot first, ask question later guy? Kill em all and let god sort em out?

Ass-clowns like you do more damage then good.

No dont' kill em all, just remove their driving privileges for the rest of their lives. And if they get behind the wheel again, then kill em.

The quote that got this all started is that there was no evidence of a violation that would get the driver arrested. That doesn't mean that the driver won't be cited. You typically don't get arrested for careless driving ,


But you will be arrested for riding a bike in NYC.

Calling this or any other road death an 'accident' is highly disingenuous, as if what rightly should be called a crash could not have been avoided. If you are distracted by something you are doing inside your vehicle other than paying attention to the road, drift outside of your lane, and consequently injure or kill someone as a result; it is a preventable crash, you are at fault, and you should be charged with either a violation or a crime, depending on the severity of the incident. I'd say causing a death is right up there near the top of the severity list, wouldn't y'all?

Ever look back to the road after adjusting a radio, lighting a cigarette, inserting a CD, adjusting a visor, unwrapping a piece of candy or gum, or yelling at a kid to discover that you were at least partially over a line you probably would not have crossed if not distracted? If there had been a cyclist there, you'd have probably killed. ....Punishment???
Well no.

Never have I done this and drifted over a line. Never have I done these type of activities when there was a possibility for a cyclist or ped to be there (i.e. no intersections, very long clear sightlines, etc.). I plan well ahead before adjusting things around me so if I do drift a bit it will not be into something mobile or not. I only remove eyes from road for a second at a time, I don't drift either. Yes, sometimes this means waiting minutes before I can change a CD or pulling over to attend to a distraction.

Al

Bless you Noisebeam. I hope your record remains spotless.

It amazes me how quick many on this forum are to lock people up and throw away the keys, simply because a bike is involved. Change the facts, and assume, the driver struck another car resulting in a death, just as a result of a moment's distraction or inattention. Clean driving record, no drugs, no alcohol, no cell phone, no speeeding. I bet the vast majority of you would say they should get a ticket, pay damges, but not go to jail. But put a bike in the picture, and you get very biased very quickly.

Or worse, some would just say good riddance to another driver.:(

It amazes me how quick many on this forum are to lock people up and throw away the keys, simply because a bike is involved. Change the facts, and assume, the driver struck another car resulting in a death, just as a result of a moment's distraction or inattention. Clean driving record, no drugs, no alcohol, no cell phone, no speeeding. I bet the vast majority of you would say they should get a ticket, pay damges, but not go to jail. But put a bike in the picture, and you get very biased very quickly.

Greater penalties are entirely reasonable when a cyclist is harmed instead of driver.

We often impose greater penalties when the injured party is more vulnerable than usual. Statutes routinely aggravate penalties for harm to the handicapped, elderly, young, etc.

A cyclist is particularly vulnerable to harm by those driving vehicles that weigh tons. The likelihood of horrible consequences from a stupid driving mistake when a cyclist is in the picture are much greater than when it's another car.

Greater penalties are entirely reasonable when a cyclist is harmed instead of driver.

We often impose greater penalties when the injured party is more vulnerable than usual. Statutes routinely aggravate penalties for harm to the handicapped, elderly, young, etc.

A cyclist is particularly vulnerable to harm by those driving vehicles that weigh tons. The likelihood of horrible consequences from a stupid driving mistake when a cyclist is in the picture are much greater than when it's another car.

And yet there are no such greater penalties for situations as this, and often the end result is that it is declared an "accident" and the authorities just walk away and shake their heads...

Pedestrians do have a declared higher ROW... but cyclists do not, and in an autocenteric society, the authorities often pass judgement based on their own biases...

Is it any wonder why we react in the manner mentioned here ("hang 'em high...")

Who is it exactly that is looking out for the rights of cyclists in situations such as this. The pro-automobile biased authorities?

The Mayor of Dana Point City sent the following article to me this morning regarding this incident following my inquiries with her on Sunday as to what had occured:

This was the article in today's paper. We will be looking at ways to make
that route safer.
Lara



Tuesday, May 9, 2006

Cyclist swerved into harm's way


Sheriff's deputies decline to cite motorist in the accident that killed a
78-year-old.


By HEATHER IGNATIN
The Orange County Register


DANA POINT - A 78-year-old woman struck and killed by a car over the weekend
while riding her bike on Coast Highway apparently was at fault,
investigators said Monday.

"It appears she pulled into traffic," Orange County sheriff's spokesman Jim
Amormino said about Viola Tucker, who died Saturday morning.

Tucker was riding north between Camino Capistrano and Palisades Drive, a few
miles from home, when she collided with a car driven by Craig Sonnenberg,
53, of San Clemente.

"I didn't have time to put on my brakes," Sonnenberg said. "It happened so
fast. The next thing I knew, it was over."

Sonnenberg, a property manager, said he saw Tucker pedaling in front of him
along the road and "then the next thing I knew she swerved in front of my
car."

Sonnenberg's blood pressure soared after the accident, and he was taken to a
hospital after dialing 911.

"I'm hanging in there," he said Monday. "I've been crying my eyes out
because I can't bring her back."

Tucker's family and friends have said she was a cautious rider.

"It's time for them to shut (the road) to bicyclists and runners until
construction is done," said Tucker's daughter, Jan Foley, who added that her
mother pedaled slowly but always straight. Tucker rode more than 75 miles a
week.

The accident happened a quarter-mile from where two joggers from San
Clemente were struck by a hit-and-run driver.

Brad Fowler, Dana Point public works director, said the accident occurred
"well outside the construction zone" - along a stretch of 8-foot-wide bike
lane on a slight curve.

"We've uncovered no specific safety issues at the site," Fowler said about
the signage, striping and lane widths. "It's a tragic accident."

The installation of a storm drain north of Palisades Drive wrapped up last
week after six months of work, he said. The contractor plans to remove road
detour signs and plastic road dividers this week.

"I'm unaware of any accidents related to construction," he said.

The city will study the area in upcoming months to determine whether
additional measures should be taken.

Sonnenberg was not cited, officials said

Greater penalties are entirely reasonable when a cyclist is harmed instead of driver.

We often impose greater penalties when the injured party is more vulnerable than usual. Statutes routinely aggravate penalties for harm to the handicapped, elderly, young, etc.

A cyclist is particularly vulnerable to harm by those driving vehicles that weigh tons. The likelihood of horrible consequences from a stupid driving mistake when a cyclist is in the picture are much greater than when it's another car.

Your analogy doesn't work. The statutes you allude to involve the intentional abuse of vulnerable individuals. Show me where the punishment for negligently hitting a 5 year old pedestrian, or a disabled pedestrian is any different from hitting an abled adult.

Moreover, you can't have it both ways. We want the same rights and responsiblities as other vehicles. If you start asking for special protections because of our "vulnerable status" it's pretty easy to make the next logical step that we need special protection, such as beeing limited to bike paths etc.