Advocacy & Safety - Ross Dillon

I came across this site (I think from a link I found here) many, many months ago. I now check in @ least once a week. Ross was struck by a car and hurt badly - this site details his recovery. Please check it out, and donate (I did) if you feel inclined. Now, for why I'm posting this. Check out the site @:

Ross Dillon Hope Fund (http://www.rossdillon.com/)

Now, check out this piece of text on the site:

I received this note tonight (2/16/03) from both Ross's family and Katie (his fiancée) and her family. It is posted with their permission:

Since Ross was hurt, the second or third question we are asked by those who hear Ross's story is: "What is going to happen to the driver?" We have not had a good answer to that question, indeed we still do not. But recently we spoke with an assistant District Attorney for Sonoma County who explained the law as it applies to Ross's case.

Had Ross not survived his injuries, the District Attorney could have prosecuted the driver for manslaughter since she drove off the road for no apparent reason and struck him in a marked bike lane. However, the law will not permit, and the District Attorney will not prosecute, any criminal offense for grave bodily injury under the same facts. Because Ross survived, the only other charge with which to prosecute the driver is reckless driving with bodily injury.

The position of the District Attorney's office is that failing to see a bicyclist, driving off the road, and plowing into someone is not reckless.The California Legislature would have to modify the Penal Code sections defining recklessness in order to support criminal prosecution in a case like Ross's.

To us, this means that the law offers no protection from inattentive, incompetent divers - not for bicyclists obeying the rules of the road, not for children walking to school, not for anyone else in the path of an oncoming vehicle.

Obviously, this is unacceptable.

If you are as outraged as we are that the kind of catastophic injuries Ross has suffered goes unpunished in our legal system, we would encourage you to take action. Write the Sonoma Country District Attorney. Write your representative in the California Legislature. Write your local newspaper or email your discussion group. We have absolutely nothing to lose.


The Meyers and Dillon families.


I AM MAD AS HELL!!!! How does this sort of thing happen??????? Where is the equity in our legal system for cyclists????? It just doesn't exist. :irritated

Originally posted by bac
If you are as outraged as we are that the kind of catastophic injuries Ross has suffered goes unpunished in our legal system, we would encourage you to take action. Write the Sonoma Country District Attorney. Write your representative in the California Legislature. Write your local newspaper or email your discussion group. We have absolutely nothing to lose.
...
I AM MAD AS HELL!!!! How does this sort of thing happen??????? Where is the equity in our legal system for cyclists????? It just doesn't exist. :irritated

Does anyone else want to try to do something about the fact that California (and presumably most other states') law protects careless/reckless motorists? Mandatory monetary compensation and license suspension would be a good start. It took alot of work, but MADD has gotten results. Perhaps another advocacy organization is needed.

Originally posted by John E
Does anyone else want to try to do something about the fact that California (and presumably most other states') law protects careless/reckless motorists? Mandatory monetary compensation and license suspension would be a good start. It took alot of work, but MADD has gotten results. Perhaps another advocacy organization is needed.

Agreed. This sort of thing is just ridiculous. You don't need guns to kill someone, just use a car and nobody will touch you.

Originally posted by bac
The position of the District Attorney's office is that failing to see a bicyclist, driving off the road, and plowing into someone is not reckless.The California Legislature would have to modify the Penal Code sections defining recklessness in order to support criminal prosecution in a case like Ross's.

To us, this means that the law offers no protection from inattentive, incompetent divers - not for bicyclists obeying the rules of the road, not for children walking to school, not for anyone else in the path of an oncoming vehicle.

I hate to read these kinds of stories. :irritated :mad: :fight:


The reasoning here in Georgia is just as stupid. :crash:

There is a big controversy here about trees growing along city streets. Pedestrian advocacy groups want trees that are growing along city streets between the curb and the sidewalk to stay, and where there are no trees they want trees planted.
Their reasoning is that trees act as a "shield" to protect pedestrians walking on the sidewalk in the case where an out of control car leaves the road. The car hits the tree and not the pedestrian. Makes sense to me.
http://www.shortnorth.com/DogWalker.jpg

Motorists groups, insurance companies, and the Georgia DOT argue that the trees are a hazard to motorists. They feel that the possibility of damage to cars and injury to motorists who hit the trees is more important and want the trees cut down.

Cutting down the trees would leave pedestrians completely defenseless when walking on city streets. :(

So far the motorists and GDOT are winning. :crash:


It seems that in most instances motorists and cars are more important than pedestrians or cyclists. :crash:

This is an incredibly sad case. God forbid that it happen to anyone, including any of us. A big prayer and a few candles lit for Ross and his family.

And now to open a big can of worms: carelessness does not equal recklessness. She was clearly inattentive and she'll probably lose a civil suit, but it's a much higher burden of proof to convict a defendant of criminal recklessness. IIRC, recklessness requires a showing that the defendant intentionally did some act that she knew, or a reasonable person would know, was likely to harm someone. There's no indication in any of the links that this happened and the only use of "recklessness" is by the family in their very emotionally charged statement.

If there's evidence that, for example, she was driving 100mph on a county road, or that she was driving with her feet, or that she was intentionally swerving the car to scare Ross, then yes, she probably could be convicted of recklessness. But like I said above, there's a big legal difference between recklessness and mere inattentiveness, even though you might use the terms interchangebly in casual conversation.

recklessness requires a showing that the defendant intentionally did some act that she knew, or a reasonable person would know, was likely to harm someone.

Then why the F*** do we have marked bike lanes? Were I to drive my car down a sidewalk, or railroad tracks, as a reasonable person, I would assume that I was likely to injure someone. I think the DA is simply picking his battles, this one isn't hot enough for him/her.

Reading this story just makes me weep. I don't know how else to react yet.

Originally posted by RonH
Cutting down the trees would leave pedestrians completely defenseless when walking on city streets. :(


Those are trees? God, you should see some of the Moreton Bay Figs growing in the centre of Brisbane. The Georgia DOT whould just about faint over that sight!


Originally posted by caloso

And now to open a big can of worms: carelessness does not equal recklessness. She was clearly inattentive and she'll probably lose a civil suit, but it's a much higher burden of proof to convict a defendant of criminal recklessness. IIRC, recklessness requires a showing that the defendant intentionally did some act that she knew, or a reasonable person would know, was likely to harm someone. There's no indication in any of the links that this happened and the only use of "recklessness" is by the family in their very emotionally charged statement.


The thing that bugs me about situations like this is that nobody ever bothers to ask the driver 'why?'. A cyclist can be lit up like a christmas tree on the brightest day in summer, and get run down by a driver - the driver simply says "I didn't see him" and the whole thing is forgotten. Sorry, not good enough. In this case the driver should have to come up with a reason they were in the bike lane to begin with. I can't think of one except they were in a bad mood and decided to take it out on someone.

Everytime someone gets killed in a gun-related death (either accidental or otherwise) there's always a big enquiry in an attempt to find someone to blame, why are cars different?

Originally posted by caloso
But like I said above, there's a big legal difference between recklessness and mere inattentiveness, even though you might use the terms interchangebly in casual conversation.

Thanks for clearing that up from a legal perspective. It does make sense from a theoretical view. However, from a practical perspective, Ross is still where he is.

My thought is that there should be a higher responsibility level for individuals driving automobiles. Therefore, carelessness would then necessarily equate to recklessness. In other words, if one knows that he/she is operating a piece of equipment (in this case an automobile) that, if not used properly, will result in the death/injury of others - this should constitute a higher level of responsibility.

In yet other words, if you know that your carelessness may result in the death/injury of others, why is then acting in this careless manner not considered reckless??? :confused:

Thoughts?

Unbelievable. Sad state of affairs in our country.

Makes my desire to stay on the trails and off the roads that much stronger.

Now, let me say that I'm not defending the driver. It's a horribly tragic case and it could happen to any of us at any time. I was just pointing out that there seems to be a leap from the story that was originally reported. And I'm not blaming the family; they're justifiably distraught and looking for some answers.

Let me try to give an example of the difference between recklessness and carelessness (or usually called simple negligence): Imagine a supermarket with a parking lot on a slope that's not particularly noticeable.

D1 is loading groceries into her car and as she arranges the bags into her trunk fails to notice her cart begin to roll away. The cart is still heavily loaded and it picks up speed, rolls into the street and strikes a cyclist. The cyclist is flung over the bars and is injured.

D2 has finished loading groceries and instead of walking the cart over to the cart rack at the edge of the lot, decides to give a run and push towards the rack. D2 knows that grocery carts aren't controllable when pushed and don't run straight. D2 also knows that the cart rack is next to the street and that, if he misses it, the cart is likely to run into the street. The cart rolls into the street and strikes a cyclist. The cyclist is flung over the bars and is injured.

In both cases the cyclist suffers the same injury, which is caused by the action or inaction of the D. In the first case, D1 is inattentive and careless and would likely be found liable for negligence in a civil action, but I doubt she could be prosecuted for a crime. In the second, D2 is reckless because he intentionally did an act that he knew or should have known was likely to cause harm. D2 would also be found civilly liable and, depending on the state, could probably also go to jail.

Of course, there are huge gray areas and lots of facts that we don't know. But from reading the news report it sounds like the driver who hit Ross Dillon was more like D1 than D2.

And I agree with Chris L, the DA would have a tough time convincing a jury to put the driver in jail without any evidence of intent or knowledge.

Originally posted by caloso
And I agree with Chris L, the DA would have a tough time convincing a jury to put the driver in jail without any evidence of intent or knowledge.

I'll also reiterate what I said before. If it had been an accidental gun death, whoever was 'responsible' would have had all sorts of questions asked of them as to why it happened, how they got into that situation etc etc. From what I've seen, with car deaths this generally doesn't happen. The old "I didn't see him" is routinely accepted, without anyone asking why they were in the bike lane to begin with. This simply must be changed.

Originally posted by caloso
And I agree with Chris L, the DA would have a tough time convincing a jury to put the driver in jail without any evidence of intent or knowledge.

Thanks again for helping us understand from a legal perspective, what seems to be a very unfair situation. However, I consider the driver that hit Ross (and all motorist) as more of your D2 type scenario. I state this because we all clearly know that any act of carelessness behind the wheel can result in death or horrible injury. This is not intent, but it does seem to fulfill and demonstrate the knowledge criteria.

In your D1 example, it's not obvious that carelessness when unloading your grocery cart can lead to injury or death. However, we all know that 2 tons of glass and steel kills a large chunk of our population every year. Therefore, operating a machine like this in a careless fashion is reckless because the knowledge is there. There is no intent to injure/kill, but the knowledge that carelessness does necessarily equate to a potential for death and/or serious injury is obviously present.

So, the legal question seems to be – does this inherent knowledge (without intent) equate to recklessness? Thoughts???

Another example of why the US really NEEDS $5/gallon gasolin ASAP.

Originally posted by bac
* * *

There is no intent to injure/kill, but the knowledge that carelessness does necessarily equate to a potential for death and/or serious injury is obviously present.

So, the legal question seems to be – does this inherent knowledge (without intent) equate to recklessness? Thoughts???

It's a good question. In theory, yes. But in application, I doubt it. And keep in mind that a finding of intent or recklessness (or gross negligence) is a criminal question. And for criminal liability, the jury would have to find that she was reckless beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a hard road to hoe for a prosecutor.

OTOH, for civil liability (if the family sued her for damages), a jury would only have to find that she was negligent more likely than not. That's a much lower standard and juries are fonder of making people pay money than sending them to jail. (Cynical, I know, but that seems to be the way it is.)






Originally posted by Ocaregg Another example of why the US really NEEDS $5/gallon gasolin ASAP.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Okay. Sorry for the long 1L discussion. Reading my own posts makes me realize why normal people hate lawyers so much. I'll say a prayer for Ross and his family, light a candle to the Madonna of Ghisallo, and shut up now.

Originally posted by oscaregg
Another example of why the US really NEEDS $5/gallon gasolin ASAP.

Pardon my ignorance here, but how is this going to prevent the above from happening. I'm not trying to start an argument on high gas prices, I just don't see how paying $5/gallon is going to make people more attentive. As I said in another thread, I personally believe we need fascist enforcement of traffic laws.

Originally posted by caloso
Okay. Sorry for the long 1L discussion. Reading my own posts makes me realize why normal people hate lawyers so much. I'll say a prayer for Ross and his family, light a candle to the Madonna of Ghisallo, and shut up now.

Hey, I appreciate your views from a legal perspective. We all should have a better understanding of how the law works when it comes to these sort of issues. Unfortunately, the law sometimes just doesn't seem to mesh well with what most people would consider to be right and wrong.

I too will say a prayer for Ross and his family again tonight. :)

Originally posted by Rotifer
I think the DA is simply picking his battles, this one isn't hot enough for him/her.
This is exactly the problem -- in most places cyclists don't count for much, politically. District attorneys are politically motivated in much of what they do since many have political aspirations beyond their office of DA. There are some DA's where, if they thought there would be a political advantage to them taking a case, would find a way to get the case in front of a jury. There's an old saw that says a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wanted to.

Anyway, until cyclists find more of a political footing and organize themselves into an effective advocacy/lobby group, a la MADD, then things like this will continue to happen and we will always be in the legislative 'blind spot'. Things don't get done until you start proving yourself to be important to the political futures of the lawmakers and law enforcers.

Originally posted by Grendel
This is exactly the problem -- in most places cyclists don't count for much, politically. ...
Anyway, until cyclists find more of a political footing and organize themselves into an effective advocacy/lobby group, a la MADD, then things like this will continue to happen and we will always be in the legislative 'blind spot'. ...

Since pedestrians outnumber bicyclists, we should consider working with pedestrian advocacy groups. Our interests sometimes differ, but we have alot in common. (I spend as much time jogging/walking as cycling.) I joined "Walk San Diego" a couple of years ago; I believe there are comparable organizations in other large American cities. I have also been exploring the possibility of working with wheelchair-dependent mobility activists, who have won several key legal battles over the past two decades.

Originally posted by John E
Since pedestrians outnumber bicyclists, we should consider working with pedestrian advocacy groups. Our interests sometimes differ, but we have alot in common. (I spend as much time jogging/walking as cycling.) I joined "Walk San Diego" a couple of years ago; I believe there are comparable organizations in other large American cities. I have also been exploring the possibility of working with wheelchair-dependent mobility activists, who have won several key legal battles over the past two decades.
That would be a good start; I don't think that in the beginning we would get much done if we just look to involve cyclists -- the numbers just aren't there in many areas of the country. What we should do, other than join forces with other like-minded advocacy groups to target specific legislation, is to demonstrate why the non-cycling public should care about our issues. We could remind the general public that most (?) of their kids ride bikes and that laws which benefit and protect cyclists will apply to their children also. Maybe also remind the green lobby that cyclists are good for the environment and that each commuting cyclist removes x-number of pounds of pollutants from the atmosphere vs. driving their own car. I suppose you could also get the health lobby on board for specific legislative initiatives by demonstrating how cycling contributes to good general health and how that translates into dollars saved for everyone -- it's always good to make a connection to the bottom line somewhere, no matter what your issue is.

The point being that we as cyclists are a special interest group, and to win legislative victories we need to win the hearts and minds of people other than cyclists and convince them that our issues are in part their issues as well and that they derive some benefit from laws that seek to protect cyclists. It also wouldn't hurt to make it clear however we can to our elected officials that we vote, and that even of they think they can ignore our numbers (probably true in some areas) they cannot ignore the sum of our votes plus those of the other groups who might be sympatethic to our cause and the other people we might manage to stir up one way or another. Maybe then we can get laws favorable to our existence, and just maybe the next time someone like Ross Dillon gets run down there will be tougher laws to deal with it, and law enforcement officials who see it in their best interest to pursue these cases to the fullest extent of the law.

A quick update on Ross (I have been following his web site since I read this post): it has now been 1 year and 9 months from the accident. On Wednesday he was finally able to say his first words since the accident. The progress has been slow, he still has a long way to go before he is "back", but he is steadily recovering.

--J

Was looking for "ross cycles" and found this.

Bump