The eloquence and patience exhibited in your post is nothing short of amazing. But that's not why i stopped. It's the quote in your signature.
People don't learn from this incessant crap on our roadways in the least. Society feels it's perfectly acceptable or a calculated risk, and sweeps it under the rug, instead of using it as a learning experience, by analyzing it to prevent the same thing from happening again.
Gosh, they only have 3 DUI's but they haven't killed anyone, so let's just let them keep their license but only let them drive for work, and trust them to only drive for work with no accountability or supervision. Coupled with a total disregard for the innocent people they will be sharing the road with when they get DUI #4 and the family of their potential victims. What a load of rubbish.
I know a DUI isn't relevant in this particular case, but it's an easy example of a society where people make excuses for their mistakes and nobody takes responsibility for their actions anymore, it's always someone elses fault. Don't know the story on the cyclist, but witnesses say they shouldn't have been where they were. Do know that driver admitted hitting the bicycle because she didn't see her, the sun was in her eyes. My question would be does this mean she learned from her mistake, and it will never happen again? I have my doubts about anyone who would let it happen the first time. Don't get me wrong, here, I do realize that quite possibly the cyclist was guilty of wrong doing, but at the same time, based on the driver's statement, I still believe the tragedy was avoidable.
To me when people go as far as to say "they weren't" in the crosswalk, with the implication that somehow makes it OK, is unfathomable. And I have heard the same excuse far too many times, in cases where bicycles weren't even involved.
lamajo25
10-16-03, 08:29 PM
1. The cyclist was not riding in the crosswalk, but there is no indication that that was where she was required to be riding.
Here's some things you guys missed. There is no indication that the person on the cycle was riding the wrong direction. There is no indication that the cyclist was trying to squeeze through. Looking at the bike it appears that the rear wheel is bent. That could possibly mean that the person either A. was going the wrong way, or B. has your theories that if you are going straight and the vehicle is turning you have the right of way because you are going straight.
Henry told police that the sun was in her eyes and that she did not see the cyclist, Smiley said. Witnesses said the sun was blinding for motorists westbound on Lexington when the accident occurred at 6:20 p.m. Smiley did not know how fast Henry was driving.
From the witnesse's accounts the sun was a factor. Now here's another problem I see.
The motorist was blinded by the sun. Yet she failed to slow down to allow for limited vision.
Where did you read that "She" failed to slow down?
4. If you think that the fact that she is a former Miss America and the wife of a prominent politician won't influence whether or not this case is prosecuted or even adequately investigated you are either hopelessly naive, or just plain stupid.
Just so you know. Our town after arresting him is no prosecuting the Mayor for charges of Disorderly Conduct and was found guilty.
Mayor found guilty of disorderly conduct
By Jim Keyworth, Roundup staff reporter
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
After two days of testimony, it took Judge Pro Tem John Perlman just a few minutes to pronounce Payson Mayor Ken Murphy guilty of disorderly conduct-fighting, a class one misdemeanor.
Jim Keyworth/Roundup
Payson Mayor Ken Murphy and his attorney, Harlan Green, return to the defense table moments after Murphy was sentenced by Judge Pro Tem John Perlman. Murphy was fined $500 for disorderly conduct - fighting.
Perlman fined Murphy $500 and assessed court costs of another $500. The maximum sentence is a $2,500 fine and six months in jail.
The verdict came at 6:20 p.m. Friday, immediately following closing arguments.
The charge stemmed from a confrontation Aug. 16, 2002 between the mayor and then-Fire Marshal Jack Babb over Babb's decision to enforce capacity restrictions at the Ox Bow Saloon during August Doin's.
According to the testimony of several witnesses, Murphy approached Babb on the steps outside the Ox Bow in an agitated manner and yelled at the fire marshal to come inside and show him "what's the problem." The particular disorderly conduct statute invoked requires "seriously disruptive behavior."
In finding Murphy guilty, Perlman said that the state had proved that charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
"We attempt to live in a civilized society," Perlman said. "In a civilized society, we should be able to disagree on substantial issues and not have to resort to behavior that goes against public order."
But Perlman, who also is a practicing attorney in Globe, told the court he has mixed feelings about the statute.
"As a defense attorney, I'm not terribly fond of that statute," he said. "However, as a judge, I've been sworn to uphold the law."
Perlman also expounded on civil disobedience.
"The first rule of civil disobedience is you may have to break the law to make your beliefs known," he told the mayor. "The second rule of civil disobedience, however, is that you may have to pay a price for breaking the law."
Both Babb and the Gila County attorneys who prosecuted the case -- Bryan Chambers and Robert Standage -- were subdued after the verdict.
"There's nothing to celebrate," Babb said.
Chambers was almost as brief. "I think the only thing we have to say is that we're satisfied with the judge's verdict," he said. "The verdict speaks for itself."
Green said the defense will consider appealing the verdict.
"We're talking about that now," he said in the parking lot after the trial. "The sentence was unlawful, because you can't sentence to prosecution costs. The difficulty in Gila County is that the appellate process goes to Superior Court and they read the transcript, and if there's any reasonable way of upholding the judge, they'll do that. Ultimately for $500, I don't know if I'd tell any client that's the best spent money."
On the stand
The second day of the trial began with Babb on the stand. The fire marshal told the court that the entire confrontation with Murphy lasted less than five minutes, that he definitely felt threatened, and that he was prepared to defend himself with his flashlight if the mayor took a step forward.
During his cross examination, Green had Babb write out the entire conversation with Murphy, including several profanities, on a white board with a dry erase marker. The board stayed in clear view of the entire courtroom the remainder of the day, and Chambers reread the conversation several times in its entirety during his closing argument.
When Green asked Babb why he didn't go into the Ox Bow to show the mayor the problem as requested, he replied, "I don't bow to the demands of people who are intoxicated."
Following Babb's testimony, the state rested.
Green immediately called for a directed verdict. "The mayor is not somebody who wears a hat that says ‘Mayor' that he takes off when he goes out in public," Green said. "You have to show that the mayor was disturbing the peace of Mr. Babb. It is rather clear that this is no different from any other employee-employer relationship -- an employer is asking someone to explain his conduct."
Chambers countered that the disorderly conduct statute does not exempt mayors, and that Murphy's actions were not justified.
"Saying ‘F-You' in and of itself is probably not seriously disruptive behavior, but adding to that the agitation, the pointing, the yelling, that makes it seriously disruptive behavior," he said.
When the judge denied Green's motion for a directed verdict, the defense proceeded to call a series of witnesses, including the owners of the Ox Bow Saloon, Roy and Beverly Nethken, and several of Murphy's friends who were with him the evening in question.
Finally, he put Murphy on the stand. The mayor said he was talking loud so he could be heard over the band, and that Babb was non-responsive to his request to show him the problem.
He also talked of an unusually heavy police presence at the Ox Bow that night, suggesting a "vendetta" against alcohol consumption on the part of the police and fire departments.
"This was a planned harassment of this business that a lot of people didn't want reopened," Murphy testified.
Before the mayor stepped down, Perlman asked him to explain his comment.
"Why would Mr. Babb have an agenda -- a vendetta?" the judge asked. "Why would anybody want to shut down the Ox Bow?"
"Religious beliefs," Murphy answered.
Following the trial, the mayor was unrepentant.
"All I can say is, I did what I did, and I believe I was right and I stand by that and I'd do it again tomorrow," he said.
Murphy, who promised to resign if he did anything to embarrass the town, said he has no intention of stepping down at this point.
"I did what I believed was right at the time," he said. "I think the fire marshal, to this day, was wrong, and I have no apology."
Just because they are a figure of the public doesn't mean that they get to slide.
It is not unknown for police to sweep aside cyclists deaths without adequate investigation even when the one under investigation isn't a prominent figure. 'No charges filed' can easily mean 'we've been told by our superiors not to take this any further'.
ALL accidents that involve death are thuroughly investigated. Whether it be a bum walking down the street or a person in a limo that was killed. Normally there is not only the initial officer investigating it, but then a supervisor, and a detective. That means a minimum of three people certified to investigate. Sometimes more.
These are all posts of Blame Laid Upon the Motorist:
Originally Posted by Pat:
I think this is a case of a lapse on the case of a motorist being fatal for a bike rider who sounds like they had no business being anywhere near the road.
Originally Posted by Ohio Trekker:
Sure sounds like biased reporting to me. Miss America or not, politician's wife or not, looks like she is a murderer to me! I concluded that the cyclist was proceeding either with the flow of traffic, same or oppossing direction as the driver when the driver turned right or left and hit the cyclist. If I am riding down the raod, I don't cross in the cross walk either. Don't know the laws in Kentucky, do they have to cross the street in the crosswalk if they are riding in the street? Are they allowed to ride on the sidewalk? Not convinced by the article itself that the cyclist was in the wrong. And forgive me for saying this one and all, but who the hell cares if the person (cyclist or pedestrian) was in the crosswalk or not. "Gee, I can mow them down, they aren't in the crosswalk so it's their fault". Not the kind of mentality I relish!
Originally Posted by jester69:
If, however, the cyclist was proceeding in the correct direction Henry would seem to be 100% at fault, and should have driven slower to match the conditions.
So nobody is laying blame. Gosh it looks that way to me.
Chris L
10-16-03, 09:40 PM
If you're not a cyclist, then why are you on this forum? I'd like to know that.
Because some people just need a place to troll. Apparently all these responses make them feel loved in a world which has plainly rejected them. The best thing to do is place him on your ignore list and have done with it. The fact that the troll has made a million or so "you're making judgements" when virtually everyone else in the thread has said "the article doesn't give enough information" is proof of that -- and of my earlier point about people who don't bother to read threads.
Allister
10-16-03, 09:43 PM
Here's some things you guys missed. There is no indication that the person on the cycle was riding the wrong direction. There is no indication that the cyclist was trying to squeeze through.
Isn't that what I said? There's no indication that the cyclist was doing anything wrong, and yet the article implies that she was.
Looking at the bike it appears that the rear wheel is bent. That could possibly mean that the person either A. was going the wrong way, or B. has your theories that if you are going straight and the vehicle is turning you have the right of way because you are going straight.
What was that in English?
You will also notice that the front wheel is missing completely, and the entire frame is pretty bent up. Focusing on the rear wheel proves nothing. I suppose that because the rear tyre of the Lincoln is puctured, you will surmise that she must have backed over the cyclist.
No, I think the entire bike went under the wheels of the car, and from the photo and description it's impossible to tell which direction the cyclist was hit from.
From the witnesse's accounts the sun was a factor. Now here's another problem I see.
And yet only one of them managed to kill someone.
Where did you read that "She" failed to slow down?
I already explained that, dumb@ss.
Just because they are a figure of the public doesn't mean that they get to slide.
I never said they did. Does the entire world look black and white to you?
ALL accidents that involve death are thuroughly investigated. Whether it be a bum walking down the street or a person in a limo that was killed. Normally there is not only the initial officer investigating it, but then a supervisor, and a detective. That means a minimum of three people certified to investigate. Sometimes more.
I only hope you're right.
These are all posts of Blame Laid Upon the Motorist:
Originally Posted by Pat:
I think this is a case of a lapse on the case of a motorist being fatal for a bike rider who sounds like they had no business being anywhere near the road.
The first part of that particular post reads:
Sounds like both "sides" committed mistakes.
Looks to me like blame is being apportioned equally there. 0/1
Originally Posted by Ohio Trekker:
Sure sounds like biased reporting to me. Miss America or not, politician's wife or not, looks like she is a murderer to me!
A comment which was later retracted.
I regret my statement calling the person a muderer, and have given considerable thought to my use of the word, but I remain firm in my belief, she was driving less than responsibily, and perhaps the outcome could have been different.
A much more moderate, and not unreasonable opinion, and it was clearly stated as an opinion, not Truth.
Do try to keep up. 0/2
Originally Posted by jester69:
If, however, the cyclist was proceeding in the correct direction Henry would seem to be 100% at fault, and should have driven slower to match the conditions.
Note the words 'if' and 'seem'. You also conveniently left off the part where the alternative scenario was given equal consideration.
So, what it sounds like is that Henry made a left and then ran over the cyclist from behind. If the cyclist was a "wrong way cyclist" then legally Henry did nothing wrong.
You're selective editing is apalling. 0/3
Is that the best you can do? I'd be asking for my money back from that university of yours, especially from the English department.
So nobody is laying blame. Gosh it looks that way to me.
Either way, three posts in 2 pages hardly represents the majority view. And I never said nobody was laying blame. In fact it was only Ohio Trekker that did, and he seems to have since seen the error of his ways.
Once you get an idea in that little brain of yours, no amount of exposure to a contrary idea will shift it, will it? A closed mind is a terrible thing. I almost feel sorry for you....
nah
Allister
10-16-03, 09:53 PM
Because some people just need a place to troll.
That's an insult to trolls. Trolls are usually quite intelligent, and the best ones have a highly sophisticated wit, and their flaming posts border on art. This guy's just your common bigoted moron.
riderx
10-17-03, 07:55 AM
The fact is the only FACTS that we know, is a 43 year old lady was hit and killed by another person driving a vehicle. As the person driving the vehicle went around the corner the sun blinded her and she hit the cyclist. Actually, "the sun blinded her" is not a fact, simply a statement she made which you appear ready to believe. Even with the limited facts, I'm not sure that I believe the "sun in the eyes" excuse. Look at this info from the article:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry's vehicle — a Lincoln Navigator — was westbound on Lexington and had just turned left onto Grinstead, striking the cyclist in the right-hand lane just south of the crosswalk on Grinstead, said Alicia Smiley, a Louisville Metro Police spokeswoman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just turned left means she is now heading south, sun would be on the passenger side.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Witnesses said the sun was blinding for motorists westbound on Lexington when the accident occurred at 6:20 p.m.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, but she was headed southbound on Grinstead when this occurred.
Something tells me this won't be investigated real hard because it is the Gov.'s wife. I also wouldn't be surprised if a cell phone was attached to her ear when this occurred, but both of these things are pure speculation on my part.
Pat
10-17-03, 08:13 AM
that article says:
So, what it sounds like is that Henry made a left and then ran over the cyclist from behind. If the cyclist was a "wrong way cyclist" then legally Henry did nothing wrong. If, however, the cyclist was proceeding in the correct direction Henry would seem to be 100% at fault, and should have driven slower to match the conditions.
Figures she was driving a lincoln navigator, conspicuous consumption piece of junk.
take care,
Jester
On reading the first report, I assumed the cyclist was primarily at fault and was a pedestrian using the bike to jaywalk. Pedestrians on bikes do that all the time around here - they shoot across 4 lanes of traffic as fast as they can go when they see what they think might be a little gap. However, this second article changes matters.
Now Jester assumed the cyclist was in the west lane and either south bound in which case Henry was definitely wrong or north bound (wrong way cyclist) in which case Henry was technically in the clear.
Now when I read the article, I thought the cyclist was northbound and in the east lane (the lane on the right side of the road from the cyclist's perspective). I guess I tend to take the cyclist's perspective naturally. I figured that Henry had pulled a common manuever for around here and that is cut the corner - when you make a left turn, you drive through the left side of the road for a piece.
At any rate, it seems that Henry was much more likely to be totally at fault from what the second article reveals.
Of course, that does not mean that Henry will be charged. A few years ago, a cyclist was killed participating in a ride at the Mount Dora Bicycle Festival. He was standing off the road by about 10' but that was not good enough. A motorist made a fast left turn and swung way too wide and ran off the road and killed the cyclist. The motorist was not charged with anything. I think he had to pay a minor fine and had a few points deducted about a bit less then a speeding ticket. Motorists can get away with killing cyclists very easily even when it is very clear that they are totally at fault.
SD Fixed
10-17-03, 08:48 AM
Wow, made you think there for a minute didn't I?
Actually, I don't respond to you as you wish. You know why? Because I don't live for arguements with people who troll. I've had a few spats here, but they were, for the most part, enlightening, and the PM's on the side taught me much. I fear you have nothing to offer me, and perhaps, the board. In a learning perspective.
6 years in law enforcement? Were you, at any time an officer who enforced the law? 3 years as a firefighting? Were you anything BUT a volunteer? You have a degree?
What's more important, the degree, or the education? I've been around the block once or twice. But I have no degree. Does that make me somehow less relevant in your book? Are you attempting to say that because you have "experience" and a degree that you are somehow better? With this degree, why is it after 6 years of "experience" you can't make the grade to be a police officer?
I have a feeling I know why. And your post here indicate it. You are probably an arm chair opinionator. And with your mouth, you run off in such a way that no one desired to work with you. You couldn't pass the entrance exam, couldn't make the grade. So, you did the next best thing you could, and now attempt to pass yourself of as a law enforcement expert.
Sad, really.
I've not made a decision. But you know what, I'm not the jury, investegator, judge, or a family member. I actually abhor some of the comments made here (consumption, etc). However, your comments are innane.
I am a cyclist. Many people on here will tell you that I also drive, and I drive one of those "enviromentally destroying SUV's". But I am still a cyclist, and with the differences, we can all still have a bond and a commonality, with a little respect, and a little flexability, and a little understanding.
You should try any or all of the three above.
jester69
10-17-03, 08:59 AM
William & Allister...
Just FYI, your insistence on beating your head against the wall with "the troll" AKA "The smart one 25" (en espanol) is all well and good in a quixotic sort of way.
However, when you quote everything that they say and respond to it line by line it makes the ignore function less useful for the rest of us & makes threads like these less pleasant.
You are well within your rights to continue to argue with each other until you are blue in the face, but by continuing to give this person your time and attention you are:
a) encouraging them to keep coming back here
b) making those of us that have chose to ignore lamajo have to still look at his/her junk.
Yeah, I know, I could ignore you guys too or just avoid threads lamajo has participated in, but thought it was worth a shot to point this out. That and I like reading what you guys say so it would feel wrong to ignore you and, until knownothing showed up, this was my favorite area of the forums, i'd hate to have to avoid it.
In any event, I am not asking you guys to do or not do anything, just pointing out something you may not have thought of.
Anyway, take care,
Jester
SD Fixed
10-17-03, 09:25 AM
William & Allister...
In any event, I am not asking you guys to do or not do anything, just pointing out something you may not have thought of.
Anyway, take care,
Jester
I was un aware. So ironically, I'm helping him bypass your prevent feature..
BTW, I love the term you used.. "quixotic"..
I think that it's going to be my "word of the day".
lotek
10-17-03, 09:33 AM
William,
You've had spats here? wow, didn't know that :D
Marty
SD Fixed
10-17-03, 09:48 AM
William,
You've had spats here? wow, didn't know that :D
Marty
Not to many :rolleyes: , and they were minor in nature.. :fight:
But I'm alllllllll better now! :D
khuon
10-17-03, 12:36 PM
At any rate, it seems that Henry was much more likely to be totally at fault from what the second article reveals. I'm still not so sure.
According to everything I've read, Henry must have had a green arrow in order to turn left onto Grinstead as the intersection has two left turn lanes. These aerial view show the intersection in question.
You can clearly make out the turn lanes on Lexington (the east-west roads). Now the question becomes one of the lights. I'd be very surprised if those turn lanes weren't fully protected meaning Henry either disobeyed traffic signals and was clearly wrong or she had a green arrow and thus the cross-traffic (southbound on Grinstead) would have had a red.
It's really unclear as to what the cyclist was doing. All the articles I've read so far and all the coverage on this accident revealed very little detail.
Was she travelling southbound on Grinstead? One article seemed to indicate this. But another article seemed to indicate that she was crossing Grinstead south of the crosswalk. Which crosswalk was it? The southmost? If so, then she was crossing outside the intersection altogether... in the middle of the street (Grinstead) and was travelling perpendicular to Grinstead traffic already southbound past the intersection. It would have been as if she had been jaywalking.
Either way, from everything I've read, I think the cyclist was most at fault. Several stories say that the cyclist was crossing against the light and that Henry had a green. I think also that Henry failed to properly clear her turn. I really don't buy the "sun in my eyes" excuse. If she had turned south, the sun would no longer have been in her eyes although Grinstead angles southwest at that point.
ngateguy
10-17-03, 02:04 PM
Just by her calling her husband and not calling 911 shows she was protecting her own but and looking for the correct spin to put on her story. She has to be pretty press savy to become Miss America and being the wife of a politiction. What disturbs me about the press coverage is that it is all her. She is torn up about it. I am sure she did not hit the cyclist on purpose. But where is the riders freinds and family they got to be torn up about it. What about the guy she was riding with why isn't there more from him. I still don't have enough info to think she is at fault, but the sun in my eyes should not, I hope, be a credible excuse to let her off the hook without some kind of punishment.
SD Fixed
10-17-03, 02:26 PM
Just by her calling her husband and not calling 911 shows she was protecting her own but and looking for the correct spin to put on her story.
I'd have to disagree, or at least offer an alternative...
When I was a kid, I'd call mom and dad before I'd call 911. That was until I learned that the police wouldn't beat the **** out of me for doing stupid things.
:D
My wife called me when she was robbed once, instead of 911. Sometimes people call for emotional support first.. and don't follow rules of logic.
ngateguy
10-17-03, 03:57 PM
I'd have to disagree, or at least offer an alternative...
When I was a kid, I'd call mom and dad before I'd call 911. That was until I learned that the police wouldn't beat the **** out of me for doing stupid things.
:D
My wife called me when she was robbed once, instead of 911. Sometimes people call for emotional support first.. and don't follow rules of logic.
That is a valid alternitive, however the cynic in me thinks otherwise.
:beer:
SD Fixed
10-17-03, 05:07 PM
That is a valid alternitive, however the cynic in me thinks otherwise.
:beer:
Well, cynic's usually have a reality based point of view. I mean, normal people think that people stop at stop signs. Cynic's doubt that it's always true.
I think cynic's live longer. But that maybe cynical in and of itself.
:D
Chris L
10-17-03, 06:29 PM
I'm still not so sure.
According to everything I've read, Henry must have had a green arrow in order to turn left onto Grinstead as the intersection has two left turn lanes. These aerial view show the intersection in question.
You can clearly make out the turn lanes on Lexington (the east-west roads). Now the question becomes one of the lights. I'd be very surprised if those turn lanes weren't fully protected meaning Henry either disobeyed traffic signals and was clearly wrong or she had a green arrow and thus the cross-traffic (southbound on Grinstead) would have had a red.
It's really unclear as to what the cyclist was doing. All the articles I've read so far and all the coverage on this accident revealed very little detail.
The fact that we're all unclear on what the cyclist was doing really makes it difficult to say who's at fault. Green arrow or no green arrow, one still has to wait for the vehicles in front of them before they can proceed. Until we can be clear on what the cyclist was actually doing in this case, we can't really apportion any blame.
Just by her calling her husband and not calling 911 shows she was protecting her own but and looking for the correct spin to put on her story.
That's something that's surprisingly common these days, and it's kind of disturbing in a way. I remember riding past a bike/crash scene on a commute last year (cyclist got doored, ended up being OK apart from a bit of shock). The driver who had opened the door was basically only hanging around to avoid being ticketed for leaving the scene of the accident (something I overheard him tell a passer-by). He wasn't even going to call the cops or an ambulance until another passer-by offered me the use of their mobile phone to do so (which I duly did).
I think the fact that she called her husband first goes to show that she didn't really care about the welfare of anybody else, she was just protecting her own backside.
Allister
10-17-03, 07:09 PM
Just FYI, your insistence on beating your head against the wall with "the troll" AKA "The smart one 25" (en espanol) is all well and good in a quixotic sort of way.
I prefer to think of it as beating his head against the wall, but I take your point.
khuon
10-17-03, 07:25 PM
The fact that we're all unclear on what the cyclist was doing really makes it difficult to say who's at fault. Green arrow or no green arrow, one still has to wait for the vehicles in front of them before they can proceed. Until we can be clear on what the cyclist was actually doing in this case, we can't really apportion any blame.
The more I read the articles the more I have to wonder if the cyclist was even traffic. That is to say that it seems many of us are assuming that the cyclist was travelling eastbound on Lexington and crossing Grinstead when she was struck. However, when it was said that the cyclist was south of the crosswalk, it sounds to me as if the cyclist was crossing Grinstead south of the intersection and thus was travelling across the lanes of Grinstead in a jaywalking fashion and never actually in a Lexington lane. Many of us seem to think that when the police said the cyclist was not in the crosswalk that the cyclist was in a lane on Lexington. I'm not so sure that was the case.
Pat
10-18-03, 02:57 AM
The more I read the articles the more I have to wonder if the cyclist was even traffic. That is to say that it seems many of us are assuming that the cyclist was travelling eastbound on Lexington and crossing Grinstead when she was struck. However, when it was said that the cyclist was south of the crosswalk, it sounds to me as if the cyclist was crossing Grinstead south of the intersection and thus was travelling across the lanes of Grinstead in a jaywalking fashion and never actually in a Lexington lane. Many of us seem to think that when the police said the cyclist was not in the crosswalk that the cyclist was in a lane on Lexington. I'm not so sure that was the case.
Of course, that could be an artifact of the reporting. Experienced cyclists know the difference between a cyclist who knows how to operate their bike in traffic and someone who acts like a pedestrian on wheels. Cyclist behavior is critical.
If you notice all of the accounts give far more detail to the motorist's behavior then the cyclist' behavior. I suppose that is because the press does not view cyclists as being capable of being legitimate "traffic".
This sort of stuff can be frustrating. For example, if I were doing a study on bicycle safety, I would attempt to segregate the cycling accident statistics by cyclist' behavior and experience. Forester did this in his study. However, the current statistics make no attempt at doing this. For example, here in Florida, we have a very large number of bicycle fatalities. But the majority of these seem to be people who have lost their licenses DUI and were killed at night riding a bicycle without lights and were quite likely coming home from a bar. I wish there was a way of informing these poor guys that riding a bike at night in dark clothing without lights is not a real good idea. I am saying that that population of lightless night riding cyclists is all whole different thing then recreational and commuter cyclists who take care to ride safely. Mixing the statistics from both groups does not make any sense.
And that is the problem with the reports of this incident. Was the cyclist riding in a safe manner and obeying the traffic laws? None of the accounts even address this. If the cyclist was obeying the laws, Ms. Henry could well be 100% at fault and should face serious penalties. However, if the cyclist was doing some sort of dern fool stunt like riding across the road illegally as a super fast jaywalker and rode out in front of Ms. Henry without warning; it would seem to be hard to find much fault with Ms. Henry.
jester69
10-18-03, 09:58 PM
Apparently, the cyclist was bicycling in an illegal manner. From this story (http://www.thelouisvillechannel.com/news/2549395/detail.html) they say:
A police spokeswoman said the bicyclist was crossing against a traffic light and was not in a crosswalk when she was struck, NewsChannel 32 reported.
"The bicyclists, as they were crossing on their bicycles, did not have the light at the time," Metro police spokeswoman Alicia Smiley said. "They were crossing against the light at the time." Smiley added that the victim was not wearing a helmet.
Besides, more than likely the "Crossed Outside the Crosswalk" could mean that she wasn't actually at a crosswalk or crossing traffic outside an intersection. Look at where the bike and vehicle are in reference to the intersection. Maybe she was jay walking.
khuon
10-19-03, 06:25 PM
Besides, more than likely the "Crossed Outside the Crosswalk" could mean that she wasn't actually at a crosswalk or crossing traffic outside an intersection. Look at where the bike and vehicle are in reference to the intersection. Maybe she was jay walking.
Do you read previous posts? That's already been postulated.
ngateguy
10-19-03, 06:59 PM
Wow this one is really interesting. I'm so glad you guys are ready to fry Miss America.
http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=1479486
Gloating is in very poor taste in situations like this, besides I don't think anyone wanted to see her "fry" as you so eliquently put it. Most of us were pointing out media bias which there was. Not accusing her of murder. This is a time to pray for everyone involved not rub it in someones face. But then again this is just one mans opinion
Chris L
10-19-03, 09:10 PM
Do you read previous posts? That's already been postulated.
Having previously wasted time in debates with latrolljo, I can say that the answer to the above question is a categorical "No".
SD Fixed
10-21-03, 08:11 AM
Gloating is in very poor taste in situations like this, besides I don't think anyone wanted to see her "fry" as you so eliquently put it. Most of us were pointing out media bias which there was. Not accusing her of murder. This is a time to pray for everyone involved not rub it in someones face. But then again this is just one mans opinion
I wouldn't say he put it eloquently.. :D
closetbiker
01-18-04, 12:00 PM
I found this link posted on bicyclingadvocacy@yahoogroups.com that has some information on what happened.
It's worth a read
http://bessasandackerman.com/henry/acct.php
khuon
01-18-04, 05:39 PM
I found this link posted on bicyclingadvocacy@yahoogroups.com that has some information on what happened.
It's worth a read
http://bessasandackerman.com/henry/acct.php
Wow... that was an exceptionally good analysis. And it does inject a few more tidbits of information that we were not aware of in this thread... most importantly the placement of the special crosswalk.
closetbiker
01-19-04, 03:12 PM
it does inject a few more tidbits of information that we were not aware of in this thread...
...which seems to be needed for a decent discussion to learn something from this incident.
...Until we know how and why this accident took place, we are doomed to shouting at each other from different sides of the room...
I could find no comprehensive accounting elsewhere so I am left to do the task myself...
At issue were several unanswered questions which I put to officials...
I have been impressed with their evenhandedness and lack of hyperbole and finger pointing...
She was definitely in the crosswalk, almost into the inside lane...
The crosswalk and the bike lane are one and the same, a bad idea in my opinion...
I’m a believer that bicycles mix with cars better than they do pedestrians. I think that bike path should either feed into Lexington Road some distance west of the intersection and then proceed through and make a right turn off Lexington into the park, or feed into Grinstead some distance north of Lexington and make the left turn in the traffic lane with the left-turning automobiles, and then turn right into the park. In either of those cases, I don’t think she would have been in a position to be hit under the circumstances in which she was hit...
My impression is that the sun was on the horizon just a little south of Lexington. So Heather didn’t have the sun in her eyes as she began her turn, but it flashed in her eyes about the middle of the turn, right where Karola would have appeared in her line of sight...I think it possible that the blinding occurred unexpectedly and was only momentary, so there was only a split second between the time she realized she couldn’t see and the impact...
Stede (for whatever tragic reason) made a mistake and crossed against the light. At that very same moment, Henry made a legal left hand turn, and, blinded by the low sun, did not see Stede until it was too late—thus striking her...
Police and the reporters could have done much better...points should have been widely reported within days of the accident... it is indisputable that seat belts, car seats, and helmets had nothing whatever to do with this accident, and bringing them up in this case serves no useful purpose...
Stede was in the country only a couple of months and, coming from Germany (a country where cyclists have more rights and where motorists are more aware of cyclists in general), may have made some deadly assumption about our culture..
And, regarding road design, might the bike lane and crossing be made safer by following Joe’s suggestions?
so it seems, from this account (which sounds reasonable), a cyclist from Germany (that has a whole different road culture) crosses at a poorly designed crossing against a red light (was the signal visable to the cyclist?) just at the exact moment that a setting sun blinds a motorist at just the right spot that makes the cyclist disappear from the motorists sight just at the right time to hit the cyclist.
What can I learn?
Keep away from bad roads with bad crossings (I do)
Take care when the sun is low and possibly in everyones eyes (I do)
Keep an eye on motorists even if I think I have the right of way (I do)
Keep on top of poor reporting of accidents and ask questions if the reporting is sub-standard (I do)
I don't see that there is much I could learn from this accident