Advocacy & Safety - Former Miss America hits and kills cyclist

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/10/13/miss.america.accident.ap/index.html

*covers eyes up and shakes head.

"She was not wearing a helmet" So what's that got to do with anything?

Sounds like both "sides" committed mistakes. The motorist, the former Miss America" made a turn with the sun in her eyes and was apparantly not able to see the cyclist. Obviously, the motorist should have modified their behavior more to take into account the compromised conditions.

However, the motorist did have a green light and the cyclist was crossing outside of the crosswalk. The newspaper account was sketchy though so it might not have happened that way. It does sound like the cyclist was not really obeying the rules of the road but acting like a jay walker on a bicycle. That is asking for trouble. The thing is if you do not obey the traffic laws, you are essentially a fugitive on the road and you take on the responsibility to avoid every vehicle out there.

The thing is that the laws are such that people can "expect" certain things to happen. I hate defending a motorist, but in this case could a motorist really expect a person to be out in the road where they are not really supposed to be?

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 driver had the green which means the cyclist and crosswalk would have had the green as well, it would seem like a logical conclusion to draw, too bad the article is so void of any information except the murderer was extremely concerned and upset, and that the cyclist didn't have a helmet. Sure sounds like biased reporting to me. Miss America or not, politician's wife or not, looks like she is a murderer to me!

It does sound like the cyclist was not really obeying the rules of the road but acting like a jay walker on a bicycle. That is asking for trouble. The thing is if you do not obey the traffic laws, you are essentially a fugitive on the road and you take on the responsibility to avoid every vehicle out there.

Pat, we both read the same VAGUE article, but 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!

The driver had the green which means the cyclist and crosswalk would have had the green as well, it would seem like a logical conclusion to draw, too bad the article is so void of any information except the murderer was extremely concerned and upset, and that the cyclist didn't have a helmet. Sure sounds like biased reporting to me. Miss America or not, politician's wife or not, looks like she is a murderer to me!

First, my heart goes out to the cyclist and family. This is the first death of a cyclist that I have heard of in my city since I became a regular commuter six months ago. Quite unnerving.

I am very familiar with this intersection. As far as I can tell, the driver was in one of two left-turn-only lanes with a green arrow, so the motorist probably had the "right of way" in this situation. The details are still sketchy. I'm anxious to learn more before passing judgement on the motorist as a murderer, though.

joseph

Joseph,

Thanks for the scoop on the intersection. The article didn't say which way she was turning or much else, including information you provided on the intersection.

I too am very sorry for the family of the cyclist, I guess I never actually said that due to the fact I was incensed by what I was "assuming" from reading the article. I guess personally I can't imagine proceeding in any direction when I can't see where I am going be it sun-glare, or ice on the windshield in the winter, the consequences, as this incident proves are just too great.

Yeah, when the sun is in my eyes I speed up and assume the path is clear. No doubt, the motorist will be cleared and the cyclist quickly forgotten - a reminder to keep you eyes open and ride defensively. What I found interesting about this article is that it assumed the same tone you see in all articles concerning cycling deaths - the motorist is distraught (punishment enough) and the cyclist screwed up by not wearing a helmet or obeying the law to the letter. Was the driver using her turn signal? If Kentucky is anything like Washington, there's a good chance she wasn't.

With the scetchy details of the article I find it very hard to place blame on the motorist. My heart goes out to the cyclist and family, but I am writing this one off as an unfortunate accident, without clear blame, rather than an agressive or wreckless act against the cyclist.

I see a lot of speculation going on here I am going to wait and see what comes of it. I will point out one thing that if the cyclists is outside the designated sidewalk then they are in the street and could be considered an illegal crossing or riding against traffic. I think this is one of the sh*t happens situation and my heart goes out to everbody involved.

Hey folks, we are getting tarred and feathered on the Yahoo mssg board.
Must be Clear Channel listeners.
Come on over and lets fight back.
http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=l&board=37138445&tid=apbrfmissamericaaccident&sid=37138445&mid=1895

The details are indeed very sketchy. Is there a better report out there? It sounds to me that the article when stating the cyclist was crossing outside the crosswalk meant that the cyclist was riding in the street and acting as a vehicle. It also seems that based on other's account of the intersection in question that the motorist was in a protected left turn. The question becomes if the motorist was allowed to go on a green or a green arrow only. If it's the latter case then the oncoming traffic (I'm assuming the cyclist was moving in the oncoming lane) would not have been permitted to cross the intersection and thus was in an illegal position. I agree that the motorist should have been watching for oncoming traffic regardless. Would you blindly turn through an intersection without looking for oncoming traffic even if you were in a protected left and had the green arrow? However, if what I envisioned was true then I believe the cyclist was more at fault for not heeding what should have been a red light. I think a better description of the accident needs to be given. Oh, BTW, I don't buy the "sun in my eyes" excuse.

Yes, I certainly need more facts before I can pass judgment on this incident. Since the bike's front wheel was ripped off, the motorist may have turn left across the cyclist's path. If the motorist had a green arrow, then presumably the cyclist ran a red light. If the motorist had a "cluster" (forward or left turn) green light, then she was legally required to wait for all opposing traffic to clear.

The article really says nothing, save the "not wearing a helmet" part. Having the sun in one's eyes can be a factor, but if I'm in that situation, I generally adjust my behaviour accordingly. I'm not sure the driver took that step on this occasion.

Hey folks, we are getting tarred and feathered on the Yahoo mssg board.
Must be Clear Channel listeners.
Come on over and lets fight back.
http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=l&board=37138445&tid=apbrfmissamericaaccident&sid=37138445&mid=1895

That sounds like a common yahoo message board, for any topic... not worth your time, the only ones reading are the trolls.

That sounds like a common yahoo message board, for any topic... not worth your time, the only ones reading are the trolls.

Boy I went there to check it out didn't even look at any of the threads just turned tail and came back here were at least we tend to be civilized here. Just makes me more impressed with this forum and how as a community we treat each other :)

Another Article (http://www.courierjournal.com/localnews/2003/10/13ky/met-front-heatherm1014-5593.html)

Found another article on this tragedy with a little more description.

that article says:


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.

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

That sounds like a common yahoo message board, for any topic... not worth your time, the only ones reading are the trolls.

No WAY! :rolleyes:

It doesn't matter much what she's driving. You can be just as dead when a Mini hits you. On a bike, I'm not certain the size of the car makes much difference, as you're so exposed. All the increased mass of a Navigator will do is kill you a little more. You might be safe if they were driving say, a Crosley, but that's only because you could probably out-acellerate it.

After looking at both articles, I can only say I'm completely confused by the whole thing and have no clue who's at fault, but I will say since she's married to a political figure, my cynicism says she's likely to get off...

It doesn't matter much what she's driving. You can be just as dead when a Mini hits you.

Not necessarily. With a smaller vehicle you're more likely to go over the bonnet and be thrown clear. On large vehicles such as SUVs you're more likely to go under it, and a helmet ain't gonna save you under there. Given that the bike punctured the rear tyre of the truck, it seems fair to assume this is what happened.

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.



Hijacking another. I'm sure glad you guys are all police officers. We sure can use the help in solving the accidents by reading the news paper. You know there is more to it that we don't know and I'll give you a bit of information.

Assume. Ass-u-me. And to assume does just that.

Hijacking another. I'm sure glad you guys are all police officers. We sure can use the help in solving the accidents by reading the news paper. You know there is more to it that we don't know and I'll give you a bit of information.

Assume. Ass-u-me. And to assume does just that.

'We' - are you a Police Officer, I thought you were a clerical worker in law enforcement?

If you re-read the threads I think everyone's made it quite clear that they are surmising based on limited facts rather than stating what happened. Not an unreasonable thing to do I'd have thought.

Hijacking another. I'm sure glad you guys are all police officers. We sure can use the help in solving the accidents by reading the news paper. You know there is more to it that we don't know and I'll give you a bit of information.

Assume. Ass-u-me. And to assume does just that.

I was perfectly clear in saying it was an assumption. To me two facts remain very clear, and I have no idea how you drive but;

1. I would not have proceeded at a speed faster than I could stop if I could not see where I was going, perhaps I am abnormal in my driving habits. Fog, Rain, Snow, Ice and Sun are all factors that (not exclusively) limit visability and suggest reduced speeds are in order.

2. I was always taught to expect the unexpected, I remember driving simulators with kids running out from between parked cars, or chasing their ball into the street. Driving defensively saves lifes.

And no, I am not a police officer, I am a compassionate human being, who finds it tragic that people can drive so irresponsibly in any circumstances and not be cited because they have a lame excuse. Just like everything else in our litigious society, it's always someone elses fault. Perhaps there was a shared blame for this accident, and whether the cyclist was at fault or not, the driver could have prevented it by heeding the above two common sense driving rules. I guess our society would rather accept lame excuses, than enforce common sense leaving driving a right as opposed to a priveledge that carries responsibility. Who should I have compassion for, the person who was killed or the person who I still feel was driving less than responsibly?

And I for one don't think I was solving the crime, I was voicing my opinion based on the limited facts presented, and my extensive driving experience. I feel that with the exception of YOU, everyone understood what I was expressing, and cut me some slack. If you want to add to your little armory of quips like "assume", perhaps you could add opinions are like @ssholes, seems fitting in this case. 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. But I will never be sorry for voicing opinions, and carrying on a logical, and non-confrontational discussion with the majority of level headed people around here.

Some people discuss and contribute, some people hi-jack. That's what makes the WWW go around.

As far as I can tell, no one here is trying to "Solve" the
accident, what we are trying to do is understand what
happened. If you check other cycling forums its being
discussed in them also.
What really disturbs me about the entire incident is that
the driver called her husband first, not 911.

Lets try to keep this civil and not turn it into 7 pages of
pedantic bickering, ok?

Marty

Hijacking another. I'm sure glad you guys are all police officers. We sure can use the help in solving the accidents by reading the news paper. You know there is more to it that we don't know and I'll give you a bit of information.

Assume. Ass-u-me. And to assume does just that.

I don't believe that anyone should jump to conclusions. There have been very few details released about this accident (other than the fact that the rider wasn't wearing a helmet). I think it was just that, an accident. I don't believe that Miss America saw a cyclist and decided to run her over. That being said, a driver should take into account the conditions and drive accordingly.

I would like to see the police report. It should show where both vehicles were before and after the crash. Right now we just don't know. Maybe the police are feeling some pressure from the Lt. Governor's office and are a little slow to release details. If all accident reports were completely factual and were error-free then John Allen would have to find another line of work.

surmising

Flat out guessing.


1. I would not have proceeded at a speed faster than I could stop if I could not see where I was going, perhaps I am abnormal in my driving habits. Fog, Rain, Snow, Ice and Sun are all factors that (not exclusively) limit visability and suggest reduced speeds are in order.



Here is your first guess. Not even an educated one. If any of the articles stated that she had been speeding or even going faster than say 5 miles per hour then you can make that assumption. YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THE SPEED WAS AND HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HER DRIVING HABITS WERE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WITH HER LIMITED SIGHT DISTANCE. Assume Nothing.


2. I was always taught to expect the unexpected, I remember driving simulators with kids running out from between parked cars, or chasing their ball into the street. Driving defensively saves lifes.

That doesn't mean stop when you make a turn. She creates more of a problem by stoping through the turn than if she were to proceed cautiously. Which I'm not willing to say she has done or not done this.


. To me two facts remain very clear

Just so you know these are facts that were taught to you by a licensed instructor.

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.

This is a very unfortunate accident. Call the Louisville Metro Police Department and get the actual report. You know the one that the Certified Police Officers, trained in Traffic Accident Investigations took, not read in a newspaper and made the conclusion that the lady in the vehicle was automatically at fault.

Another fact that we know, is that the other person riding with her wasn't upset in any way other than he lost a good friend. You don't see any statements that the lady driving the SUV was at fault did you?


'We' - are you a Police Officer, I thought you were a clerical worker in law enforcement?



Yes, I'm a dispatcher along with a firefighter. I see accidents scenes, know how they are determined who is at fault, and have seen some pretty bad ones. So your question was do I sit behind a desk all day. No.

What really disturbs me about the entire incident is that
the driver called her husband first, not 911.



One more thing, having worked in a call center where those calls come in. Trust me 10 or so other people called 911. It says that there were several people there on scene that called 911 as they witnessed the accident. It's not absolutely the duty of the person that was involved in the accident to call, just remain on scene, render aid to the injured persons, and to provide their personal, vehicle, and insurance information to the officer that is taking the case.

Chill out, lamajo25. It's a discussion forum here, not a courtroom. No need to turn another thread into a 'don't say anything bad about cops' thread.

I hate to say it but, some people here feel that they know more about a police officers job than a police officer does.

One quote that I found in both articles was that "No Criminal Charges are to be Filed at this Time."

Lamajo, you might enjoy visiting the Yahoo boards. The tone of the posts there seems to be much more your style.

I hate to say it but, some people here feel that they know more about a police officers job than a police officer does.

One quote that I found in both articles was that "No Criminal Charges are to be Filed at this Time."

Which does not mean that the situation is no longer under investigation, and certainly does not mean that no wrong doing was involved. Evidence is a wonderful thing, but lack of it does not rule out a breaking of the law, or at least lack of good judgement.

Move on and let the discussion continue. There is no need to try and shut this down, or turn it into another political thread about police, laws and rights.

"no charges filed..." means they (whoever "they" might be) are still investigating. just because charges have not been filed does not mean they won't file charges.

I hate to say it but, some people here feel that they know more about a police officers job than a police officer does.


That is NOT what you are doing though right, you must work in a very affluent area if they can afford to put their dispatchers through police officer training, I don't know of any around here that can afford it.

I sure would like to meet those infallible police associates of yours, the ones I know are only humans, prone to mistakes. You probably believe there is no such thing as corruption, and that our judicial system is unbiased with no corruption whatsoever, so the next time I flash my gold badge (a gift from a police chief friend) or perhaps use one of my "coutesty cards" (from several other police friends) to get out of a ticket, or when I am eating a $1000 a plate dinner at another Judge's fund raising dinner, I will think of you.

To say I made "not even an educated one" with reference to my saying "1. I would not have proceeded at a speed faster than I could stop if I could not see where I was going, perhaps I am abnormal in my driving habits. Fog, Rain, Snow, Ice and Sun are all factors that (not exclusively) limit visability and suggest reduced speeds are in order." has lead me to draw another conclusion, both about your edcuaction and common sense. I don't need a lot of education to know when its dark you turn on the headlights, when its raining you turn on the wipers, and when you can't see commensurate with the speed at which you are driving you slow down. AND you can certainly believe that I would slam on the brakes in the middle of ANY intersection if I saw something in the path of my vehicle.The only danger would be having the person behind me hit me in the rear-end, resulting in further employment for those who you defend, that would have to cite them for unassured safe distance.

Accidents, are accidents and accidents happen, but I am a firm believer (through formal education) that the majority of accidents (NOT ALL), and far more accidents than actually ARE, can be avoided, by the use of defensive driving techniques. Quite honestly green light or not, I NEVER proceed through any intersection without looking both ways, could be a car jacker, could be a fire truck, could be the police, could be someone who was blinded by the sunlight and didn't know their light was red. I may be the exception, but when you drive as many miles as I do in a year, you learn that a green light doesn't mean anything except its your turn, and if your lucky everyone else will be playing by the same rules and you make it through safely. It's the rule breakers you learn to look out for even if your not the police, when you drive defensively. Is it required, HELL no, is it logical and common sense I would say so, but that's just me, and I may not be qualified or educated in logic and common sense.

It sure is hard to carry on a logical conversation with someone who has to be so defensive. So I guess and "surmise", that I sure am thankfull you don't represent the majority of members around here, even though I am not formally trained in such matters. So I'm off, wondering why I wasted my time, and hoping against hope to find an ignore member link, so I can enjoy the majority.

"no charges filed..." means they (whoever "they" might be) are still investigating. just because charges have not been filed does not mean they won't file charges.

Exactly. Now for everyone who stated that it's the drivers fault please raise your hand.

Just because she's driving a vehicle doesn't make it their fault all the time. I won't even say most of the time.

Chill out, lamajo25. It's a discussion forum here, not a courtroom. No need to turn another thread into a 'don't say anything bad about cops' thread.

Booyah, I'm just about to add this lamajo to my ignore list (I had done so previously, before a database crash intervened). I recommend others do the same. There's no point having a discussion someone who doesn't even bother to read any posts.

Exactly. Now for everyone who stated that it's the drivers fault please raise your hand.

Just because she's driving a vehicle doesn't make it their fault all the time. I won't even say most of the time.

I doubt you'd say any of the time.

lamajo25 = TROLL. Just put him on your ignore list. In his little world Cyclists are always wrong and the motorist (or cop) is always right and you won't convice him otherwise. I often wonder why he doesn't actually have a badge himself since he seems to "know" what cops go through - it might shatter his delusion.

So your question was do I sit behind a desk all day. No.

No that wasn't my question, it was whether you write as a trained Police Officer or someone who has an ancillary role.

"I'm just about to add this lamajo to my ignore list "
"Just put him on your ignore list."

Thank you, gentlemen. (ladies?). I had no idea such a feat was possible, and have performed the act with all the aclarity I can muster. I encourage others to do the same, esp. lamajo themself.

<snipped great post about inatentive driving>

Well said, Ohio Trekker. I think you've said everything I don't have the attention span to write. :D

'Tis a shame out 'special friend' won't be able to comprehend logic.

Booyah, I'm just about to add this lamajo to my ignore list (I had done so previously, before a database crash intervened). I recommend others do the same. There's no point having a discussion someone who doesn't even bother to read any posts.

Good advice Chris. Mind you, it's posts are quite amusing to read over the morning cup of coffee.... but I think I'll go find that ignore function now. :)

Yes, I'm a dispatcher along with a firefighter. I see accidents scenes, know how they are determined who is at fault, and have seen some pretty bad ones. So your question was do I sit behind a desk all day. No.

Which are you? A dispatcher, or a firefighter? And at any rate, niether qualify you to do accident investigation. You, at best, have a more educated guess. Really, you speculate with the rest of us.

Let's see what you post...

lamajo25 = TROLL. Just put him on your ignore list. In his little world Cyclists are always wrong and the motorist (or cop) is always right and you won't convice him otherwise. I often wonder why he doesn't actually have a badge himself since he seems to "know" what cops go through - it might shatter his delusion.

Am I still on your list? :D

No that wasn't my question, it was whether you write as a trained Police Officer or someone who has an ancillary role.

Ancillary roll. I've done a brief perview of his post. He's been all about defending the police (nothing wrong with that), but the tone is such that he's a wantabe.. and not much more. Someone who's angry for the cops, and angry that they're not a cop.

It's a shame that people can't be content where they are in some respects.

Which are you? A dispatcher, or a firefighter?

What did I say. Both. And yes it's possible.


He's been all about defending the police (nothing wrong with that), but the tone is such that he's a wantabe.. and not much more. Someone who's angry for the cops, and angry that they're not a cop.



The thing is I'm not defending the police here at all. I'm defending the poor woman who has to live the rest of her entire life with the memory of having killed a person. You all are ready to crucify this lady when you in fact have no idea yourself of the feelings and pain that goes through the system of such a horrible tragedy. I've seen a few people die in my career, no I didn't kill them, but it's the same. You feel for the person who has had their life cut short.

You people have no more information than I do in this situation. So how is it that you guys have been able to solve this crime? Oh I forgot you are cyclists you know more.

What did I say. Both. And yes it's possible..

So you're a wanna be and a wanna be. But really a niether.






The thing is I'm not defending the police here at all. I'm defending the poor woman who has to live the rest of her entire life with the memory of having killed a person.

I'm sure that this is much worse than the people who lost a member of thier family. Guilt or loss, which is worse?


You all are ready to crucify this lady when you in fact have no idea yourself of the feelings and pain that goes through the system of such a horrible tragedy. . I'm not ready to crucify her. I'm not a juror. I'm not even making judgement on her. I"m just responding to your A typical responses that you post up all over.


I've seen a few people die in my career, no I didn't kill them, but it's the same. You feel for the person who has had their life cut short. Is that so wrong?


Oh I forgot you are cyclists you know more.

If you're not a cyclist, then why are you on this forum? I'd like to know that.

If you're not a cyclist, then why are you on this forum? I'd like to know that.

No apparently I'm not because I also drive.


So you're a wanna be and a wanna be. But really a niether.

So is what you are saying is, since I have 6 years of experience in law enforcement, and 3 years in firefighting, you can solve crimes by reading newspapers with no experience other than reading about them. I've been around it for that long, and have a degree (that came with a traffic accident investigation course). Yeah they aren't charging her yet, and them may still.

Let me ask you this. If she doesn't get charged, would you crucify the law enforcement agency that didn't because you are a cyclist and feel that an injustice has been done? I would label you racist. You are a race of people that feels that you are being persecuted by motorists. What more do you want from society, a medal?


I"m just responding to your A typical responses that you post up all over.


And you don't call the statements made by several of the members here A Typical. The driver is at fault because the cyclist is smaller. Right.

Wow, made you think there for a minute didn't I?

No apparently I'm not because I also drive.

Driving a car doesn't disqualify you from being a cyclist. Having no knowledge about cycling does. Most folk with your knowledge base come here to learn. You come here to flout your ignorance whilst at the same time tell us that we don't know as much as you do.

Go away know-nothing. No-one likes you.


So is what you are saying is, since I have 6 years of experience in law enforcement, and 3 years in firefighting, you can solve crimes by reading newspapers with no experience other than reading about them.

And to think you get annoyed when people put words in your mouth.


Let me ask you this. If she doesn't get charged, would you crucify the law enforcement agency that didn't because you are a cyclist and feel that an injustice has been done? I would label you racist. You are a race of people that feels that you are being persecuted by motorists.

This is going into my 'top ten bizzare statements from know-nothing' list.


What more do you want from society, a medal?

No, just to be treated equitably.


And you don't call the statements made by several of the members here A Typical. The driver is at fault because the cyclist is smaller. Right.

I had to go back and re-read the thread to see if we're reading the same one. Apparently we're not. The vast majority of responses in this thread have basically said 'not enough information', however, what information there is is worrying. The biggest problem here is shabby reporting. Here's a recap:

1. The cyclist was not riding in the crosswalk, but there is no indication that that was where she was required to be riding. I never ride in the crosswalk through intersections either because I use the road like I'm supposed to. There is no indication that the cyclist was proceeding through the intersection illegally.

2. The cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet. So what? Kentucky has no law requiring this. Also there is no indication of what she died of. Going by the picture on the Courier Journal website, it looks like the bike, and possibly also the rider, went under the vehicle. The punctured rear tyre of the car (which is clearly seen in the photo) supports this. A helmet is of marginal benefit if any in such a situation, and reporting it as though it had a bearing is irresponsible, or at best irrelevant.

3. The motorist was blinded by the sun. Yet she failed to slow down to allow for limited vision. The article states the cyclist was carried some distance past the point of collision. This doesn't happen if you are proceeding cautiously due to limited visibility. It concerns me that the police spokeswoman claimed not to know how far. Didn't know, or didn't want to say? I would have thought this would be fairly readily ascertainable - maybe with your claimed experience in accident investigation can offer some insight for a change instead of your usual polemic.

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. I'm leaning towards the latter. 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'.

5. The media bias is atrocious in this article. A woman has died, and all they care about reporting is how Miss America feels about it. It's almost as if the cyclist is incidental to the story. The description of the cicumstances is vague to the point of being useless. The fawning over Miss America and her husband is painfully obvious, and all involved are far too quick to write it of as 'one of those things' before an investigation has even taken place. This is as irresponsible, actually moreso, that any posters on this forum assuming she is guilty. How about asking one of the witnesses what they saw, since Miss America clearly didn't?

I suspect this is the last we'll see of this story in the press. As such we will all be left guessing. Instead of being an obnoxious little prick, how about turning that 'trained' eye towards what we do know. So far your summation of the story amounts only to this:


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.

Clearly they aren't the 'only facts that we know'. You offer a cursory examination at best, and certainly shows no interest in examining it any deeper, and yet you claim some expertise in this area. Let's see it.

I know you won't though. For you, it is open and shut - someone died, it happens, let's move on. It shows about as much insight as the newspaper expects from it's readers ie. none at all, but those of us that would like to know more, and try to ascertain what really happened from the scant details provided are typified by you as a lynch mob out for the motorists blood despite all evidence to the contrary right there on the screen. Talk about judging based on inadequate evidence - you judge contrary to the evidence. If that's all you can offer to these forums it's no wonder you're included on an ever growing number of ignore lists.