Advocacy & Safety - Cyclist killed

Another senseless death. Details are sketchy. Accident occurred in a Pittsburgh neighborhood just a few blocks from the start of the bike path. Roads were icy and snowcovered from several days of weather which haven't cleared.

Hazelwood driver charged in death

Thursday, January 29, 2004

A Hazelwood woman who police said struck and killed a bicyclist while behind the wheel of a sport utility vehicle has been charged with driving under the influence.

Eunice West, 47, was charged after she refused to take a breath test.

The bicyclist, Robert Hemelrick, 32, of Hazelwood, was struck Tuesday at 11:30 p.m. in the 4100 block of Irvine Street. He was pronounced dead less than an hour later at UPMC Presbyterian.

The Allegheny County coroner's office ruled Hemelrick's death accidental.

Police said Hemelrick was riding east on Irvine. He was not wearing a helmet, and his bicycle did not have headlights or rear reflectors.


http://www.postgazette.com/pg/04029/266980.stm

He was not wearing a helmet, and his bicycle did not have headlights or rear reflectors.


Ugh. What does that have to do with it?

I hate when they put that in the article, as if to say if he was wearing his helmet and headlights and rear reflectors and a siren on top of his head and full footbal gear then the 3000 pound SUV driven by a drunk wouldn't have killed him.

This is akin to reporting what a **** victim was wearing at the time of the attack. A factor? Perhaps. Relevant to the perpetrator's culpability? Of course not.

This is akin to reporting what a **** victim was wearing at the time of the attack. A factor? Perhaps. Relevant to the perpetrator's culpability? Of course not.

Exactly. Well said.

Riding in the dark without a reflector, light or helmet....

Natural Selection / Darwin award winner if you ask me.

(Not that it justifys the womans DUI, but sounds like the bike rider was also a primary contributor.)

Riding in the dark without a reflector, light or helmet....

Natural Selection / Darwin award winner if you ask me.

(Not that it justifys the womans DUI, but sounds like the bike rider was also a primary contributor.)

AMEN! My goodness heaven forbid that someone should take some responsibility for their actions. These cute 'politically correct analogies' to 'women being raped' shows you just how hysterically self-righteous many folks are. REFLECTIVE CLOTHING, REFLECTIVE GEAR AND A HELMET are essential elements of safe riding. Even before I got to that part of the article I chuckled when I read about him riding on wintry roads at 11:30 PM. I'll bet he didn't have snow tires and antilock brakes either. OOPS! Thats not relevant.

She refused a breathalyzer test--that doesn't mean she was drunk any more than one who take the Fifth Amendment is automatically guilty. She is charged with a crime and all of a sudden we decide she is guilty! My, what a bunch of Ashcroft-wannabees we suddenly have on this board. Face it...some people saw red as soon as it was clear she was driving the big-bad-wolf of the new millennia, an SUV.

roughstuff

Riding in the dark without a reflector, light or helmet....

Natural Selection / Darwin award winner if you ask me.

(Not that it justifys the womans DUI, but sounds like the bike rider was also a primary contributor.)

I have to agree with that one. I was driving on MSU campus one evening and it was raining and as dark as the inside of a cow. I looked up ahead and saw these little lights going up and down just a bit ahead of me. I slowed even more, I was going about 20 mph at the time. It was some #$%& fool cyclist :eek: who had stripped all the reflectors off of his bike and was wearing black clothes to boot. What gave him away are those tiny reflectors that they used to stick on the back of rat trap peddles. If you want to go out and get yourself killed, that is fine by me, but I just want to be left out of it :mad: .

AMEN! My goodness heaven forbid that someone should take some responsibility for their actions. These cute 'politically correct analogies' to 'women being raped' shows you just how hysterically self-righteous many folks are. REFLECTIVE CLOTHING, REFLECTIVE GEAR AND A HELMET are essential elements of safe riding. Even before I got to that part of the article I chuckled when I read about him riding on wintry roads at 11:30 PM. I'll bet he didn't have snow tires and antilock brakes either. OOPS! Thats not relevant.

She refused a breathalyzer test--that doesn't mean she was drunk any more than one who take the Fifth Amendment is automatically guilty. She is charged with a crime and all of a sudden we decide she is guilty! My, what a bunch of Ashcroft-wannabees we suddenly have on this board. Face it...some people saw red as soon as it was clear she was driving the big-bad-wolf of the new millennia, an SUV.

roughstuff

Breathe in, breathe out.

Misread it, thought it said 11:30 am.

(Keep breathing, we're getting your therapist on the phone right away...)

Still don't know why they mentioned he wasn't wearing a helmet. Helmets are for protecting your head against falls, they don't do didly squat against SUV's.

Breathe in, breathe out.

Misread it, thought it said 11:30 am.

(Keep breathing, we're getting your therapist on the phone right away...)

Still don't know why they mentioned he wasn't wearing a helmet. Helmets are for protecting your head against falls, they don't do didly squat against SUV's.

Hmmmm..IS it AM or PM? Yikes. Both the post and link say PM; and I assumed a lady would not be pulled over for DUI that early in the day! Heavens.

Referring to the helmet is absolutely relevant. We need to weigh the woman's "concern for safety" (or lack thereof) with the cyclists "concern for safety" (or lack thereof). Accidents happen, and any intelligent party would take reasonable precautions against it. Assuming the time is 11:30 PM, the fact the guy had no reflector, reflective clothing, or a helmet is just beyond the pale.

roughstuff

She refused a breathalyzer test--that doesn't mean she was drunk any more than one who take the Fifth Amendment is automatically guilty. Speaking of hysterical self-righteousness, this comparison is meaningless. A citizen's right to remain silent is Constitutionally guaranteed. A driver has no rights, as a driver. In every state in this country, driving is a privilege, not a right. Along with that privilege, there is an implied consent to be tested (via breath) for alcohol intoxication. A driver refusing to take the test in no way equates to a citizen refusing to speak on Fifth Amendment grounds.

No one ever said that the bicyclist's actions were not factors in the crash. They were. But they should in no way exonerate the driver.

And BTW, according to NHTSA, USDOT, et. al. accidents don't happen. They don't even refer to "accidents" any more, they refer to "crashes". The reasoning is that "accidents" can't be avoided/prevented, but "crashes" can. By using the right word, the emphasis is put on determining what can be done to avoid/prevent them. Remarkably (or perhaps not...), our state and local gov'ts still use the word "accident".

Hmmmm..IS it AM or PM? Yikes. Both the post and link say PM; and I assumed a lady would not be pulled over for DUI that early in the day! Heavens.


It's definitely pm. I was trying to say that I misread it, so I didn't realize this took place at night.

Along with that privilege, there is an implied consent to be tested (via breath) for alcohol intoxication. A driver refusing to take the test in no way equates to a citizen refusing to speak on Fifth Amendment grounds.



Very true: one consents to all kinds of things when one is granted a license to drive. But one has the RIGHT TO REFUSE a breathalyzer test. And yes, when you refuse that test, everyone assumes you 'must be drunk...' otherwise why would you refuse? . This is exactly the same conclusion people jump to when you take the 5th. That was really the only 'constitutional' aspect I meant to introduce.

I am hoping there is a follow up article on this. Maybe the police will come out with a statement like "there was a strong smell of liquor" or "she had slurred speech" or whatever, which might make the situation more clear. Nor did the story say where the accident took place: on a straightaway, at an intersection, while turning left or right, etc.

roughstuff

And BTW, according to NHTSA, USDOT, et. al. accidents don't happen. They don't even refer to "accidents" any more, they refer to "crashes". The reasoning is that "accidents" can't be avoided/prevented, but "crashes" can. By using the right word, the emphasis is put on determining what can be done to avoid/prevent them. Remarkably (or perhaps not...), our state and local gov'ts still use the word "accident".

I remember way back in 1986 when I was taking driver's ed. in high school, my teacher drilled into us, "there are no car accidents, only collisions". If I remember anything about defensive driving, it's that quote by my teacher.

Couple of points:

If the mention of him being helmetless is irrelevant (I'm assuming there's no MHL in effect - they never mention that) then isn't mentioning the fact that she was driving an SUV equally irrelevant?

She was charged with DUI after refusing a breathalyser. I doubt that would be sufficient reason alone to charge someone. There must have been other factors that led the officer to believe she was under the influence - or am I being hopelessly naive?

Riding at night without lights or reflectors is stupid and dangerous, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was invisible. Was there street lighting? What colour was his clothing? If the driver is found to have been DUI, then surely she should also be charged with involuntary manslaughter as well despite the cyclist's negligence. Call me idealistic, but I don't think anyone should get away with killing someone whilst driving drunk under any circumstances.

She was charged with DUI after refusing a breathalyser. I doubt that would be sufficient reason alone to charge someone. There must have been other factors that led the officer to believe she was under the influence - or am I being hopelessly naive?

Riding at night without lights or reflectors is stupid and dangerous, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was invisible. Was there street lighting? What colour was his clothing? If the driver is found to have been DUI, then surely she should also be charged with involuntary manslaughter as well despite the cyclist's negligence. Call me idealistic, but I don't think anyone should get away with killing someone whilst driving drunk under any circumstances.


Driving IS a priviledge. The only reason to refuse the breathalyzer test is that you WERE drinking. Anyone that believes otherwise is naive. She should be locked away for a long time, but that probably won't happen.

Driving an SUV is irrelevent. You probably would be just as dead if you were hit by a subcompact.

Riding at night around here without reflectors or lights at night is suicide. The street lights just don't provide enough light to do the job. If you can't figure that out then you very well could be "naturally selected" for extinction.

Riding at night around here without reflectors or lights at night is suicide. The street lights just don't provide enough light to do the job. If you can't figure that out then you very well could be "naturally selected" for extinction.

Yup. Stupidity is often rewarded with injury or even death.

Driving IS a priviledge. The only reason to refuse the breathalyzer test is that you WERE drinking. Anyone that believes otherwise is naive. She should be locked away for a long time, but that probably won't happen.

Am I the only one who finds it difficult to believe that anyone could ever be allowed to "refuse" a breathalyser test?


Riding at night around here without reflectors or lights at night is suicide. The street lights just don't provide enough light to do the job. If you can't figure that out then you very well could be "naturally selected" for extinction.

Regardless, two wrongs do not make a right. So we've removed one stupid cyclist from the gene pool. We now have an opportunity to remove one dangerous driver from the roads. Irrespective of any kind of contributory negligence or anything else, that is an opportunity we have a duty not to miss.

Refusal to take a breath test usually nets about the same punishment as a DUI conviction.

Riding at night without lights and reflectors does a disservice to all safe bikers. Acts like that that make motorist hate us.

She refused a breathalyzer test--that doesn't mean she was drunk any more than one who take the Fifth Amendment is automatically guilty.
roughstuff

Actually it is a crime in Pennsylvania to refuse to take a breath or blood test. I got the following quote from a lawyer's site who specializes in drunk-driving cases:

Implied Consent means that anyone driving a motor vehicle on the roadways of Pennsylvania consents to the breath test in advance. If you refuse to take the test you automatically lose your drivers license for 12 months. You won't change things by remaining silent either. In Pennsylvania, when an officer asks a motorist to take a breath test, any response other than an unqualified "yes" is deemed to be a refusal.

That's how I recall the law being in Michigan, and I'm pretty sure that's how it goes in WI. But I think it only applies to the breath test, not to the blood test. I believe one can invoke one's religious right not to have blood drawn.

Am I the only one who finds it difficult to believe that anyone could ever be allowed to "refuse" a breathalyser test?.

No, you are not the only one.

This woman just killed a person. Allowing someone to refuse a test in that situation is even more difficult to believe.

--J

Here in TN if you refuse, the laws says it is basicly an admission of guilt.

I think that even a sober "good" driver could hit a biker at 11:30 PM.

We use lights, reflectors, and wear helmets to protect us, because we have learned from experience that these keep us much safer. When I was considerably younger, I rode without these trappings. Few people used such safety devices in the mid 80's, however. I'm sure that If I had been hit at that time, there would have been a segment of the population that would have laughed, "Natural selection, stupid bicyclist!"

It disturbs me that others border on celebration of others' deaths. My own demise has been gleefuly expected in this forum, because I once hinted that I don't always come to a complete stop at stop signs.

Are the natural selectionists finding equal delight in preventable deaths from toddlers' unwise access to tubs and pools? Or adult's poor diet, travel to less safe countries, millitary service, smoking, and mental illness?

What keeps these morons cycling at night without lights anyway? I know we live in a cycling-ignorant culture, but there is this weird idea out there that stuff like rules of the road, lighting, and helmets, are somehow "elitist." Maybe this one is in the "Darwin award" class.

Not to imply, of course, that drunk drivers deserve anything kinder or gentler than a third-world, police-state kind of treatment in a soundproof back room downstairs at the cop shop!

Folks. I hate to say this but both parties were wrong. This woman would be spending hard time in prison for what she did but since the conditions were dark and the cyclists' was NOT wearing lights and the helmet, I doubt she's going to get any time. More than likely, she'll get time for dunk driving and a lesser charge of vehicular manslaughter.

A couple of months in jail, seveal years probation and she's out!

GET THOSE BLINKIES OUT!

Folks. I hate to say this but both parties were wrong. Why do you hate to say it? That, as I read it, is an emergent theme of this thread. The other theme, one that arises from this one, is what the consequences are. The cyclist has already paid the ultimate consequence, one far more severe than the "wrong" that precipitated it. I suspect you're right, however, that the consequence for the motor vehicle driver will be less severe than the wrong she committed.

I think all these details are relevant:

Lack of lighting is obviosly a high risk factor

SUV collisions are statistically more likely to kill pedestrian and cyclists than are those involving real cars.

SUVs are badly compromised in handling and braking compared to real cars.

Unless we know that the cyclist did not suffer a head injury, I would not dismiss the "no helmet" bit as irrelevant. Helmets are good to have on when you sail over the car and land flat on your head. Unless you wear one on each knee, they will probably not help much in a typical fall.

Paul

I think all these details are relevant:

SUVs are badly compromised in handling and braking compared to real cars.


Paul

Not true in ice or snow.

Not true in ice or snow.

Especially true on ice. An SUV is at a severe disadvantage due to its weight when compared to a car when driving on ice.

On thick snow, they are generally better. On packed snow their handling is equal or worse than a front drive car, again due to their excess weight and momentum.

4WD and AWD only helps you get moving from a stop in those conditions.

It disturbs me that others border on celebration of others' deaths. My own demise has been gleefuly expected in this forum, because I once hinted that I don't always come to a complete stop at stop signs.

Are the natural selectionists finding equal delight in preventable deaths from toddlers' unwise access to tubs and pools? Or adult's poor diet, travel to less safe countries, millitary service, smoking, and mental illness?

I don't think anybody was celebrating this death, far from it. I, for one, find nothing to celebrate in stupidity. However, we need to be realistic here, riding at night without proper lighting is just stupid, and it is a form of natural selection.

In saying that, it doesn't make the actions of the driver right by any means. Aren't they also supposed to have lighting (i.e. headlights)? As said by someone else, both parties are in the wrong here. The cyclist has paid the ultimate price, now I wait and see if the driver will pay any price.



she'll get time for dunk driving and a lesser charge of vehicular manslaughter.

A couple of months in jail, seveal years probation and she's out!


I doubt she'll even get that. Furthermore, I doubt the sentence would have been any different had the cyclist been wearing 50 watt rear flashing lights, or been struck in broad daylight. As has been said here before, killing someone with a gun or a knife will always get you more time than killing someone with a car, seemingly irrespective of the circumstances.

Especially true on ice. An SUV is at a severe disadvantage due to its weight when compared to a car when driving on ice.

On thick snow, they are generally better. On packed snow their handling is equal or worse than a front drive car, again due to their excess weight and momentum.

4WD and AWD only helps you get moving from a stop in those conditions.

What car vs. what SUV? I doubt a Caddy would handle better than an AWD SUV.

I have an SUV and had a FWD car. Trust me the SUV is better in the snow. My Subaru is great be it stopping or starting as long as you don't slam the brakes on. Having all wheels in gear is much better for slowing down and staying in control. Especialy in turns.

Refusal to take a breath test usually nets about the same punishment as a DUI conviction.

Riding at night without lights and reflectors does a disservice to all safe bikers. Acts like that that make motorist hate us.

In Jeff Garcia's case, he took the breath test and he was sited for being over 3 times over the limit, he would have been better off refusing the test and not contesting that he was dui.

as for not wearing a helment and not having any lights, what can we say?

If I'm ever struck by a motor-vehicle, no one will be able to say that I didn't do everything in my power to remain upright and unharmed. If everyone who straddles a bicycle takes serious inventory and asks themselves the crucial question "Am I truly prepared?" without the indulgence of ego ("I'm a great rider!") or the false pretense of haste ("I just don't have the time to worry about it, I have to go!"), we would read of far fewer incidents such as this.

The very same criteria pertains to motorists, of course.

Subarus arent SUVs. ;) They're nice cars.

Back to topic ... Darwin Award I guess. But I agree that both parties are wrong. If she is found guilty of DUI in court and convicted, any kind of time in jail will kill her career, so it's more or less a life sentence IMO. From what I've heard, if you've been a convicted criminal, you lose all your rights as a citizen. Am I right?

Possibly I should explain my feelings further, in regard to the Darwin and Natural Selection comments. The way I read them is that there is a certain level of acceptance of people dying from their incaution. The thinking is that with natural selection there are fewer stupid people to procreate and produce an even greater stupid person gene pool? Maybe that's a good thing? If they're picked off young enough. I personally think that there are other factors at play, besides genetics.

We all learn from our experience. If the cyclist had lived a charmed life and not had close calls, he would be more likely to throw caution to the wind. If he survived this collision he might have gone out and bought sensible gear. He'd probably be posting his experience as a warning to others on this forum, from his hospital bed. Or the 'stupid' cylist might have been poor and uneducated, thinking, "can't afford lights and stuff- gonna ride anyway. It beats walking"

I was much more likely to die biking, when I was younger. The feller who posted that he would only ride on bike paths for safety reasons, then was killed by a drunk driver was less likely to die. There are plenty of people that would say that bicyclists generally should receive a Darwin award, because its more dangerous than driving. Of course each person thinks that he is better than everyone else becase he is neither overly cautious nor overly reckless. So where should the Darwinists draw the line?

We all learn from our experience. If the cyclist had lived a charmed life and not had close calls, he would be more likely to throw caution to the wind. If he survived this collision he might have gone out and bought sensible gear. He'd probably be posting his experience as a warning to others on this forum, from his hospital bed. Or the 'stupid' cylist might have been poor and uneducated, thinking, "can't afford lights and stuff- gonna ride anyway. It beats walking"


Hmmm... could be a valid point. I guess I've just lived here (where most people would take the latter option - and not because they're poor), too long. Still, it does raise the whole issue of education. In many areas, education for cyclists is non-existent, however, it's pretty easy to find education telling people to wear lights if they ride at night. Heck, the "operating manual" of every bike I've ever bought said the same thing. It isn't too hard to find this material.


I was much more likely to die biking, when I was younger. The feller who posted that he would only ride on bike paths for safety reasons, then was killed by a drunk driver was less likely to die.

Not to anyone who's actually seen the statistics on cyclist death and injury rates on bikepaths vs roads -- but that's another rant. We've all done stupid things in the past, myself included. However, some are more stupid than others.



There are plenty of people that would say that bicyclists generally should receive a Darwin award, because its more dangerous than driving. Of course each person thinks that he is better than everyone else becase he is neither overly cautious nor overly reckless. So where should the Darwinists draw the line?

Again, anyone who's ever actually seen statistics on death rates for cycling vs driving would realise that driving is the more dangerous of the two activities, but again that's another rant.

I think the "all cyclists should receive a Darwin award" or "all drivers should receive a Darwin award" argument is extremely short-sighted and probably only perpetuated by Darwin award canditates (or idiots as I prefer to call them). The fact is that any activity is going to be much more dangerous if it isn't done properly. If you don't believe me, try driving down the wrong side of a major highway in rush hour and see how long you last. That is why I say this guy should receive a Darwin award. Not because he was cycling, but because he wasn't cycling properly.