Advocacy & Safety - Reward Offered in Fatal Philly Bike-Ped Ax

A Philadelphia law firm is offering a $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the rider of a mountain bike who struck a pedestrian who later died of his injuries.

http://www.kyw1060.com/Phila--Man-Dies-After-Being-Struck-by-Bicyclist/5549696

A white kid on a white bicycle isn't much to go on...

did they get license plate...

About the only way they're getting the guy is if he turns himself in. Too little data, and nobody reports damaged bikes to the police (if there even was any real damage). I would be surprised to see this resolved.

Of course, this is unfortunately more ammo for the anti-bicycle folks out there.

Hope they find him, but looking for
a young white man riding a white mountain bike is like looking for a gray haired fat guy on the golf course.

I guess it's just so egregious that the hit-&-run perp was on a bike that they have to post a reward and get into 'law-and-order advocacy' -- after all, it's not something that that would happen with a car, would it? Ohh -- it happens so often, they couldn't afford to pay the REWARDS!

I also hope the punk gets caught, there's no excuse to run someone down with a bike, but the extra advocacy is misplaced. And oh yeah SURE -- he's just talking about the 'bad' riders....BUUUUULLLLLL-.............................. .

I guess it's just so egregious that the hit-&-run perp was on a bike that they have to post a reward and get into 'law-and-order advocacy' -- after all, it's not something that that would happen with a car, would it? Ohh -- it happens so often, they couldn't afford to pay the REWARDS!

I also hope the punk gets caught, there's no excuse to run someone down with a bike, but the extra advocacy is misplaced. And oh yeah SURE -- he's just talking about the 'bad' riders....BUUUUULLLLLL-.............................. .

Huh? How could you possibly fault an employer for putting up money to find the person that killed their employee?

Huh? How could you possibly fault an employer for putting up money to find the person that killed their employee?

The law firm, FIRST OF ALL, was ONE OF SEVERAL, which suggests to me that the victim was a cleanup worker with several accounts -- good on him for his enterprise. But MY POINT was that it doesn't happen with motor vehicles, why get so outraged about involving a bike?

Reading wasn't your best subject in school, was it?

The law firm, FIRST OF ALL, was ONE OF SEVERAL, which suggests to me that the victim was a cleanup worker with several accounts -- good on him for his enterprise. But MY POINT was that it doesn't happen with motor vehicles, why get so outraged about involving a bike?

Reading wasn't your best subject in school, was it?

It does happen with motor vehicles, and all manor of crimes, when an employee is killed and the perp isn't found. They aren't outraged about the fact it was a bike, they are outraged that someone who happened to be on a bike KILLED someone they know and got away with it.

Hope they find him, but looking for is like looking for a gray haired fat guy on the golf course.

That line is a hole in one.

But MY POINT was that it doesn't happen with motor vehicles, why get so outraged about involving a bike?

That was my first reaction to the op.

That was my first reaction to the op.

Except, that it does happen with cars. All the time. You cannot honestly tell me you've never heard of a reward being offered for finding a hit and run driver.

That was my first reaction to the op.

But it does happen with cars. A quick google search will show this to be true.

Wow, look at one of the first google results! http://www.ocregister.com/articles/police-shannon-anaheim-2421785-martinez-camino



Police are searching for driver who struck and killed Anaheim man who was riding bicycle home from work.
By LOU PONSI
The Orange County Register


ANAHEIM -- An anonymous donor has put up a $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of a hit-and-run driver who struck and killed an Anaheim man last month, police said.

Patrick Shannon, 55, a 10-year employee of the Anaheim Marriott, had gotten off work at 4 p.m. on April 24 and was going north on South West Street when he was stuck from behind by a Chevrolet El Camino.

When paramedics and police arrived, Shannon was unconscious and had severe head injuries, said Sgt. Rick Martinez, spokesman for the Anaheim Police Department. Shannon was taken to University of California-Irvine Medical Center in Orange, where he died two days later after being taken off of life support.

Within minutes after the crash, police found the El Camino with a shattered front windshield, abandoned in bushes on the side of Katella Avenue near Ninth Street.

Martinez said about a dozen officers with a bloodhound couldn't find the suspect after searching the surrounding neighborhood until about 10 p.m.

The day of the accident was Shannon's third time commuting to work on his bicycle after being told by his doctor to get more exercise, Hensley said.

Shannon is also survived by four brothers and a sister.

A "person of interest" was interviewed regarding the incident, but Martinez said there is still no description of the driver.

Police are asking witnesses or anyone with information to call investigators at 714-765-1900.

Attention all White kids on white bikes. Don't let those coppers see you. They will probably waste so much tax money searching for someone who was probably on a bike they threw out after reading this.

Um, any reports on how the collision actually occurred?
Does anyone even know for sure the collision was the cyclist fault?


Don't jump my case, because I do agree the cyclist was a criminal in leaving the scene and not rendering aid, but I really would like to hear the rest of the story.

Um, any reports on how the collision actually occurred?
Does anyone even know for sure the collision was the cyclist fault?


Don't jump my case, because I do agree the cyclist was a criminal in leaving the scene and not rendering aid, but I really would like to hear the rest of the story.

Here is another article on this:

Man struck by bicyclist in Center City dies (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20091027_Man_struck_by_bicyclist_in_Center_City_dies.html)

<quote>
Initially, police reported the incident as a transport to the hospital. They later learned that several people in the area heard a loud noise, then saw Steed and another man on the ground. The other man had been riding a bicycle and apparently crashed into Steed. The cyclist got up, fixed the handlebars on his bike, and acknowledged that he had swerved out of the path of a car and hit Steed, witnesses said. He then fled the scene.
</quote>

Did anyone actually see the cyclist and pedestrian collide? The above paragraph says that several people heard a loud noise and then saw Steed and the other man on the ground.

And here's another article:

Comatose man apparently had been hit by bike (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20091023_Comatose_man_apparently_had_been_hit_by_bike.html?posted=n)

<quote>
His colleagues soon learned that police on the scene of the Oct. 15 incident found no witnesses who could explain what happened. Thus, there was no active investigation.
</quote>

It wasn't until the law firm got involved that they found two witnesses.

<quote>
Within days, they had two eyewitnesses ready to tell the police that they heard a loud crash, then saw two men on the ground, one of whom had been riding a bicycle. The bicyclist, according to those witnesses, indicated that he had hit Steed, then vanished from the scene.
</quote>

Here is a legitimate question. How do we know that the two witnesses really saw anything and that it wasn't the incentive of the reward money that prompted them to come forward?

Also given that in the first article it's said that the cyclist "swerved to avoid a car" how do we know that the car didn't clip the cyclist throwing him into Steed? And if that is the case it would:

a) explain the "loud noise" the witnesses heard
b) place the responsibility for the death on the driver of the car not the cyclist

Yes, it was wrong of the cyclist to ride off like he did. But he may not have realized the extent of the injuries that Steed sustained as a result of the collision.

Here is a legitimate question. How do we know that the two witnesses really saw anything and that it wasn't the incentive of the reward money that prompted them to come forward?

Probably because so far as I can tell, they're only giving money to whoever finds the cyclist... Unless they offered an earlier reward for anybody who had seen anything.



Yes, it was wrong of the cyclist to ride off like he did. But he may not have realized the extent of the injuries that Steed sustained as a result of the collision.

It's exactly why he shouldn't have run off. Something tells me he may have been in a hurry to get out because he knew it was serious.
But then I have to wonder, if these people saw him and heard him say that he was trying to avoid a car - why didn't they stop him - and why didn't they say they saw him in the first place?

Add to it that the "swerved out of the path of a car" implies that the collision was on the road and not a sidewalk. So why the lawyers rant against cyclist riding on the sidewalk, if that played no part in the collision?

Highly suspect that these witnesses are willing to talk when there is a reward, but were unable to pick up the phone and call 911 to save a life.

The lawyers' rant was the point of my 1st post -- and nowhere did I say that rewards were never offered, I'm just outraged at the EXTRA attention given due to the bicycle being in the mix. They're promoting the stereotype, all the while IGNORING the truth that motorists are just as bad (in my experience), and using this tragedy as a forum for anti-cycling advocacy.

Some of us need to read the words written, and less between the lines.

Probably because so far as I can tell, they're only giving money to whoever finds the cyclist... Unless they offered an earlier reward for anybody who had seen anything.

Sadly that is too true. Which is why instead of offering a reward concentrating on the cyclist, it should have been broad enough to ask for any information. Instead of concentrating on just the cyclist.





It's exactly why he shouldn't have run off. Something tells me he may have been in a hurry to get out because he knew it was serious.
But then I have to wonder, if these people saw him and heard him say that he was trying to avoid a car - why didn't they stop him - and why didn't they say they saw him in the first place?It is possible that given that they were on the ground together that Mr. Steed told the cyclist that he was okay. And that could be why the cyclist "just took off."

And given that from what the witnesses have said about the cyclist having swerved to to avoid a car. IF the car and the cyclist came into contact that would explain the "loud noise" that's been reported. And as I asked IF the car impacted the cyclist sending it into the pedestrian doesn't that shift the blame for the collision to the driver of the car and not the cyclist? And also given that Mr. Steed is dead the cyclist can (and possibly) will say anything to try and cover his ass.

Until the cyclist is found or turns himself in all we can do is speculate on what happened. As there are only three people who know. The driver of the car, the cyclist, and Mr. Steed. Unfortunately Mr. Steed has passed and can't tell us anything.

Add to it that the "swerved out of the path of a car" implies that the collision was on the road and not a sidewalk. So why the lawyers rant against cyclist riding on the sidewalk, if that played no part in the collision?

Highly suspect that these witnesses are willing to talk when there is a reward, but were unable to pick up the phone and call 911 to save a life.

A very good question. It almost sounds as if the lawyers are on a witch hunt.

And that's a very good point.

The lawyers' rant was the point of my 1st post -- and nowhere did I say that rewards were never offered, I'm just outraged at the EXTRA attention given due to the bicycle being in the mix. They're promoting the stereotype, all the while IGNORING the truth that motorists are just as bad (in my experience), and using this tragedy as a forum for anti-cycling advocacy.

Some of us need to read the words written, and less between the lines.

Good point, and as I have suggested it is possible the car that the cyclist "swerved to avoid" is the one who is really responsible for the collision and that the cyclist is just as innocent of a victim as is Mr. Steed.

I guess it's just so egregious that the hit-&-run perp was on a bike that they have to post a reward and get into 'law-and-order advocacy' -- after all, it's not something that that would happen with a car, would it? Ohh -- it happens so often, they couldn't afford to pay the REWARDS!

I also hope the punk gets caught, there's no excuse to run someone down with a bike, but the extra advocacy is misplaced. And oh yeah SURE -- he's just talking about the 'bad' riders....BUUUUULLLLLL-.............................. .

If you think there are no bad riders out there, I have a bridge for sale.;)

The cycling community doesn't need the kind of person in it, that will hit a pedestrian and run. Collisions between bicycles and pedestrians do happen, and when they do, the proper thing to do, is make sure that emergency medical services are contacted. If that means you have to stay on scene and make a statement to police, well, that's the way it is. Even if it means being charged with a traffic infraction.

Of course we don't have the whole story, the person on the bicycle (POB) -- I don't want to call them a cyclist at this point -- may have lost control after being tapped by a car, and that caused him to hit the pedestrian. The POB may have run a red traffic signal or stop sign, causing him to hit the pedestrian who was in a cross walk. The POB may have been on a sidewalk, or the pedestrian could have walked out in front of the bicycle, without looking, causing the collision. This last one is common, people don't look before crossing streets anymore, they listen for a car engine, and if they don't hear one, they cross. People on electric scooters and in hybrid cars (in electric only mode) sometimes have the same problem.

It's hard to tell which of these things happened, for all we know the POB may have been drunk, stoned or of interest to police for other things, and that's why they ran. It's also more and more common for a three way incident between a car, bicycle and pedestrian that the car and pedestrian can do no wrong and that is why they ran.

If you think there are no bad riders out there, I have a bridge for sale.;)

The cycling community doesn't need the kind of person in it, that will hit a pedestrian and run. Collisions between bicycles and pedestrians do happen, and when they do, the proper thing to do, is make sure that emergency medical services are contacted. If that means you have to stay on scene and make a statement to police, well, that's the way it is. Even if it means being charged with a traffic infraction.

Of course we don't have the whole story, the person on the bicycle (POB) -- I don't want to call them a cyclist at this point -- may have lost control after being tapped by a car, and that caused him to hit the pedestrian. The POB may have run a red traffic signal or stop sign, causing him to hit the pedestrian who was in a cross walk. The POB may have been on a sidewalk, or the pedestrian could have walked out in front of the bicycle, without looking, causing the collision. This last one is common, people don't look before crossing streets anymore, they listen for a car engine, and if they don't hear one, they cross. People on electric scooters and in hybrid cars (in electric only mode) sometimes have the same problem.

It's hard to tell which of these things happened, for all we know the POB may have been drunk, stoned or of interest to police for other things, and that's why they ran. It's also more and more common for a three way incident between a car, bicycle and pedestrian that the car and pedestrian can do no wrong and that is why they ran.

+1

There are some horrible cyclists out there. Some idiot actually hit my wife and cracked her frame. He saw flew out of a blind alley, hit her, looked at her on the ground, took off his headphones and said 'what?', and promptly rode off, leaving her and her broken bike on the pavement.

This idea of 'the cyclist is always right' is totally mind boggling to me, as you some people think cyclists are all of one mind. Urgh.

This idea of 'the cyclist is always right' is totally mind boggling to me, as you some people think cyclists are all of one mind. Urgh.I missed the part where everyone said the cyclist was right, in leaving the scene. In fact I did not note ANYONE claim that was OK.

Only one comment even gave a possible reason as to how that might occur and it would be reasonable.
And frankly, what if the cyclist and pedestrian both got back up, said they were OK and the pedestrian collapsed after the cyclist left. People with that type of head injury do think they are fine until they either have a severe headache or flat out collapse. Just as likely as all the other guesses flying around.

All the information we really have is from 2 paid witnesses who could not be troubled to call 911.

I missed the part where everyone said the cyclist was right, in leaving the scene. In fact I did not note ANYONE claim that was OK.

Only one comment even gave a possible reason as to how that might occur and it would be reasonable.
And frankly, what if the cyclist and pedestrian both got back up, said they were OK and the pedestrian collapsed after the cyclist left. People with that type of head injury do think they are fine until they either have a severe headache or flat out collapse. Just as likely as all the other guesses flying around.

All the information we really have is from 2 paid witnesses who could not be troubled to call 911.

It seems no matter what the situation on A&S there will always be some trying to somehow absollve the cyclist of responsibility, or playing the 'poor victim' card. It's really amazing to me that you put someone on a bike and the normal rules of society seem to fall away from them for some here. The same actions on foot or in a car and they are the devil incarnate. It's truly bizarre thinking.

It seems no matter what the situation on A&S there will always be some trying to somehow absollve the cyclist of responsibility, or playing the 'poor victim' card. It's really amazing to me that you put someone on a bike and the normal rules of society seem to fall away from them for some here. The same actions on foot or in a car and they are the devil incarnate. It's truly bizarre thinking.Can you name that some that ALWAYS say the cyclist is not at fault?

In Hawaii, a study showed that for adult cyclist, motorist were at fault at least 70% of the time. Maybe that is part of the reason that many believe that cyclist are less likely to be at fault.

Wow- interesting posts. Well, as one who actually LIVES in Philadelphia, let me explain a probable reason for what DX-MAN and others see as the apparent blame-shifting to the cyclists in general in the news stories. Lately (like for the past five years, actually), there's been an exponential increase of sidewalk riders, especially in Center City. When I say exponential, I mean an extraordinarily high increase in such behavior over the past several months.

Peoples' anger is up, and justifiably so. Under no circumstances do cyclists belong on a city sidewalk, and like most urban communities, we have an ordinance about that. It's not enforced. So, we have all manner of people riding all manner of bikes on sidewalks, weaving at high speed in and out between pedestrians, blowing through red lights and stop signs, etc., etc., etc.- you know the drill.

Fact is, these jokers are first-class a-holes. And people (like me, a committed VC who is either in the lane or walking my bike, as well as the myriad pedestrians in this town) are completely fed up. Unfortunately, we don't have nearly enough facts in this very sad case, and like many have said in here, we're probably never going to get the guy (if it is even a guy).

But there is a very good reason why any news articles you see about this case (and the recent editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer about cycling responsibly) have what anyone with a particular world view would call "anti-cyclist." One really has to look at this from both sides, because we, and they, have very valid points.

Several years ago I was riding a mtb along side of traffic that had stopped for a light. Some lady decided she didn't want to wait anymore and turned into a parking lot...she had been sitting still for a while and didn't signal. After she cut me off I swerved in front of her, hopped the curb and hit another car that was coming out of the lot. The police said it was a no fault accident since the first driver didn't stop. The second driver was furious and had to wait for a tow truck to tow her away while I rode home. I easily would have killed a pedestrian.

All the information we really have is from 2 paid witnesses who could not be troubled to call 911.

??? What exactly are you suggesting by "paid" ...

Wow- interesting posts. Well, as one who actually LIVES in Philadelphia, let me explain a probable reason for what DX-MAN and others see as the apparent blame-shifting to the cyclists in general in the news stories. Lately (like for the past five years, actually), there's been an exponential increase of sidewalk riders, especially in Center City. When I say exponential, I mean an extraordinarily high increase in such behavior over the past several months. I haven't done any walking in Philly recently, but when I was in D.C. recently the sidewalk riders were driving me nuts. The sidewalks were packed with pedestrians, and instead of getting off and walking, or riding in the street, there were a large number of cyclists trying to ride on the sidewalk. I figure I should be able to wander aimlessly as a pedestrian on a sidewalk, not worry about holding my line for fear that I will be run over by a cyclist. The car traffic was high enough that a cyclist wouldn't have caused any problems.

As far as the story in the OP, it will be interesting if the cyclist is treated more harshly than a motorist in a similar situation. As we all know, if the motorist wasn't drunk, an incident like this is probably not going to have any ramifications for a motorist. Even if there was a hit and run.

^^^ +1. Like I often courteously tell cyclists on the sidewalk- "it's a sidewalk, not a sideride." I usually get a verbal or visual f-you, but I don't care. They're the stupid ones. These idiots are as much of a danger to themselves as to pedestrians and other cyclists. If one of them listens or even stops to discuss, that could be one life saved- maybe his/her own.

I would be the first to testify against (or sue) them were they to hit someone (me) and the case ended up in court.

I missed the part where everyone said the cyclist was right, in leaving the scene. In fact I did not note ANYONE claim that was OK.

Only one comment even gave a possible reason as to how that might occur and it would be reasonable.
And frankly, what if the cyclist and pedestrian both got back up, said they were OK and the pedestrian collapsed after the cyclist left. People with that type of head injury do think they are fine until they either have a severe headache or flat out collapse. Just as likely as all the other guesses flying around.

All the information we really have is from 2 paid witnesses who could not be troubled to call 911.

You're right on all counts. And using your scenario if both got up (or even while on the ground) and said that they were okay and that the other could leave. Is that truly fleeing the scene of an accident?

And hopefully when and if the cyclist is identified, his lawyer will raise that point in court.

??? What exactly are you suggesting by "paid" ...

I think that he's suggesting that if it wasn't for the reward offer that they might not have otherwise have come forward and said anything.

Huh? How could you possibly fault an employer for putting up money to find the person that killed their employee?


Because they are so hyerpsensitive to the faintest possibility that a cyclist may be cast in bad light, that they are willing to waive their most basic human instincts.

Cyclists should be among the LEADERS in trying to get this guy. It is the 'urban assault mazzholes' [to throw numerous groups together in one phrase) who ruin it for the rest of us cyclists. Couple this with constant whining about 'having to share bike paths with pedestrians and dog walkers (horrors!) and the cyclist agenda my just start running backwards.


roughstuff

Um, any reports on how the collision actually occurred?
Does anyone even know for sure the collision was the cyclist fault?


Don't jump my case, because I do agree the cyclist was a criminal in leaving the scene and not rendering aid, but I really would like to hear the rest of the story.


Well, since there is such a huff and puff group who think AUTOMOBILES (because of their size and velocity) should always be at fault when they hit a cyclist, then by all means a CYCLIST should be at fault when they clock a pedestrian. Whats good for the goose.....


roughstuff

I haven't done any walking in Philly recently, but when I was in D.C. recently the sidewalk riders were driving me nuts. .... ....

You mean they didn't give you THREE FEET? The critical mazzhole mantra?

roughstuff

I think that he's suggesting that if it wasn't for the reward offer that they might not have otherwise have come forward and said anything.

I was hoping he just meant they have jobs. :lol:

No, but I don't see anything anywhere suggesting they've gotten any money for coming forward.

I was hoping he just meant they have jobs. :lol:

No, but I don't see anything anywhere suggesting they've gotten any money for coming forward.

Not yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if the possibility of collecting some or all of the reward was part of the motive for them coming forward.

As I am sure that sadly there are people out there who are "sitting" on information in a wide range of cases and that they're waiting to see if a reward is offered before they come forward.

It's sad, but true.

I recommend the guy only come forward if he can collect the reward from the law firm.

I was hoping he just meant they have jobs. :lol:

No, but I don't see anything anywhere suggesting they've gotten any money for coming forward.True but it is likely that the original flyers asking for witnesses also included a reward; considering they are offering $10,000 for finding a cyclist. I do not fault the offering of a reward, I just get pissed when, IF someone has information, they do not report it to police; but somehow become all talkative when money is offered. I strongly suspect the information from those type of people.

Well, since there is such a huff and puff group who think AUTOMOBILES (because of their size and velocity) should always be at fault when they hit a cyclist, then by all means a CYCLIST should be at fault when they clock a pedestrian. Whats good for the goose.....


roughstuff

As I read that thread, that was included in their proposal. I believe that is the way it works in the country(ies) that have tried the idea.

Cyclists should be among the LEADERS in trying to get this guy.


roughstuff



Cyclists should be among the LEADERS in trying to get to the truth of what actually happened in this incident and calling for the cyclist to come forward.


roughstuff
Fixed it for you!

Your instant asssumption of guilt is off base. Everyone seems to agree that it was wrong of him to leave the scene (assuming that the prior possible scenario about both saying they were OK did not occur). IEven though I gave a possible scenario and I think it is the less likely scenario, I am still willing to keep an open mind, unlike some others (always hang the cyclist) views here.

I'm not seeing much in the way of fact in any of the published articles on this. For all we know they both could have been hit by a car, bus or a freakin UFO. Of course the fact that the cyclist hasn't manned up and come forward isn't going to earn him any brownie points or sympathetic impressions of possible innocence.

Fixed it for you!

Your instant asssumption of guilt is off base. Everyone seems to agree that it was wrong of him to leave the scene (assuming that the prior possible scenario about both saying they were OK did not occur). IEven though I gave a possible scenario and I think it is the less likely scenario, I am still willing to keep an open mind, unlike some others (always hang the cyclist) views here.

I'll be waiting for to keep an open mind the next time there is a car vs bike accident.

BTW, I have yet to see any 'always hang the cyclist' views on this board (not surprising as we are all cyclists) yet I see a ton of 'always hang the driver' posts. Can you point out some of these 'always hang the cyclist' posts?

Can you name that some that ALWAYS say the cyclist is not at fault?

In Hawaii, a study showed that for adult cyclist, motorist were at fault at least 70% of the time. Maybe that is part of the reason that many believe that cyclist are less likely to be at fault.


I'll be waiting for to keep an open mind the next time there is a car vs bike accident.

BTW, I have yet to see any 'always hang the cyclist' views on this board (not surprising as we are all cyclists) yet I see a ton of 'always hang the driver' posts. Can you point out some of these 'always hang the cyclist' posts?
I asked first and am still waiting for an answer from you.

But just check out Old Town's post for the most recent "always hang the cyclist" poster in BFs.

I asked first and am still waiting for an answer from you.

But just check out Old Town's post for the most recent "always hang the cyclist" poster in BFs.

Judging by your posts you seem to think that the cyclist is never to blame.

Your turn!

I asked first and am still waiting for an answer from you.

But just check out Old Town's post for the most recent "always hang the cyclist" poster in BFs.

Here's the first post of Old Town's I run across. Seem to be blaming drivers for being idiots.


Here in Key West we are the last stop along US Rt. 1. It is the only way in and off the island by auto. Most of you know KW is a party town. Its only real industry is Navy/Air Force and about ten million bars open long into the mornings. It's a drinking town. It's been estimated that 50% of the cars leaving KW after 11pm are piloted by legal drunks. I do not drive a car or ride a bike after about 9pm. Too many wayward vehicles. Do any of you other posters who live in college or tourist towns have similar problems with DWI traffic?

Here is another article on this:

Man struck by bicyclist in Center City dies (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20091027_Man_struck_by_bicyclist_in_Center_City_dies.html)

<quote>
Initially, police reported the incident as a transport to the hospital. They later learned that several people in the area heard a loud noise, then saw Steed and another man on the ground. The other man had been riding a bicycle and apparently crashed into Steed. The cyclist got up, fixed the handlebars on his bike, and acknowledged that he had swerved out of the path of a car and hit Steed, witnesses said. He then fled the scene.
</quote>

Did anyone actually see the cyclist and pedestrian collide? The above paragraph says that several people heard a loud noise and then saw Steed and the other man on the ground.

And here's another article:

Comatose man apparently had been hit by bike (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20091023_Comatose_man_apparently_had_been_hit_by_bike.html?posted=n)

<quote>
His colleagues soon learned that police on the scene of the Oct. 15 incident found no witnesses who could explain what happened. Thus, there was no active investigation.
</quote>

It wasn't until the law firm got involved that they found two witnesses.

<quote>
Within days, they had two eyewitnesses ready to tell the police that they heard a loud crash, then saw two men on the ground, one of whom had been riding a bicycle. The bicyclist, according to those witnesses, indicated that he had hit Steed, then vanished from the scene.
</quote>

Here is a legitimate question. How do we know that the two witnesses really saw anything and that it wasn't the incentive of the reward money that prompted them to come forward?

Also given that in the first article it's said that the cyclist "swerved to avoid a car" how do we know that the car didn't clip the cyclist throwing him into Steed? And if that is the case it would:

a) explain the "loud noise" the witnesses heard
b) place the responsibility for the death on the driver of the car not the cyclist

Yes, it was wrong of the cyclist to ride off like he did. But he may not have realized the extent of the injuries that Steed sustained as a result of the collision.


Your links are much better. From yuor second link:



Witnesses said the bicyclist was a thin, white man who appeared to be in his early 20s. He was about 5-foot-9, wearing a white hooded sweatshirt with red spots, and rode a while mountain bike.

Anyone with information is asked to call the accident-investigation division at 215-685-3180.

A bit more than a white guy on a white bike. Also date and time are given.

As to witnesses, I can easily understand someone who got a good look at the guy, but not the accident itself not coming forward until they find out someone was killed or seriously hurt. Heck there could even be someone a block away who saw and knows the guy but did not ven know about the accident.

Judging by your posts you seem to think that the cyclist is never to blame.

Your turn!


Um, any reports on how the collision actually occurred?
Does anyone even know for sure the collision was the cyclist fault?


Don't jump my case, because I do agree the cyclist was a criminal in leaving the scene and not rendering aid, but I really would like to hear the rest of the story.Really!