Advocacy & Safety - $40 million awarded in boy's death

R.I.P., Jose Rincon (http://azstarnet.com/content/tncms/live/azstarnet.com/news/local/article_2dcbf24a-1830-11df-b30d-001cc4c002e0.html).

R.I.P., Jose Rincon (http://azstarnet.com/content/tncms/live/azstarnet.com/news/local/article_2dcbf24a-1830-11df-b30d-001cc4c002e0.html).

<quote>
Rumsey, whose blood-alcohol level was of 0.249 two hours after the crash, was sentenced to 14 years in prison last year. Chuy’s, which is where she had been drinking, already settled with the family for an undisclosed amount.
</quote>

How much does one have to drink to have a BAC .249 two hours after the crash??? How was he able to drive a car? What was his BAC at the time time of the crash if it was a .249 two hours after the crash?

How much does one have to drink to have a BAC .249 two hours after the crash??? How was he able to drive a car? What was his BAC at the time time of the crash if it was a .249 two hours after the crash?

Unfortunately, if they didn't test at the time of the crash, you'll never know. If he'd been drinking heavily right before the crash, it's quite possible his BAC was lower at the time of the crash than it was two hours later.

So what was wrong with the road and how did it contribute?

Here is a discussion (http://blog.forensicscience.ufl.edu/2009/08/07/driving-while-impaired/) of "retrograde analysis," which is the science of trying to figure out a peson's BAL from blood tested hours after a crash. Generally, alcohol is eliminated at a rate of .015 to .02 g/dL/h, and all alcohol is absorbed within 90 mintues of the last drink (http://blog.forensicscience.ufl.edu/2009/08/07/driving-while-impaired/). Those are typical numbers, but each person is different, and when you're trying to apply generalized figures to specific cases, it's easy to be wrong.

As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for that kind of money!!!

$13 million... :(

is there more to the article? why do the taxpayers get involved?

So what was wrong with the road and how did it contribute?

There is an explanation here:

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_40300742-341f-5ecf-9b2a-c350555a61d6.html

This seems unlikely to stand on appeal.

The wikipedia article on alcohol effects includes a chart that lists .250 to .400 as being in the "stupor" range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_effects_of_alcohol

There is an explanation here:

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_40300742-341f-5ecf-9b2a-c350555a61d6.html

This seems unlikely to stand on appeal.

All it says is "poor design of the road." Well heck that could be applied to any old road...

All it says is "poor design of the road." Well heck that could be applied to any old road...

From the article:

Last week, the Rincons' attorney, Ronald Mercaldo, told jurors a city engineer abandoned plans to add 5 feet of asphalt to the roadway during an improvement project, creating a large offset in the lanes on either side of Vozack Lane, just east of Harrison. As a result, Rumsey ended up in the bike lane when her lane ended and she tried to merge.
Rumsey's attorney, Stefano Corradini, agreed his client and Chuy's were largely responsible for the crash, but he, too, blamed the city because of the road design. He would not comment after the verdict.
Attorney Richard Davis, who defended the city, told jurors that engineers did nothing wrong. He blamed Rumsey, saying roads can't be designed to be drunken-driver-proof.
The jury deliberated less than three hours.

Sorry, reading error on my part! (remember, first the coffee, then the comments)


From the article:

Last week, the Rincons' attorney, Ronald Mercaldo, told jurors a city engineer abandoned plans to add 5 feet of asphalt to the roadway during an improvement project, creating a large offset in the lanes on either side of Vozack Lane, just east of Harrison. As a result, Rumsey ended up in the bike lane when her lane ended and she tried to merge.
Rumsey's attorney, Stefano Corradini, agreed his client and Chuy's were largely responsible for the crash, but he, too, blamed the city because of the road design. He would not comment after the verdict.
Attorney Richard Davis, who defended the city, told jurors that engineers did nothing wrong. He blamed Rumsey, saying roads can't be designed to be drunken-driver-proof.
The jury deliberated less than three hours.

As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for that kind of money!!!

$13 million... :(

If the city is partially at fault then why shouldn't be held responsible? And if the city is partially at fault then it's the tax payers responsibility to make it right.

There is an explanation here:

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_40300742-341f-5ecf-9b2a-c350555a61d6.html

This seems unlikely to stand on appeal.

I tried looking in Google Street view and on Google Earth, granted not the clearest and most likely not up up to date but I'm not seeing any signs how "Rumsey ended up in the bike lane when her lane ended and she tried to merge." unless "her lane" was the right hand turn lane and she went straight instead of turning.

I've seen some wicked stupid road designs.

we had a case here in MA about 20 years ago where a young couple drove off an elevated bridge because the closed lane wasn't marked properly. there was a jersey barrier but it wasn't enough

there have been times where I have found myself on a confusing piece of roadway and then when I realized i was able to move over or whatever to be in the correct lane, etc. so I can certainly see how some type of bad road design can contribute to an accident.

multiply this kind of confusion with inebriation and excessive speed with the bad timing of two kids on bikes and you've got a recipe for disaster.

regardless, drunk drvers who kill are not punished nearly enough to suit their crime, in my opinion

Nice to see a drunken motorist got the book thrown at her for being drunk and killing one bicyclist and injuring another. City of Tucson plans to appeal the $13 million part of the judgment against them.
Unusual to see that kind of result. Good to see an attorney that did some great research and knew what he was doing!
Have lived in Tucson for 32 years and most of the time the culprits get what amounts to a slap on the wrist.
Have been hit by 2 cars and 2 pickup trucks in my 300,000+ miles of bicycling (yes, am that old: 77).
Each time the driver was issued a citation. One had his license suspended for 3 months (drunk) and another had his conditional license revoked.
3 out of the 4 drivers said 'didn't see him/them'. One explained to the police that 'bicyclist was weaving all over the road' but fortunately had witnesses that told a different story.
2 of the hits were in Arizona and one in Michigan.
2 were on my racing bike and 2 were on our tandem. All were during daylight with us wearing bright jerseys.
Fortunately none of the hits resulted in broken bones, but some rather severe briusing and a couple needed months of chiropractic adjustments.
One bike had to be replaced and our custom tandem (back in 1978) sustained $2,200 worth of damage.
For once a tragic story that ended up with the culprit getting real jail time and a big insurance payout.
This was not an 'accident' but negligence on the part of the driver, restaurant and a city road engineer.
Pedal on!
Rudy and Kay/zonatandem/Tucson

Here is a road just waiting for the collision that gets Honolulu sued for a large sum.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/2162/picture006ft3.jpg

I've seen some wicked stupid road designs.

As have I but my concern is there are a lot of localities afraid to build bike lanes because of a perceived increase in liability and this case seems to support that theory which is not good for the facility advocates. Hence the question what did the city do wrong in regards to this bike lane?

Here is a road just waiting for the collision that gets Honolulu sued for a large sum.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/2162/picture006ft3.jpg

I assume there is a bike lane in there somewhere. Looks like they picked the design for when parking is light and placed it where parking is substantial. Some engineers need to ride the stuff they design to get a better clue why AASHTO says what it says.

As have I but my concern is there are a lot of localities afraid to build bike lanes because of a perceived increase in liability and this case seems to support that theory which is not good for the facility advocates. Hence the question what did the city do wrong in regards to this bike lane?Based on the description in the article, the road went from a wide lane to a narrow lane. The design engineers had the chance on rebuilding the road to widen the narrow lane part by 5 feet, but likely chose not to for money reasons.

Thus, just like in my photo, the bike lane zigged farther into the regular, narrowed lane. And the drunk motorist just kept going straight, even through her lane narrowed.

CB HI, I am not sure if you are asserting that there is no way to go from a wide road to a narrow road that will indemnify government. My assumption is that there has to be a good way to do this and the city did not do it that way, hence the law suite. Otherwise without a better way to do things there is no bases for a law suite. So again my question is what did the city do that was wrong here?

I don't think bicyclist have a right to have roads widened.

From satellite pictures the design issue is more the area is filled with dead end cul-de-saqs, forcing riders on to the main highway.

[QUOTE=geo8rge;10406732]I don't think bicyclist have a right to have roads widened. QUOTE]

I am curious, what do you think about the following:
Motorists have the right to have roads for the sole purpose of going fast with as little delay as possible and with little regard to anyone's safety.
As long as other groups of non-motorized transportation are over represented in traffic fatalities and crashes then our roads are designed well for their intended users.
As long as traffic fatalities remain the leading cause of premature death for the ages 1-33 (and increasing) then nothing needs to be done to improve safety.
Road designs that improve motorists safety and/or reduce maintenance of the road should be fought against if they also accommodate cyclists.

I tried looking in Google Street view and on Google Earth, granted not the clearest and most likely not up up to date but I'm not seeing any signs how "Rumsey ended up in the bike lane when her lane ended and she tried to merge." unless "her lane" was the right hand turn lane and she went straight instead of turning.

My take, from the descriptions, is that the driver was eastbound on Broadway, in the right lane west of Harrison, then continued past the 4 lane-width merge left arrows into the right turn lane at Harrison, straight through the intersection and continued driving on the shoulder where she struck the bikes.

The narrowing of the road appears no different than tens of thousands of other road configurations to be found in almost any city or town in the country. The idea that an extra 5 feet of shoulder would have prevented the crash seems ludicrous.

Since it is impossible to engineer a "drunk-proof" road, allowing this judgement to stand would throw every local government in the country into a liability hell with no possible relief.

CB HI, I am not sure if you are asserting that there is no way to go from a wide road to a narrow road that will indemnify government. My assumption is that there has to be a good way to do this and the city did not do it that way, hence the law suite. Otherwise without a better way to do things there is no bases for a law suite. So again my question is what did the city do that was wrong here?I am not asserting anything, I am simply saying that it appears that the lawyers presented evidence that there was a hazard known to the city, the city had the opportunity when reworking the road to remove the hazard and chose not to (likely because of increased cost). Thus the city gets to pay now.

The following link shows the ghost bike (second one, as first was stolen) with a map location of the collision (farther east than laserman assumed). Well past any merge and the motorist would have been off the pavement had she not already merged well before reaching the cyclist.

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM6AAW_Ghost_Bike_Broadway_Vozack_Tucson_AZ

On the following map, please notice the pinch points on the shoulder (maybe considered a bike lane due to right turn lane bike lane just to the west). Those pinch points are likely the hazards that the city knowingly did not remove by adding 5 feet to the shoulder (at least as argued by the lawyers and accepted by the jury).

The marker is about where the collision occurred.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=32.22083,-110.784824&num=1&t=k&sll=32.220787,-110.78506&sspn=0.001988,0.005128&ie=UTF8&ll=32.220787,-110.78506&spn=0.001988,0.004106&z=19

http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/f5d36dbb-5002-407c-8406-67dc568303ef.jpg

http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/8ff530cd-faab-4396-bf76-ba1548a538cd.jpg

http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/93b6a4cc-9c7e-41a1-92b2-8d56dad76171.jpg

The narrowing of the road appears no different than tens of thousands of other road configurations to be found in almost any city or town in the country.

That's what has me scratching my head.


.. I am simply saying that it appears that the lawyers presented evidence that there was a hazard known to the city, ...

And there is a possibility of what the city should have known about the hazard. But all that still leaves me in the dark what that hazard is.

And there is a possibility of what the city should have known about the hazard. But all that still leaves me in the dark what that hazard is.Certainly the jury was not made up of experienced cyclist use to taking the lane. Lawyers showing a jury of motorist, a shoulder that varies from (likely) 5' to only 2' wide, next to a narrow lane would certainly scare the motorist jury with the fear that they might hit the child cyclist themselves, who they believe should only be allowed on the shoulder.

And the city itself, may not believe in VC and did not properly defend itself.

Certainly the jury was not made up of experienced cyclist use to taking the lane. Lawyers showing a jury of motorist, a shoulder that varies from (likely) 5' to only 2' wide, next to a narrow lane would certainly scare the motorist jury with the fear that they might hit the child cyclist themselves, who they believe should only be allowed on the shoulder.

And the city itself, may not believe in VC and did not properly defend itself.

Taking the lane is not under discussion here "As a result, Rumsey [motorist] ended up in the bike lane (http://www.azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_40300742-341f-5ecf-9b2a-c350555a61d6.html)"

If anything the city should be forced to spend $13 million just for cyclists.