Advocacy & Safety - Repeat Offender Fatality

http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_18314318


The dump-truck driver involved in a fatal bicycle accident in Lefthand Canyon on Friday was convicted for his role in a high-profile road-rage altercation with a cyclist in the same area two years ago.

Although the investigation into Friday's crash is still underway, preliminary results show the truck driver -- Christopher G. Loven, 45, of Boulder County -- was at fault because he failed to yield the right of way, Colorado State Patrol Cpl. Eric Wynn said Monday evening.

A decision has not yet been made whether to charge Loven in connection with the death of Eugene Philip Howrey, 73, of Boulder, Wynn said...

Details of the previous encounter can be found here (http://libertyonbikes.blogspot.com/2009/06/wheres-love.html).

From the streetview of the (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lefthand+Canyon+Drive+and+Olde+Stage+Road+&hl=en&ll=40.110671,-105.306058&spn=0.013588,0.033023&sll=40.014986,-105.270546&sspn=0.216665,0.528374&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.110809,-105.306044&panoid=Ycg1scORp7OdZBAEAd3Pqw&cbp=12,193.53,,0,4.15) intersection, it does seem like a low-visibility turn where a legitimate mistake could have been made. Of course, the driver's history does seem to suggest otherwise.

I hope he gets long prison time.

How sad. :(

Oh and this guy seems like he has a history of violence. It's never good to jump to conclusions, but dang this looks bad.

this is why it's important to formally complain about incidents and near misses. motorists usually get off too easy when they kill and maim with their cars, but creating a paper-trail of incidents and near misses makes it easier to get stiffer charges and sentencing when things go bad enough that the police investigate.

if not for the earlier case (and the cyclist who pursued it) this would be "just an accident" but now it's under closer scrutiny by investigating police, and will likely soon be under closer scrutiny by a court.

http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_18314318

the picture of the truck driver... maybe it was really just an accident, and the driver is remorseful. or maybe he's thinking "oh ****! i only meant to scare the guy, now i'm ****ed."

we'll never really know.

http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_18314318

the picture of the truck driver... maybe it was really just an accident, and the driver is remorseful. or maybe he's thinking "oh ****! i only meant to scare the guy, now i'm ****ed."

we'll never really know.

I saw the picture and thought the same thing. He could be super remorseful or could just be 100% selfishly thinking about how screwed he is. Or both.

By the way: the comments on that news site = I want to shoot myself in the face now.

From the streetview of the (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lefthand+Canyon+Drive+and+Olde+Stage+Road+&hl=en&ll=40.110671,-105.306058&spn=0.013588,0.033023&sll=40.014986,-105.270546&sspn=0.216665,0.528374&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.110809,-105.306044&panoid=Ycg1scORp7OdZBAEAd3Pqw&cbp=12,193.53,,0,4.15) intersection, it does seem like a low-visibility turn where a legitimate mistake could have been made. Of course, the driver's history does seem to suggest otherwise.
I recall that intersection, having driven through it numerous times. If you don't exceed the 35mph speed limit, the sight lines are actually quite good. Someone turning left on to Olde Stage from Lefthand has no excuses for hitting someone.

If he voluntarily gives up driving, it is this one.

maybe it was really just an accident, and the driver is remorseful.

If he continues driving, especially the dump truck, it is this one.

maybe he's thinking "oh ****! i only meant to scare the guy, now i'm ****ed."

I recall that intersection, having driven through it numerous times. If you don't exceed the 35mph speed limit, the sight lines are actually quite good. Someone turning left on to Olde Stage from Lefthand has no excuses for hitting someone.
Yes, I agree. Even from Google Streetview, it's clear that the motorist would have had a unobstructed view of the approaching cyclist.

I doubt he'll be charged with a crime.

I hope the dead bicyclist's family sues the motorist's employer for millions, and wins. Then perhaps the motorist will become unemployed due to being too much of a liabilty to his employer. And, perhaps this will lead to him never operating large vehicles again.

I think the penalty for killing a bicyclist with a motor vehicle in the USA, even without mens rea, should be that you have to pedal a bicycle everywhere you go for the next year. With this penalty in place, no motorist would ever dare drive close to a bicyclist.

I really don't want Colorado State Patrol Cpl. Eric Wynn investigating this case:


...preliminary results show the truck driver -- Christopher G. Loven, 45, of Boulder County -- was at fault because he failed to yield the right of way, Colorado State Patrol Cpl. Eric Wynn said Monday evening.


A decision has not yet been made whether to charge Loven in connection with the death of Eugene Philip Howrey, 73, of Boulder, Wynn said.


The Camera reported in 2009 that Loven was ticketed on suspicion of reckless endangerment after a cyclist said Loven used his truck to push him into oncoming traffic near Lee Hill Drive and Olde Stage Road. A witness confirmed the cyclist's account.


Wynn said investigators will use evidence only from Friday's crash in making a determination of fault. "These are two separate incidents," Wynn said Monday. "You can't hold someone accountable in one case for something that happened in another case."

Does this mean the drivers previous conviction of "reckless endangerment" involving a cyclist not be considered :eek:?

I recall that intersection, having driven through it numerous times. If you don't exceed the 35mph speed limit, the sight lines are actually quite good. Someone turning left on to Olde Stage from Lefthand has no excuses for hitting someone.

Yep. Plenty of visibility there. I've ridden there a few times. It's weird hearing about someone dying in a place you like to ride.

Does this mean the drivers previous conviction of "reckless endangerment" involving a cyclist not be considered :eek:?
officially, the previous incident cannot be considered as part of the investigation or any criminal case. unofficially, i expect that it would influence the outcome of the investigation (whether or not charges are filed, what charges are filed) and any criminal case (if not the verdict, it would likely influence the sentencing).

in other words... if the investigations shows that it's "just an accident" then it may end there... but if they find fault with the truck driver, they're likely to unofficially consider his record and bump up the charges a notch. in either case, this incident investigation will be limited to an investigation of this incident. that's the difference between an incident investigation in civil society and an inquisition by an angry mob.

in any case, his previous record will certainly count against him in a civil case (assuming that's pursued)... and i'd hope that leaves him with not enough money to renew his driver's license.

As a cyclist, regardless of who's at fault, you want to protect yourself from being clobbered by a left hand turn. you never know what idiot is too distracted to notice you coming down the road. Many times, drivers can't determine how fast a cyclist is going too and think there's plenty of time to turn. Some of the things I do when approaching a vehicle that's waiting to turn left in front of you:

- Take the lane. Unfortunately, drivers don't look at the bike lane too much when looking for oncoming vehicles.
- Slow down if the sun is behind you or if their windshield looks dirty or if it's wet or if you can't see inside of their car
- Expect to hit the brakes any second (hands on both brakes)
- Sit up to look bigger and more visible
- If a vehicle in front of you is blocking you from being seen clearly, stay in the left side of the lane if you're taking the lane

From the streetview of the (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lefthand+Canyon+Drive+and+Olde+Stage+Road+&hl=en&ll=40.110671,-105.306058&spn=0.013588,0.033023&sll=40.014986,-105.270546&sspn=0.216665,0.528374&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.110809,-105.306044&panoid=Ycg1scORp7OdZBAEAd3Pqw&cbp=12,193.53,,0,4.15) intersection, it does seem like a low-visibility turn where a legitimate mistake could have been made. Of course, the driver's history does seem to suggest otherwise.

Great map, but I'm trying to figure it out. Is the pink circle with the A inside representing the rider when he was struck and the dull yellow line the path of the truck? Or is that stuff just meaningless?

As a cyclist, regardless of who's at fault, you want to protect yourself from being clobbered by a left hand turn. you never know what idiot is too distracted to notice you coming down the road. Many times, drivers can't determine how fast a cyclist is going too and think there's plenty of time to turn. Some of the things I do when approaching a vehicle that's waiting to turn left in front of you:

- Take the lane. Unfortunately, drivers don't look at the bike lane too much when looking for oncoming vehicles.
- Slow down if the sun is behind you or if their windshield looks dirty or if it's wet or if you can't see inside of their car
- Expect to hit the brakes any second (hands on both brakes)
- Sit up to look bigger and more visible
- If a vehicle in front of you is blocking you from being seen clearly, stay in the left side of the lane if you're taking the lane

This is very good info, it's the same stuff I practice too. When riding a bike sometimes you just have to slow down and play it safe rather then just charge on thinking someone saw you; I know that may bother some of you who just want to go fast and don't want to ruin a training ride by slowing down.

officially, the previous incident cannot be considered as part of the investigation or any criminal case. unofficially, i expect that it would influence the outcome of the investigation (whether or not charges are filed, what charges are filed) and any criminal case (if not the verdict, it would likely influence the sentencing).

in other words... if the investigations shows that it's "just an accident" then it may end there... but if they find fault with the truck driver, they're likely to unofficially consider his record and bump up the charges a notch. in either case, this incident investigation will be limited to an investigation of this incident. that's the difference between an incident investigation in civil society and an inquisition by an angry mob.

in any case, his previous record will certainly count against him in a civil case (assuming that's pursued)... and i'd hope that leaves him with not enough money to renew his driver's license.

Thanks Smasha :thumb:. My worry is that the cop who conducts the investigation will not take the drivers previous record into account even if the investigation turns up inconclusive.

Its like when cops arrest someone for prostitution or soliciting prostitution. They don't see the act, but always ask if the person has been arrested before. If they have been the cop usually issues a summons and let the court handle the rest.

Thanks Smasha :thumb:. My worry is that the cop who conducts the investigation will not take the drivers previous record into account even if the investigation turns up inconclusive.

Its like when cops arrest someone for prostitution or soliciting prostitution. They don't see the act, but always ask if the person has been arrested before. If they have been the cop usually issues a summons and let the court handle the rest.
Legally, they cannot take the driver's previous record into account, and ethically, they should not. If there is not enough evidence to file criminal charges, then they should not.

Great map, but I'm trying to figure it out. Is the pink circle with the A inside representing the rider when he was struck and the dull yellow line the path of the truck? Or is that stuff just meaningless?
Meaningless, added on by Google.

http://goo.gl/maps/7pFj

A better view of the map. Cyclist would have been traveling east, turning north. Truck driver would have been traveling south, turning south on to Olde Stage Road. Truck driver would have to legally yield to cyclist.

Again, sight lines are very clear at this intersection.

Great map, but I'm trying to figure it out. Is the pink circle with the A inside representing the rider when he was struck and the dull yellow line the path of the truck? Or is that stuff just meaningless?
As Mikeybikes noted, it's meaningless. I'll add that from the perspective of the link, the truck driver would be coming from this side turning towards the left, and the cyclist would be coming from the right towards us (the camera).

Legally, they cannot take the driver's previous record into account, and ethically, they should not. If there is not enough evidence to file criminal charges, then they should not.

Perhaps I've watched to much Law & Order, but don't they usually takes someones previous record into account? Don't get me wrong mikeybikes I'm not arguing with you. I just find it hard to grasp that the severity of the first incident regarding this driver shouldn't come into play when examining a 2nd incident.

I'll give a second example. Suppose someone gets pulled over for speeding 10 miles over the posted speed limit. Isn't there some leeway as far as a cop issuing a ticket or a warning? However if the cop runs the license and it shows that the person was stopped 1 month before doesn't that sway there decision? If previous offenses shouldn't be taken into consideration then why would the cop even check the license?

I am going to draw some flames with this one, but as a cyclist (motor or pedal) it is up to you to not *let* other people hurt you. It doesn't matter who had right of way, who was driving legally or illegally, who was paying attention or not. In an altercation with a car or truck the cyclist will lose, you will be the one dead or in the hospital and the car driver will feel bad about it.

When I ride I expect people to drive stupid, I expect people to try and hurt me, I think and plan so I don't let them. When I ride I always watch for escape routes and plan for the car drivers to do the absolute worst thing they can. This has saved my bacon on countless occasions.

I yield my legal right of way almost daily to motor vehicle drivers. It pisses me off but not as much as looking at a traction bag hanging from a post over my bed would.

Yes, I do report as many details as I can to LEO when I am assaulted by a motor vehicle, so far nothing has ever come of it. Unless LEO witnessed this "accident" I doubt anything will come of it. It is the drivers word against the word of a dead guy.

Ride safe, protect yourself, don't expect the other guy to follow the rules. I have few enough friends and riding buddies, I don't want to lose any more. If you want to absolutely insist on your road rights then feel free to take them, but be prepared to complain from your hospital bed that it was someone else's fault.

I'll give a second example. Suppose someone gets pulled over for speeding 10 miles over the posted speed limit. Isn't there some leeway as far as a cop issuing a ticket or a warning? However if the cop runs the license and it shows that the person was stopped 1 month before doesn't that sway there decision? If previous offenses shouldn't be taken into consideration then why would the cop even check the license?
among other things, checking the license tells the cop if there are outstanding warrants and if the license is currently valid.

again: "incident investigation" = investigation of incident, not investigation of driver.

when it comes to filing charges based on that investigation, whether it's right or wrong, the police will likely consider the driver's previous dealing's with police.

I am going to draw some flames with this one, but as a cyclist (motor or pedal) it is up to you to not *let* other people hurt you. It doesn't matter who had right of way, who was driving legally or illegally, who was paying attention or not. In an altercation with a car or truck the cyclist will lose, you will be the one dead or in the hospital and the car driver will feel bad about it.

When I ride I expect people to drive stupid, I expect people to try and hurt me, I think and plan so I don't let them. When I ride I always watch for escape routes and plan for the car drivers to do the absolute worst thing they can. This has saved my bacon on countless occasions.

I yield my legal right of way almost daily to motor vehicle drivers. It pisses me off but not as much as looking at a traction bag hanging from a post over my bed would.

Yes, I do report as many details as I can to LEO when I am assaulted by a motor vehicle, so far nothing has ever come of it. Unless LEO witnessed this "accident" I doubt anything will come of it. It is the drivers word against the word of a dead guy.

Ride safe, protect yourself, don't expect the other guy to follow the rules. I have few enough friends and riding buddies, I don't want to lose any more. If you want to absolutely insist on your road rights then feel free to take them, but be prepared to complain from your hospital bed that it was someone else's fault.

Great post, no flames from me!! I practice the same habit I use when driving my car and that is I drive the other persons car for them...meaning I will yield to them regardless if I have the right away, all drivers are stupid and I have to drive for them...and just like you it pisses me off too. Racing cars back in the day helped me all these years to be constantly aware of my surroundings knowing where escape routes are as you mentioned, looking far ahead scanning for trouble ahead, looking at cars in front of the car directly in front of me for early signs of trouble, just lots of little things that most people never do-they simply drive by feel.

I am going to draw some flames with this one, but as a cyclist (motor or pedal) it is up to you to not *let* other people hurt you. It doesn't matter who had right of way, who was driving legally or illegally, who was paying attention or not. In an altercation with a car or truck the cyclist will lose, you will be the one dead or in the hospital and the car driver will feel bad about it.

When I ride I expect people to drive stupid, I expect people to try and hurt me, I think and plan so I don't let them. When I ride I always watch for escape routes and plan for the car drivers to do the absolute worst thing they can. This has saved my bacon on countless occasions.

I yield my legal right of way almost daily to motor vehicle drivers. It pisses me off but not as much as looking at a traction bag hanging from a post over my bed would.

Yes, I do report as many details as I can to LEO when I am assaulted by a motor vehicle, so far nothing has ever come of it. Unless LEO witnessed this "accident" I doubt anything will come of it. It is the drivers word against the word of a dead guy.

Ride safe, protect yourself, don't expect the other guy to follow the rules. I have few enough friends and riding buddies, I don't want to lose any more. If you want to absolutely insist on your road rights then feel free to take them, but be prepared to complain from your hospital bed that it was someone else's fault.

I agree with this. I have a friend who refuses to pass a car in the bike lane if there's a possibility said car will take a right (he always rides between cars if there is a road/driveway they could cut him off to turn in to). It kind of sucks to have to slow down sometimes just because you're expecting drivers to be stupid, but it might save your bacon. :)

Right now I have been trying to hit Bike Boulevards a lot. Roads where the speed limit is 25MPH, the roads are designated as being for bikers, and you just take the lane and act like a car (the city flips stop signs around too so you have very, very few stop signs on bike boulevards which is an added bonus). Sure, a car could not be paying attention and just slam in to you, but drivers are pretty cautious on bike boulevards here (since they have a lot of bike traffic).

EDIT: by the way, by agreeing I in no way meant to imply that the woman who was killed on her bike in any way was in the wrong or that she should have done something different.

Also, when looking up bike-related fatalities one should note that they go up drastically after 6 PM (so around the time it starts getting dark). Based on that I try to get my riding in during the daylight and when I go out at night I am VERY well-lit and if it's a Friday night at midnight or something (where I know chances of drunk drivers are high) I commonly will stick to back roads and just pull over when a car comes up behind me (since traffic is pretty low on neighborhood side roads at that time it's not an issue).

among other things, checking the license tells the cop if there are outstanding warrants and if the license is currently valid.

again: "incident investigation" = investigation of incident, not investigation of driver.

when it comes to filing charges based on that investigation, whether it's right or wrong, the police will likely consider the driver's previous dealing's with police.

I suppose my premise is that someones previous driving record should play a part in the investigation. I understand that cops get information about someone from their driving record, but if they "legally and ethically shouldn't take it into account" there is no reason to even run it. If the driver was stopped for speeding than a cop should either write a ticket or give them a warning for speeding.

My DL has an expiration date on it (7 years) so there should be no reason to check it any further than looking to see whats printed. My previous arrests, convictions, or warrants have nothing to do if I was speeding :innocent:. If someone gets detained for a previous warrant could one argue that the cop should not have run it as it was immaterial to their "investigation of speeding" :D?

What I am getting at is that their is an inherent bias by the person investigating the incident. In this case "if" CPL Wynn does not feel bikes should be on the road, wouldn't that sway his decision if parts of the case are open to interpretation?

My DL has an expiration date on it (7 years) so there should be no reason to check it any further than looking to see whats printed.
i've never had a DL suspended (here in NZ they call it "disqualified") but IIUC, you'd still have a DL with a future expiration date printed on it. i think you keep it for ID, and you may have to disclose the suspension (disqualification) to employers, but if you get pulled over while driving with it things get bad.

as was pointed out in another thread, suspending a DL is something of an honor system penalty, and if someone fails to honor that penalty then whatever car they're driving should be confiscated. it should make no difference if the car belongs to their grandmother, employer, girlfriend, etc.

The reason bike fatalities go up during the twilight hours is because most cyclists don't use lights of any kind, so the driver has more difficulty seeing a cyclist, plus the driver is tired from working all day and so the attention span is weak. Maybe I'm wrong on that take, but I know around where I live very few people use lights even way after dark!

The reason bike fatalities go up during the twilight hours is because most cyclists don't use lights of any kind, so the driver has more difficulty seeing a cyclist, plus the driver is tired from working all day and so the attention span is weak. Maybe I'm wrong on that take, but I know around where I live very few people use lights even way after dark!

I can relate to this post. In my day job as a carpenter/ handyman, I also have the responsibility of driving the company's heavy equipment out to and away from jobsites. Not too long ago I was taking the Co. heavy dumptruck, (loaded with jobsite debris and hauling a backhoe/loader on the trailer) back to homebase. it was getting dark and I was traveling a "country road" ( the sort that are shaded by trees on both sides of the road.) when seemingly out of nowhere, I came up on a cyclist riding a bike WITHOUT A SINGLE REFLECTOR/LIGHT ON IT, riding just to the left of the double yellow line. I stood on my brakes and went over into the opposite lane. After coming to a stop, I got out to check on things, including the cyclist. He was OK (Didn't touch him), but berated me for "Driving like a fool who thinks he owns the road." I asked him why the reflectors were gone from the bike and why no headlight/taillight as required by (Virginia) state law for Dusk/nightime riding. He said "there's no such law and your big a-s don't know a d-mned thing about riding a bike." Some people... SMH.