Advocacy & Safety - Continuing Frustration - Murder investigation, Cyclist killed on Sanibel Causeway

At least the local newspaper is reporting on this.....




http://www.news-press.com/article/20120131/NEWS0110/301310024/Fort-Myers-cyclist-s-parents-losing-patience-speed-crash-investigation?odyssey=mod|mostview

Am I reading that article correctly? Five riders killed in 2011 in the same area that the newspaper circulates?

After seeing the monumental efforts made by our local cycling community in getting justice in a local cyclist's death due a motorist's negligence, this does not surprise me at all, especially in Florida.

My understanding is that the other cyclists killed were hit at night....dark clothing, no lights, crossing heavily traveled roads/streets in the middle of the block.....undocumented, unlicensed transients. Each of the cases were determined to be the bicyclists fault for pulling in front of the vehicle. Sad for the cyclists family, sad for the driver knowing that he or she killed someone.

The Sanibel Causeway case is where a driver "fell asleep" about 2 PM (not 2 am), crossed the median line and slammed into the cyclist, and continued into the side of the bridge. The cyclist was ejected off the bridge and into the water and died. The driver had at least one prior, recent, DUI, and declined a breathalyzer test. She was transported for a blood test. Murder or manslughter is the word to describe this, not negligence, in my opinion.

As I said, at least the local newspaper is not allowing this story to disappear. Her hsuband was riding just in front of her when she was hit.

I ride by the spot where she was hit every other weekend when I ride from Cape Coral, thru Sanibel and up to Captiva and back.

Murder or manslughter is the word to describe this, not negligence, in my opinion.Murder requires intent -- if they wanted this person dead (or at least wanted to injure them but they died.) Manslaughter would be the proper term for this situation.

Right or wrong, very few traffic collisions involve an intent to harm anybody and so they aren't murder, no matter how callous their behaviour was. Even if they're drunk.

I read the article in the News Press this morning. I hope they get it sorted out soon, sounds like the woman was hit head on by a truck that crossed over and she went over the rail and into the water. Horrible. I'm from Connecticut, and spending the winter in North Ft. Myers. I rode on U.S. 41 one time since I've been here, never again. We got beeped at, someone in a big deisel pickup swerved at us, and someone else threw a drink at us. This area is tough on cyclists, at least a lot tougher than in Connecticut. Made a post about it when it happened.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/555896-did-you-ride-today/page294

Am I reading that article correctly? Five riders killed in 2011 in the same area that the newspaper circulates?

That's the number of cyclists killed in the county over the year, with a population (I think) of around a half million. That's high, but it's a county with a lot of year-round riders.

New update in todays paper...

http://www.news-press.com/article/20120521/CRIME/120521011?odyssey=mod|mostcom

I don't understand why it wouldn't be considered criminal negligence. Driving a vehicle while asleep seems obviously negligent to me.

[QUOTE=dougmc;13790840]Murder requires intent/QUOTE]

Not always. In many jurisdictions, including Florida, murder (in Florida, 2nd degree) can be charged when the killing is the result of an act that is imminently dangerous and demonstrates "depraved indifference" to human life.

Edited to remove reference to the case under discussion -- irrelevant.

New update in todays paper...

Ah, sad. No criminal charges.

Unfortunately, there's nothing unusual at all about that outcome, regardless of whether the victim is a cyclist, pedestrian, or the driver or occupant of a vehicle. This is exactly what usually happens when motorists kill people in America.

3,000 corpses a month, and minor consequences for the people who are responsible, is the price we pay for having created a built environment that virtually requires driving for the vast majority of adults. We can't afford to treat traffic violations, even those that kill, more harshly. It would ruin our car-dependent economy.

To charge vehicular homicide in Florida the state must be able to prove recklessness, which is more than simple negligence. Dozing off, without alcohol or drugs involved, likely is simple negligence rather than recklessness (I defended a guy in trial once charged with killing a child on a bike when he ran off the road and hit him, and I argued he simply fell asleep at the wheel. It didn't work.) If the state could prove that the killer was impaired by drugs or alcohol, they could charge DUI manslaughter without proof of recklessness.

Florida very much needs a vulnerable user law to protect cyclists, pedestrians, and motorcyclists from negligent drivers. The same negligence that might dent a car's fender will kill or maim a cyclist, pedestrian, or motorcyclist.

Florida very much needs a vulnerable user law to protect cyclists, pedestrians, and motorcyclists from negligent drivers. The same negligence that might dent a car's fender will kill or maim a cyclist, pedestrian, or motorcyclist.

Sigh. And not only Florida. We have three; we need 47 more. They need to have much bigger teeth than they currently have.

Are meaningful statistics on Oregon's law available yet? (He asks as he heads of to check. . .)

Ah, sad. No criminal charges.

Unfortunately, there's nothing unusual at all about that outcome, regardless of whether the victim is a cyclist, pedestrian, or the driver or occupant of a vehicle. This is exactly what usually happens when motorists kill people in America.

3,000 corpses a month, and minor consequences for the people who are responsible, is the price we pay for having created a built environment that virtually requires driving for the vast majority of adults. We can't afford to treat traffic violations, even those that kill, more harshly. It would ruin our car-dependent economy.

And sadly, it reinforces what many here have said. If you want to kill someone and get away with it. Give that person a bicycle, hit them and then claim that you either didn't see them or that you thought that you hit a deer.

It is a sad, sad commentary when the loss of life is considered the "cost of being able to drive."

Dozing off, without alcohol or drugs involved,

What I heard on the news she was on scripted meds...and if I recall, I think 4 different ones. She didn't seem to be impaired, so that's why no tests. They didn't say what the meds were. I would think that if pain meds they would've ran with it!


BTW, I've ridden that bridge many times on my trike with/without my dog and it should be safe unless drunk, drug, tire blow out, or someone more concerned with a cell phone than the steering wheel.


Leaping Gnome

BTW, I've ridden that bridge many times on my trike with/without my dog and it should be safe unless drunk, drug, tire blow out, or someone more concerned with a cell phone than the steering wheel.

I've also ridden the bridge several times, and it's a great ride. The breakdown lanes provide plenty of room for a cyclist to ride safely, even though traffic is fairly fast. A wonderful place to ride.

Dozing off and hitting a parked car, maybe causing some minor injuries, I can see as "simple negligence". But when one causes a death by dozing off at the wheel, it should be treated far more than just "simple negligence". This type of attitude only gives carte' blanche to motorists to drive while tired or on prescription meds that cause dangerous driving.

What I heard on the news she was on scripted meds...and if I recall, I think 4 different ones. She didn't seem to be impaired, so that's why no tests. They didn't say what the meds were. I would think that if pain meds they would've ran with it!


BTW, I've ridden that bridge many times on my trike with/without my dog and it should be safe unless drunk, drug, tire blow out, or someone more concerned with a cell phone than the steering wheel.


Leaping Gnome

Just because she was on prescribed medication and had "therapeutic levels" in her system doesn't mean that it was safe for her to be operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment.As nowadays more and more meds have warning labels informing the person taking it that by doing so that it may not be safe to drive a motor vehicle or to operate heavy equipment.

Just because she was on prescribed medication and had "therapeutic levels" in her system doesn't mean that it was safe for her to be operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment.As nowadays more and more meds have warning labels informing the person taking it that by doing so that it may not be safe to drive a motor vehicle or to operate heavy equipment.

When I said, "I would think that if pain meds they would've ran with it," I meant the media. In no way did I mean that it's only pain meds that make a person drowsy.

IMO, with her falling asleep she should've been tested to see what was in her system...in fact, she should've been tested even if falling asleep wasn't her story. The only thing I can MAYBE accept her not being tested is if she had a tire blow out, or something along those lines! Even then with a death a test should be mandatory!

Leaping Gnome

When I said, "I would think that if pain meds they would've ran with it," I meant the media. In no way did I mean that it's only pain meds that make a person drowsy.

IMO, with her falling asleep she should've been tested to see what was in her system...in fact, she should've been tested even if falling asleep wasn't her story. The only thing I can MAYBE accept her not being tested is if she had a tire blow out, or something along those lines! Even then with a death a test should be mandatory!

Leaping Gnome

I agree, that if a person who is driving a car, truck, SUV, bus, motorcycle strikes and injures or kills a cyclist or pedestrian that they need to be tested. Even if they use the excuse that they "just fell asleep/dozed off." As normal healthy people do not JUST fall asleep/doze off while driving a car and there is probably something more seriously wrong with them.

If there is no medical, or drug/alcohol problem and it is "simply" the result of mechanical problems. Then they need to be able to show that they have had regular maintenance done on the car and that there hasn't been a recall notice on the car.

I agree, that if a person who is driving a car, truck, SUV, bus, motorcycle strikes and injures or kills a cyclist or pedestrian that they need to be tested. Even if they use the excuse that they "just fell asleep/dozed off." As normal healthy people do not JUST fall asleep/doze off while driving a car and there is probably something more seriously wrong with them.


Where I live, that's what the law is - any accident involving serious injury requires the driver to be blood tested.

Ok, I'll admit that I've sometimes had difficulty in staying awake. It seems to have more to do with bright sunlight and/or driving on a motorway (freeway to those of you who speak another - inferior ;) - form of English).

Not once have I not known I was feeling sleepy and not once have I tried to drive through it, tho' I once had to drive for about 30 minutes to reach a place where I could stop. And it scared the hell out of me. The only people who might be able to argue that it came on them unawares would be narcolepsy sufferers and they shouldn't be driving anyway