jdc2000
01-28-05, 12:16 PM
http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=147232
Advocacy & Safety - Driver Who Hit, Killed Bicyclist to Face Criminal Charges
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.View Full Version : Driver Who Hit, Killed Bicyclist to Face Criminal Charges
bluejack
01-28-05, 12:45 PM
I can't believe that's a misdemeanor. That's possibly the most grotesque negligence I can imagine. Absolutely no mitigating factors.
Helmet-Head
01-28-05, 01:00 PM
"The cause of the accident is mystery."
Really?
Ken Johnson, Josie Johnson's Brother: "Josie was riding on the road where she was supposed to be. "
Really? Where was she riding?
Bob Stott, Salt Lake Co. District Attorney's Office: "The bicycle at the time of the incident was on the far right hand side of the road, and the vehicle at the time of the collision, right tires were touching the shoulder of the road."
...
According to court documents filed today, Johnson was way over on the right side of the road, ...
Ah, "the far right hand side", "way over on the right side". Well, yes, according to most people, even according to most cyclists, she was riding where she was "supposed" to be.
The problem with this approach is that it ignores the "gorilla suit" effect, often with tragic results, like in this case. Studies like the "gorilla suit/basketball'" study show that humans often are not aware of things that are irrelevant to them.
I believe this is often the case for a cyclist who is riding outside of the intended path of a motorist - to that motorist, the cyclist riding along the edge of the roadway is irrelevant, and, they are often not seen. Though this article does not say, I'll bet you dollars for donuts that the driver claims, and has always claimed, that she did not see the cyclist. There is no other explanation for what happened. In fact, given where she was driving...
Deseelhorst's car hit Johnson in the middle of the car and the wheels were touching the gravel shoulder.
... this sure seems like yet another case where the following 2 factors were in play:
The driver was not aware of the cyclist who was riding outside of the driver's intended path.
The driver drifted outside of her intended path into the cyclist and did not notice the cyclist in time.
The fact that her wheels were touching the gravel shoulder is strong indication that the driver drifted outside of her intended path.
Most cyclists think riding in the center of the lane (between the left and right tire tracks) is insane in a situation like this. But it only seems insane if you
Ignore the corellation between the cyclist being in the driver's intended path and the driver being aware of the cyclist's presence.
Ignore the fact that a motorist is very likely to not be aware of a cyclist riding along the edge of the roadway.
assume the cyclist will not move from the center of the lane to the side of the road before the motorist passes them.
The gorilla suit/basketball study showed that fifty percent of the study's subjects were not aware of a woman in a gorilla suit running around the basketball court and thumping her chest right in the camera beause they were focusing on something else (counting how many times the ball was passed). The scientists conducting the study themselves surmise at how relevant this effect is in collisions where the driver "did not see" what he or she hit.
Consider how much more likely it would be for this cyclist (and how many others?) to still be alive today had she been riding in the center of the lane long enough for the driver to see and notice her in her intended path. I'm not saying cyclists should stay in the center of the lane even when cars are approaching from the rear - they should move over. But I am suggesting cyclists are more likely to not be hit from the rear in situations like this one if they ride in the center, and then move over to let the motorist pass.
Imagine a world where most people and most cyclists DON'T THINK that riding along the right side of the road (even when there are no cars) is where a cyclist "is supposed to be riding on the road".
Imagine a world where everyone recognizes that the primary position of the cyclist is in the center of the lane, in the intended paths of drivers coming from behind, where the drivers will notice the cyclists and become aware of their presence. Imagine a world where cyclists stay in the primary center position until motorists show up behind them, and only then move over a few feet right to the side of the road (which literally takes less than a second). In this case there was an entire 2nd empty lane for the driver to move into, and I'm sure she would have, had she been aware of the cyclist's presence in the first place (which she probably would have been had the cyclist not been riding along the right edge).
But even if in a particular situation being in the center does not make the driver be aware of the cyclist, since the cyclist moves to the side before the motorist reaches the cyclist, they have nothing to lose.
Or, ride along the right side and take your chances. Up to you.
Serge
Really?
Ken Johnson, Josie Johnson's Brother: "Josie was riding on the road where she was supposed to be. "
Really? Where was she riding?
Bob Stott, Salt Lake Co. District Attorney's Office: "The bicycle at the time of the incident was on the far right hand side of the road, and the vehicle at the time of the collision, right tires were touching the shoulder of the road."
...
According to court documents filed today, Johnson was way over on the right side of the road, ...
Ah, "the far right hand side", "way over on the right side". Well, yes, according to most people, even according to most cyclists, she was riding where she was "supposed" to be.
The problem with this approach is that it ignores the "gorilla suit" effect, often with tragic results, like in this case. Studies like the "gorilla suit/basketball'" study show that humans often are not aware of things that are irrelevant to them.
I believe this is often the case for a cyclist who is riding outside of the intended path of a motorist - to that motorist, the cyclist riding along the edge of the roadway is irrelevant, and, they are often not seen. Though this article does not say, I'll bet you dollars for donuts that the driver claims, and has always claimed, that she did not see the cyclist. There is no other explanation for what happened. In fact, given where she was driving...
Deseelhorst's car hit Johnson in the middle of the car and the wheels were touching the gravel shoulder.
... this sure seems like yet another case where the following 2 factors were in play:
The driver was not aware of the cyclist who was riding outside of the driver's intended path.
The driver drifted outside of her intended path into the cyclist and did not notice the cyclist in time.
The fact that her wheels were touching the gravel shoulder is strong indication that the driver drifted outside of her intended path.
Most cyclists think riding in the center of the lane (between the left and right tire tracks) is insane in a situation like this. But it only seems insane if you
Ignore the corellation between the cyclist being in the driver's intended path and the driver being aware of the cyclist's presence.
Ignore the fact that a motorist is very likely to not be aware of a cyclist riding along the edge of the roadway.
assume the cyclist will not move from the center of the lane to the side of the road before the motorist passes them.
The gorilla suit/basketball study showed that fifty percent of the study's subjects were not aware of a woman in a gorilla suit running around the basketball court and thumping her chest right in the camera beause they were focusing on something else (counting how many times the ball was passed). The scientists conducting the study themselves surmise at how relevant this effect is in collisions where the driver "did not see" what he or she hit.
Consider how much more likely it would be for this cyclist (and how many others?) to still be alive today had she been riding in the center of the lane long enough for the driver to see and notice her in her intended path. I'm not saying cyclists should stay in the center of the lane even when cars are approaching from the rear - they should move over. But I am suggesting cyclists are more likely to not be hit from the rear in situations like this one if they ride in the center, and then move over to let the motorist pass.
Imagine a world where most people and most cyclists DON'T THINK that riding along the right side of the road (even when there are no cars) is where a cyclist "is supposed to be riding on the road".
Imagine a world where everyone recognizes that the primary position of the cyclist is in the center of the lane, in the intended paths of drivers coming from behind, where the drivers will notice the cyclists and become aware of their presence. Imagine a world where cyclists stay in the primary center position until motorists show up behind them, and only then move over a few feet right to the side of the road (which literally takes less than a second). In this case there was an entire 2nd empty lane for the driver to move into, and I'm sure she would have, had she been aware of the cyclist's presence in the first place (which she probably would have been had the cyclist not been riding along the right edge).
But even if in a particular situation being in the center does not make the driver be aware of the cyclist, since the cyclist moves to the side before the motorist reaches the cyclist, they have nothing to lose.
Or, ride along the right side and take your chances. Up to you.
Serge
PaperBoy
01-28-05, 03:51 PM
Serge, I've to argue with you on this one.
I don't think it would have mattered where the cyclist was riding. If the driver had her right wheels on the shoulder, the cyclist would have had to be on the center line to avoid being hit and nowhere in your copious arguments do you ever advocate riding down the middle of the road.
The driver just zoned out. Truck drivers call it "driving at the windshield". She was close to home and obviously she was on autopilot. The cyclist could have been a possum, a cardboard box, or a gorilla in a basketball suite--she would have still been plowed.
Bad driving. Bad juju. Bad day.
I don't think it would have mattered where the cyclist was riding. If the driver had her right wheels on the shoulder, the cyclist would have had to be on the center line to avoid being hit and nowhere in your copious arguments do you ever advocate riding down the middle of the road.
The driver just zoned out. Truck drivers call it "driving at the windshield". She was close to home and obviously she was on autopilot. The cyclist could have been a possum, a cardboard box, or a gorilla in a basketball suite--she would have still been plowed.
Bad driving. Bad juju. Bad day.
Helmet-Head
01-28-05, 06:20 PM
I don't think it would have mattered where the cyclist was riding.
Maybe. Surely you're not claiming that you know for a fact that the motorist would not have noticed the cyclist up ahead had the cyclist initially been riding in the motorist's intended path in the center of the lane rather than unnoticed outside of her intended path along the edge of the roadway?
In any case, not only am I advocating that cyclists ride in the center of the lane when riding in situations like this (and in many other situations), since I also say they should move aside by the time the motorist is close enough to pass them, the implication is that the center-biased cyclist must also be regularly monitoring (a glance every 5-10 seconds) to the rear with a mirror.
Had the cyclist been practicing "center biased dynamic lane positioning"...
The cyclist would have been riding in the center of the lane for some time before the motorist appeared.
The cyclist would have noticed the vehicle approaching in her rear-view mirror.
Because the cyclist would have been riding in the center of the lane as the vehicle approached, in the motorist's intended path, the motorist would have been more likely to notice and be aware of the presence of the cyclist up ahead.
In all likelihood, the motorist would have noticed the cyclist and moved into the left lane (this was a 4 lane highway) to pass the cyclist. In the unlikely event that the motorist did not notice the cyclist, despite the cyclist's position in the center of the lane in the motorist's intended path up ahead, or the motorist did not choose to change lanes, the cyclist would have noticed this and moved over to get out of the vehicle's path.
In either case, the cyclist would continue to monitor to the rear and, if the motorist still would not have noticed the cyclist as you surmise, the cyclist would have noticed the motorist not taking any evasive actions.
The cyclist, noticing that the motorist was not taking any evasive actions, could have aborted into the shoulder.
What happened instead was that the cyclist simply rode along the right edge, apparently assuming that any passing motorist would simply not drive that close to the edge and/or would notice the cyclist and not hit her.
I believe my approach would have saved this cyclist's life, though of course we'll never know for sure.
By the way, this technique is also very important on 2-lane highways in order to discourage oncoming traffic from passing. I've heard of motorists actually playing "chicken" with cyclists who refused to back down and leave the center of the lane to allow the oncoming motorist to move into their lane and pass the slow vehicles (the cyclist has always won - worst case is no worse than if he had been riding along the right edge in the first place). Many motorists think that if you can execute a within-lane pass traveling in the same direction as a cyclist, then you can also share the lane going in the opposite direction of the cyclist while passing a slower vehicle going in your direction (in fact, I know for a fact that some law enforcement officers think there is nothing wrong with doing this). Such highly dangerous passing is encouraged by cyclists "hugging" the right edge of the road. Remember, in a situation where an oncoming motorist will pass, there is no other motor traffic moving in the same direction as the cyclist (or the oncoming motorist would not be passing). Therefore, there is no reason for the cyclist to be hugging the right edge. The center-biased dynamic lateral lane positioner would be riding in the center of the lane, and monitoring the situation to the rear with a mirror, only moving over closer to the right edge as traffic approached from the rear.
Serge
Maybe. Surely you're not claiming that you know for a fact that the motorist would not have noticed the cyclist up ahead had the cyclist initially been riding in the motorist's intended path in the center of the lane rather than unnoticed outside of her intended path along the edge of the roadway?
In any case, not only am I advocating that cyclists ride in the center of the lane when riding in situations like this (and in many other situations), since I also say they should move aside by the time the motorist is close enough to pass them, the implication is that the center-biased cyclist must also be regularly monitoring (a glance every 5-10 seconds) to the rear with a mirror.
Had the cyclist been practicing "center biased dynamic lane positioning"...
The cyclist would have been riding in the center of the lane for some time before the motorist appeared.
The cyclist would have noticed the vehicle approaching in her rear-view mirror.
Because the cyclist would have been riding in the center of the lane as the vehicle approached, in the motorist's intended path, the motorist would have been more likely to notice and be aware of the presence of the cyclist up ahead.
In all likelihood, the motorist would have noticed the cyclist and moved into the left lane (this was a 4 lane highway) to pass the cyclist. In the unlikely event that the motorist did not notice the cyclist, despite the cyclist's position in the center of the lane in the motorist's intended path up ahead, or the motorist did not choose to change lanes, the cyclist would have noticed this and moved over to get out of the vehicle's path.
In either case, the cyclist would continue to monitor to the rear and, if the motorist still would not have noticed the cyclist as you surmise, the cyclist would have noticed the motorist not taking any evasive actions.
The cyclist, noticing that the motorist was not taking any evasive actions, could have aborted into the shoulder.
What happened instead was that the cyclist simply rode along the right edge, apparently assuming that any passing motorist would simply not drive that close to the edge and/or would notice the cyclist and not hit her.
I believe my approach would have saved this cyclist's life, though of course we'll never know for sure.
By the way, this technique is also very important on 2-lane highways in order to discourage oncoming traffic from passing. I've heard of motorists actually playing "chicken" with cyclists who refused to back down and leave the center of the lane to allow the oncoming motorist to move into their lane and pass the slow vehicles (the cyclist has always won - worst case is no worse than if he had been riding along the right edge in the first place). Many motorists think that if you can execute a within-lane pass traveling in the same direction as a cyclist, then you can also share the lane going in the opposite direction of the cyclist while passing a slower vehicle going in your direction (in fact, I know for a fact that some law enforcement officers think there is nothing wrong with doing this). Such highly dangerous passing is encouraged by cyclists "hugging" the right edge of the road. Remember, in a situation where an oncoming motorist will pass, there is no other motor traffic moving in the same direction as the cyclist (or the oncoming motorist would not be passing). Therefore, there is no reason for the cyclist to be hugging the right edge. The center-biased dynamic lateral lane positioner would be riding in the center of the lane, and monitoring the situation to the rear with a mirror, only moving over closer to the right edge as traffic approached from the rear.
Serge
Dchiefransom
01-28-05, 07:27 PM
I'm with you in theory on this one, Serge, but my gut feeling says that she's have been hit anyway. Something about this is so wrong that I think the woman would have hit another car going the same speed as the cyclist, but if she'd been riding more like you advocate, her chances would at least have been better.
PaperBoy
01-28-05, 07:42 PM
The fact is that we don't know where the cyclist had been riding prior to impact. The only fact that we know for sure is that the cyclist was on the right side of the road when she was struck.
For all we know the cyclist might have been taking the lane up to the last second and could have been in the act of taking evasive maneuvers, aborting to the shoulder, when she was struck, thus explaining why she was on the right.
I could even propose the theory that an inattentive driver suddenly found herself in imminent danger of running over a cyclist, panicked, and headed for the shoulder herself to avoid a collision only to find the cyclist doing the same thing.
I'm just using this scenario to point out that a driver who is staring at the windshield instead of watching the road just isn't going to see dancing bears, dribbling gorillas, road hazards, or cyclists wherever they are in the lane. If you get whacked by a driver like that, it won't be because you didn't take the lane.
Serge, you make a lot of good points in your posts and I like many of your ideas, but I don't think we can use this incident to prove or disprove the superiority of your style of riding.
For all we know the cyclist might have been taking the lane up to the last second and could have been in the act of taking evasive maneuvers, aborting to the shoulder, when she was struck, thus explaining why she was on the right.
I could even propose the theory that an inattentive driver suddenly found herself in imminent danger of running over a cyclist, panicked, and headed for the shoulder herself to avoid a collision only to find the cyclist doing the same thing.
I'm just using this scenario to point out that a driver who is staring at the windshield instead of watching the road just isn't going to see dancing bears, dribbling gorillas, road hazards, or cyclists wherever they are in the lane. If you get whacked by a driver like that, it won't be because you didn't take the lane.
Serge, you make a lot of good points in your posts and I like many of your ideas, but I don't think we can use this incident to prove or disprove the superiority of your style of riding.
Helmet-Head
01-28-05, 08:02 PM
PaperBoy - what actually happened in this situation is not all that relevant to what we can learn for our own learning.
Whether the cyclist was originally in the center and then moved, or was always on the right side is immaterial to the question of whether a cyclist's probability of getting hit is better or worse depending on what lane position they choose.
IF the cyclist was riding along the right side from the beginning (which is reasonable to assume given that the vast majority of cyclists ride this way, and this is what the brother implied she ws doing), THEN my analysis applies and I would stand by my conclusion that she probably would be alive today had she ridden in accordance with the center-biased dynamic lane positioning technique I have described.
Of course we will probably never know what really happened in this instance. But reasonable conjecture from actual events tends to provide better models for discussion than purely hypothetical ones, and that's all I'm doing here.
No one event can prove or disprove anything. What I'm doing here is selecting specific examples as they are brought up in this forum, making whatever reasonable assumption are necessary, and illustrating how my suggested technique would apply. My hope is that the sum total of these examples will start to get folks thinking. That's all. This is but one example in a series. Click on my name and recent posts in other threads for more examples.
See ya.
Serge
Whether the cyclist was originally in the center and then moved, or was always on the right side is immaterial to the question of whether a cyclist's probability of getting hit is better or worse depending on what lane position they choose.
IF the cyclist was riding along the right side from the beginning (which is reasonable to assume given that the vast majority of cyclists ride this way, and this is what the brother implied she ws doing), THEN my analysis applies and I would stand by my conclusion that she probably would be alive today had she ridden in accordance with the center-biased dynamic lane positioning technique I have described.
Of course we will probably never know what really happened in this instance. But reasonable conjecture from actual events tends to provide better models for discussion than purely hypothetical ones, and that's all I'm doing here.
No one event can prove or disprove anything. What I'm doing here is selecting specific examples as they are brought up in this forum, making whatever reasonable assumption are necessary, and illustrating how my suggested technique would apply. My hope is that the sum total of these examples will start to get folks thinking. That's all. This is but one example in a series. Click on my name and recent posts in other threads for more examples.
See ya.
Serge
gpsblake
01-28-05, 08:54 PM
It was a tragic accident which did not involve alcohol, drugs and such involving an elderly lady hitting a cyclist. They can't even come up with the cause according to the article. I think the charge is exactly what is called for and this person will not spend a moment in prison even if found guilty. I also think the DA is going to have a hard time getting a conviction because this isn't just an ordinary person, this is a very rich person who can hire very rich attorneys. I'm sure this driver is suffering and will suffer for what happened for the rest of her life. I think there is a chance she is found not guilty or pleas and doesn't do prison time. I predict a plea gets struck, there is no trial, and community service.
One thing that does bother me about this prosecution. What if the bicyclist weren't a "popular young bicyclist" but rather a homeless man riding a $58 Roadmaster, would the bicycling community have been so vocal about getting a criminal conviction?
One thing that does bother me about this prosecution. What if the bicyclist weren't a "popular young bicyclist" but rather a homeless man riding a $58 Roadmaster, would the bicycling community have been so vocal about getting a criminal conviction?
Galico
01-29-05, 09:57 PM
One thing that does bother me about this prosecution. What if the bicyclist weren't a "popular young bicyclist" but rather a homeless man riding a $58 Roadmaster, would the bicycling community have been so vocal about getting a criminal conviction?
Where Josie was killed is a section of Big Cottonwood canyon that takes advanced conditioning to reach. It’s a point where you've climbed well beyond any casual cyclist ability. She had expressed to her friend in the previous ride up this canyon that she would go beyond Silver Fork and make that last 4 steep miles to Brighton ski Resort.. She was 1/3 of the way there when she was killed.
The notoriety stems from fact that for us locals it is popular ride and a damn hard one. I don’t think that it would have mattered, any cyclist up there is a true road cyclist and thus the attention.
You have a valid point but Josie was part of our helmeted brotherhood and her tragedy has raised local awareness of our right to the road.
Her story also was taken up by one of our newspapers columnist, Holly Mullen, who happened to be ridding up Little Cottonwood Canyon that same day. There was just a small blurb in the paper the day after the accident and Ms. Mullen was outraged. She began investigating the incident and wrote a compelling column about this tragedy.
I am not trying to make a point-I am just adding to the forum.
Where Josie was killed is a section of Big Cottonwood canyon that takes advanced conditioning to reach. It’s a point where you've climbed well beyond any casual cyclist ability. She had expressed to her friend in the previous ride up this canyon that she would go beyond Silver Fork and make that last 4 steep miles to Brighton ski Resort.. She was 1/3 of the way there when she was killed.
The notoriety stems from fact that for us locals it is popular ride and a damn hard one. I don’t think that it would have mattered, any cyclist up there is a true road cyclist and thus the attention.
You have a valid point but Josie was part of our helmeted brotherhood and her tragedy has raised local awareness of our right to the road.
Her story also was taken up by one of our newspapers columnist, Holly Mullen, who happened to be ridding up Little Cottonwood Canyon that same day. There was just a small blurb in the paper the day after the accident and Ms. Mullen was outraged. She began investigating the incident and wrote a compelling column about this tragedy.
I am not trying to make a point-I am just adding to the forum.
chicharron
02-04-05, 01:46 PM
It was a tragic accident which did not involve alcohol, drugs and such involving an elderly lady hitting a cyclist. They can't even come up with the cause according to the article. I think the charge is exactly what is called for and this person will not spend a moment in prison even if found guilty. I also think the DA is going to have a hard time getting a conviction because this isn't just an ordinary person, this is a very rich person who can hire very rich attorneys. I'm sure this driver is suffering and will suffer for what happened for the rest of her life. I think there is a chance she is found not guilty or pleas and doesn't do prison time. I predict a plea gets struck, there is no trial, and community service.
One thing that does bother me about this prosecution. What if the bicyclist weren't a "popular young bicyclist" but rather a homeless man riding a $58 Roadmaster, would the bicycling community have been so vocal about getting a criminal conviction?
It does not matter if she was a "popular young bicyclist' or a "homeless man rideing a 58dollar Roadmaster." The fact is that there are too many auth/bicylce accidents, and laws need to be enforced to protect pedestrians and bicylist from motorist. This incident was outragesous. My mother drives, and she is 85 years old, and she would never have hit a bicylist. She shares the road with bikes.
One thing that does bother me about this prosecution. What if the bicyclist weren't a "popular young bicyclist" but rather a homeless man riding a $58 Roadmaster, would the bicycling community have been so vocal about getting a criminal conviction?
It does not matter if she was a "popular young bicyclist' or a "homeless man rideing a 58dollar Roadmaster." The fact is that there are too many auth/bicylce accidents, and laws need to be enforced to protect pedestrians and bicylist from motorist. This incident was outragesous. My mother drives, and she is 85 years old, and she would never have hit a bicylist. She shares the road with bikes.
genec
02-04-05, 02:10 PM
Speaking of two wheel injustice. Here in San Diego a motorist was just charged with only 2 years for running a stoplight and hitting a motorcyclist. The driver "was late" and witnesses said the driver went around other vehicles by going into the bike lane, then went against a light across 4 lanes of traffic, where he accidently struck an oncoming motorcyclist.
Not a whole lot of justice being handed out if you get killed on two wheels.
Oh yeah... they're out there all right!
Not a whole lot of justice being handed out if you get killed on two wheels.
Oh yeah... they're out there all right!
Helmet-Head
02-04-05, 02:33 PM
Speaking of two wheel injustice. Here in San Diego a motorist was just charged with only 2 years for running a stoplight and hitting a motorcyclist. The driver "was late" and witnesses said the driver went around other vehicles by going into the bike lane, then went against a light across 4 lanes of traffic, where he accidently struck an oncoming motorcyclist.
Not a whole lot of justice being handed out if you get killed on two wheels.
Oh yeah... they're out there all right!
Link, please.
Not a whole lot of justice being handed out if you get killed on two wheels.
Oh yeah... they're out there all right!
Link, please.
genec
02-04-05, 02:43 PM
Link, please.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=402&ncid=402&e=5&u=/ibsys/20050203/lo_kgtv/2567739
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=402&ncid=402&e=5&u=/ibsys/20050203/lo_kgtv/2567739
brokenrobot
02-04-05, 05:10 PM
PaperBoy - what actually happened in this situation is not all that relevant to what we can learn for our own learning.
Serge, with all due respect, that sentence says it all with regards to your reasoning. Unfortunately, though, real-world situations have real-world consequences, and it doesn't matter how sound the theory is: in the real world, people sometimes get hurt by things that are entirely outside their control. When you or somebody you know are the victim, what actually happened is ALL that's important, and no amount of theory can change the facts on the ground. I agree that defensive cycling is imperative, but it can't save everyone every time.
Serge, with all due respect, that sentence says it all with regards to your reasoning. Unfortunately, though, real-world situations have real-world consequences, and it doesn't matter how sound the theory is: in the real world, people sometimes get hurt by things that are entirely outside their control. When you or somebody you know are the victim, what actually happened is ALL that's important, and no amount of theory can change the facts on the ground. I agree that defensive cycling is imperative, but it can't save everyone every time.
MERTON
02-04-05, 05:24 PM
:mad: this should be considered actuall homicide. the driver obviously had no intent to pay attention to where she was going and therefore had the intent to put others lives in danger. yup. she killed with intent. i think if you ram anyone SQUARE from the back like that it should be more than just a misdemeanor. you tailgate me (even if i'm in a car) = you have the intent to squish me should i stop fast. yup. that's how the thinking needs to be.