Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Southern California (http://www.bikeforums.net/southern-california/)
-   -   Bicyclist hit and killed by Sheriff in Calabasas (http://www.bikeforums.net/southern-california/925411-bicyclist-hit-killed-sheriff-calabasas.html)

B. Carfree 12-12-13 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pamestique (Post 16324828)
I think you are confuse about what constitutes a criminal act... if the officer intended to strike the rider than I would agree it was an assault; if the officer was just not paying attention, it was an accident and does not rise to the level of criminally... it will however be a civil matter...

point is, remember this can happen to any one of us or someone we know. ride cautiously and don't take any risk...

Quote:

Originally Posted by
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE



TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON

CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

Sec. 19.01. TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual.

(b) Criminal homicide is murder, capital murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide...



Sec. 19.05. CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.
(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

http://www.shouselaw.com/criminal-negligence.html
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shouse California Law Group
Criminal negligence refers to a mental state of disregarding known or obvious risks to human life and safety. An example would be leaving a loaded firearm within reach of a small child.

To be guilty of any crime, a person must act with a "mens rea" or "criminal intent." Normally this means intentionally or deliberately pursuing a criminal result.
But criminal negligence may substitute for criminal intent under very specific circumstances. When it does, it can subject someone to serious charges such as child endangerment or manslaughter even when the actions are unintentional.

Put together the boxes above and tell me how confused I am. Criminal negligence means that one acts without specific criminal intent towards one's victim(s). It's different from other crimes in that it doesn't require intent.

The bottom line is that we will continue to see this sort of deadly behavior on our roads as long as people like you buy into the "There but for the grace of god go I" garbage. People who won't drive safely really have no more business driving than I do flying a plane.

TrojanHorse 12-12-13 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B. Carfree (Post 16324873)
Put together the boxes above and tell me how confused I am. Criminal negligence means that one acts without specific criminal intent towards one's victim(s). It's different from other crimes in that it doesn't require intent.

Somebody still has to apply the label "criminal" to the negligence that obviously took place. Heck, they don't do it for normal car drivers who strike a cyclist that "they just didn't see" why would they do it to one of their own?

herbm 12-13-13 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nesdog (Post 16324628)
This is our local paper. There has been a furious debate occurring between riders and drivers in these pages the past month. Some of the letters on both sides have been thoughtful, others just stupid.

IMO, we are our own worst enemies too often. How many times have I been dropped from a group ride or had to chase back on because everyone ran a light or stop sign? And then flipped off drivers who complained? It's arrogant and self-centered. And very visible.

How many times have I seen drivers texting, talking on the phone, distracted, just being a$$holes? Plenty.

This is so sad.

I totally agree....
One of the reasons I dont ride with the local club (no names to protect the guilty)

h

Gallo 12-13-13 02:30 PM

RIP Cyclist

Our banter here is trivial and of little consequence. Two families were forever changed in a brief moment in time.

We do not know the entire story only the outcome.

It would appear that the officer is at fault and barring the unlikely case of a sudden swerve from the cyclist I do not see much that will change that. I am sure he did not wake up in the morning with the intent to harm the cyclist. It will be something he has to live with. I do not envy him. The road ahead regardless of litigation will not be easy for him or his family

And as for the family of the cyclist my deepest and heartfelt sympathy. There is no reasoning such an event. Only dealing with it. It will take time and will ebb and flow but never really go away. The first part of the process of healing is the most difficult. I wish them well.

phoebeisis 12-13-13 03:35 PM

The cop certainly didn't intend to kill the rider.
He was distracted-made a mistake-
Many millions of drivers will do the same thing today-and tomorrow.
Accident-no intention to kill or harm-and many many people do the same thing
Yes it would be nice if they wouldn't-but you can kill someone turning a radio dial-

Jed19 12-13-13 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoebeisis (Post 16327747)
The cop certainly didn't intend to kill the rider.
He was distracted-made a mistake-
Many millions of drivers will do the same thing today-and tomorrow.
Accident-no intention to kill or harm-and many many people do the same thing
Yes it would be nice if they wouldn't-but you can kill someone turning a radio dial-

Except the LASD is angling to say it was the cyclist's fault. And why are they insisting on investigating one of their own in a case like this? Maybe not illegal, it certainly looks unethical to me. Let the CHP investigate it!

CbadRider 12-13-13 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dunbar (Post 16324682)
I tend agree but IMO the officer would have to be staring down at his laptop or phone in order to hit a cyclist riding in the middle of the road in the bike lane. The evidence suggests the officer was going 45+ when he collided with the cyclist right in the center of the hood. Law enforcement has been making a big deal about the dangers of distracted driving and I think they should held to the same standards as you or me if it is determined that was the cause. The design of the bike lane being centered in the middle of two thru traffic lanes is a very poor design and likely played a huge role in this accident. If the bike lane was off on the side of the road this accident likely doesn't happen.

+1, you're not supposed to drive distracted, and law enforcement officials who cite people for doing such things need to be held accountable. You can't just say "Oopsie, I got distracted!" when you strike and kill someone.

I'm a bit confused about your comment that the bike lane was centered in the middle of two through traffic lanes. The bike lane is marked on the right shoulder of the road.

Dunbar 12-13-13 09:34 PM

Quote:

I'm a bit confused about your comment that the bike lane was centered in the middle of two through traffic lanes. The bike lane is marked on the right shoulder of the road.
It's off to the right where the police cruiser came to a stop. I posted this picture earlier in this thread of where the collision likely took place right before the road narrows to one lane. Otherwise it gets hard to explain how the car struck the rider in the center of the hood.

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/645/l9it.png

phoebeisis 12-14-13 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dunbar (Post 16328604)
It's off to the right where the police cruiser came to a stop. I posted this picture earlier in this thread of where the collision likely took place right before the road narrows to one lane. Otherwise it gets hard to explain how the car struck the rider in the center of the hood.

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/645/l9it.png

Please tell me that the bike lane-ISN'T that narrow strip in the middle??
Surely no one would put bikes there-right??
It is just some odd sort of CA divider???
What is it??

TJClay 12-14-13 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoebeisis (Post 16329135)
Please tell me that the bike lane-ISN'T that narrow strip in the middle??
Surely no one would put bikes there-right??
It is just some odd sort of CA divider???
What is it??


I don't get that either, is the right side for parking or a lane of traffic?

CommuteCommando 12-14-13 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TJClay (Post 16329340)
I don't get that either, is the right side for parking or a lane of traffic?

It's parking.

phoebeisis 12-14-13 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CommuteCommando (Post 16329400)
It's parking.

So parking-meaning door zone for much of the bike lane. Less than ideal but...
Much smaller cars would improve parking-
If cars were 155" vs perhaps current average of 190" or so-it would save lots of space in crowded urban suburban areas
A FIT- roughly 155" our Prius 177" I think our 1998 Suburban 217" 1/2 ton pickups in 217" range-Accords 188-190" range-the Smart in the 130" range I think

Maybe city vehicles should be taxed based on length-seems fair

TJClay 12-14-13 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoebeisis (Post 16329426)
So parking-meaning door zone for much of the bike lane. Less than ideal but...
Much smaller cars would improve parking-
If cars were 155" vs perhaps current average of 190" or so-it would save lots of space in crowded urban suburban areas
A FIT- roughly 155" our Prius 177" I think our 1998 Suburban 217" 1/2 ton pickups in 217" range-Accords 188-190" range-the Smart in the 130" range I think

Maybe city vehicles should be taxed based on length-seems fair


What does this reply have to do with this thread? Who cares what size the cars are, has nothing to do the accident.

rubic 12-14-13 07:26 PM

Over the years I have traveled the same road where the event happened and I am as horrified as anybody. This thread has lots of interesting and necessary commentary. I would just like to add one idea. I both commute to work and recreationally road bike. When commuting, I always use a flashing rear light. I am wondering if the victim was using a flashing rear light and if not, would one would have possibly prevented this tragedy?

Dunbar 12-14-13 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TJClay (Post 16329340)
I don't get that either, is the right side for parking or a lane of traffic?

It's actually a continuation of this.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6484/qurv.png

phoebeisis 12-15-13 07:23 AM

The arrow far right-sure LOOKS like traffic-not parking-is in that right lane-
but that doesn't make sense-since that would put the bike lane between 2 lines of traffic??
Or is that one of those "not really on the road arrows"-computer arrow?

CommuteCommando 12-15-13 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dunbar (Post 16330767)
It's actually a continuation of this.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6484/qurv.png

Once again, thanks for the correction. Lanes like this adjacent to parking zones are fairly common. The use of "bike through lane" like this one here used to be more common. I have seen at least one spot in Lake Forrest in S. Orange County there the through lane was removed. I like the through lanes because I am a strong advocate of riding to the the left of right turning MV's. The Deputy may have drifted into the bike lane, but that could happen whether there is a right turn lane or not.

I fear that this design feature will be blamed, and the road remarked, eliminating the through lane. This will only help reinforce the misconception held by many motorists and cyclists that FRAP is an absolute.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoebeisis (Post 16331436)
The arrow far right-sure LOOKS like traffic-not parking-is in that right lane-
but that doesn't make sense-since that would put the bike lane between 2 lines of traffic??
Or is that one of those "not really on the road arrows"-computer arrow?

It make a lot of sense. The accident was most likely caused by distracted driving.

phoebeisis 12-15-13 09:46 AM

CommuteCommado
Thanks.
So let me see if I get this.
That road street has " three separate kinda sorta "lanes"-
Far left car lane- middle a somewhat narrow looking bike lane-far right a parking lane that becomes a traffic lane for cars turning right?
Is that correct??

I'm a FRAPPER- so I'm not accustomed to having cars driving on both sides of me.
It wouldn't particularly please me-since I generally don't trust cars to hold their line-so I ALWAYS like to have a "bail right" option.
Many poor drivers STILL do a left "swing" before making a right turn.
Yeah it is their fault for being incompetent drivers-but ......
that swing left to turn right- still really common-

I kinda wonder-folks who lane control by using a far left positioning-do cars ever just blow by on the right-just taking your lane from you??
This accident-doubt it had anything to do with road design-looks like a simple "I din't see him until it was too late" crash. Yeah he was distracted-looking down-didn't see the rider until he hit the windshield.
Broad daylight- good weather- experienced no doubt well above average driver-what else could it be??(ok medical problem either person-remote possibility)

Dunbar 12-15-13 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CommuteCommando (Post 16331618)
I like the through lanes because I am a strong advocate of riding to the the left of right turning MV's.

Me too, I'm a fan as well since the right hook is one of the most commonly encountered threats cyclists face. This assumes it's a right turn only lane so traffic in the right lane must turn right. But once you get past that intersection I can't think of any reason not to move the bike lane over to the curb. Especially since the bike lane is over next to the curb 1/2 block up the road already.

alicestrong 12-17-13 03:17 PM

"We’re asking that the deputy involved in the Calabasas fatality be investigated for distracted driving."

http://www.simivalleyacorn.com/news/...ws_debate.html

blarnie 12-18-13 08:13 PM

The road and it's construction have nothing to do with the negligence of the driver. You are not to proceed on a road at any speed unless it is clear to do so safely. You are not to operate a vehicle under any impairment. That's the responsibility of driving. There is no "right" to drive". It's a privilege.

As it states in the Ca. DMV handbook, "collisions are NOT accidents" and a collision will result in points applied to the NOTS.

[h=5]"Negligent Operator Points[/h]NOTS actions are based on the number of negligent operator "points" drivers add to their driving record within specified time periods. Negligent operator points are added to the driving record upon receipt of conviction notices from courts and reports of responsible collisions from law enforcement which indicate that the driver contributed, was at fault, or was responsible to any degree or in any amount for the collision. The initial reporting of the responsibility for a collision by law enforcement can be refuted by credible evidence presented by the driver at an administrative hearing. The department shall consider all evidence submitted in reaching a final determination with regard to the driver's negligent operator status.
[h=5]Criteria[/h]Traffic convictions are assessed negligent operator point values ranging from zero up to three points. A major conviction when the driver is operating a commercial vehicle, is given a three point count. A responsible collision is counted as one point count whether it occurs in a commercial or noncommercial vehicle.
Points are assigned to convictions for traffic violations that involve the safe operation of a motor vehicle. Point count traffic convictions are listed in Appendix A, the DS 551, Common California Vehicle Code Violations Used in Negligent Operator Count."

alicestrong 12-21-13 12:27 PM

http://www.dailynews.com/general-new...xecutive-named

10 Wheels 12-21-13 12:32 PM

Thanks for the Up Date.

Nikon Rep 12-22-13 03:06 AM

Good to hear the deputy is on paid vacation.

alicestrong 01-23-14 12:58 PM

http://www.dailynews.com/general-new...killed-cyclist


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:42 PM.