Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Another Peloton clobbered by pickup truck, in AZ. 2 dead so far.

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Another Peloton clobbered by pickup truck, in AZ. 2 dead so far.

Old 03-17-24, 02:58 PM
  #226  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
Liked 129 Times in 84 Posts
Originally Posted by JW Fas
The point I was making was that you can't immediately call the road engineer negligent because someone crashed from speeding.
One cannot ever call the road engineer negligent due to a user crashing from speeding. Because, as I said, it is not possible or desirable to build roads that cannot be sped upon.
TC1 is offline  
Old 03-17-24, 03:04 PM
  #227  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
Liked 129 Times in 84 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
The prosecutors have a much better understanding than you do of when negligent homicide is applicable.
No, they don't -- as a number of 'experts' have observed, in this case and others.

But that said, since you so sure of your claim, what would be negligent homicide if this isn't? Where is the threshold, if -- as you claim -- it is somewhere above driving through a peloton of cyclists at 50 mph, and not even touching the brakes until a quarter-mile down the road, while dragging at least one victim most of that distance? And then lying to investigators about the circumstances? All while high.

Arizona legislators wrote that negligent homicide law for a reason, so it must apply to some situation.

Explain what situation it could possibly apply to, if not this one.
TC1 is offline  
Old 03-17-24, 03:30 PM
  #228  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,016

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3989 Post(s)
Liked 7,444 Times in 2,995 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
No, they don't -- as a number of 'experts' have observed, in this case and others.
The district attorney understands what legally constitutes negligence (and what it takes to convict someone), whereas you want to apply your own definition. If you're unhappy with the existing laws, lobby to have them changed -- don't criticize the prosecutors that are operating within the rules of the present system.

Last edited by tomato coupe; 03-17-24 at 03:43 PM.
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 03-17-24, 04:02 PM
  #229  
Cantilever believer
 
RCMoeur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2021
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,623
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 554 Post(s)
Liked 1,922 Times in 863 Posts
The West Valley Cycling Club (the club whose members were struck in this incident) were out in force at this morning's Tour De Cure held in the same area (but not using the roadway where the crash occurred). Good to see.
__________________
Richard C. Moeur, PE - Phoenix AZ, USA
https://www.richardcmoeur.com/bikestuf.html
RCMoeur is offline  
Likes For RCMoeur:
Old 03-17-24, 04:08 PM
  #230  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
Liked 129 Times in 84 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
The district attorney understands what legally constitutes negligence (and what it takes to convict someone), whereas you want to apply your own definition. If you're unhappy with the existing laws, lobby to have them changed -- don't criticize the prosecutors that are operating within the rules of the present system.
I specifically said that the laws are fine. The problem is that the indolent prosecutor -- a view I share with the victims and their families, by the way -- is simply too lazy to do their job.

Again, I invite you to describe a scenario that would be negligent homicide and/or exactly what required evidence you believe is unavailable to the prosecutor in this case.

And, since you are clearly unaware, it's not that hard to convict on negligent homicide in Arizona: https://tucson.com/news/local/jury-c...05af697a3.html Almost the same circumstances as the Goodyear crash, except not involving cyclists, and only one victim -- who was well-connected, and therefore, the prosecutor could be arsed to do their job.

Last edited by TC1; 03-17-24 at 05:47 PM. Reason: added evidence
TC1 is offline  
Old 03-18-24, 04:38 AM
  #231  
I am potato.
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,146

Bikes: Only precision built, custom high performance elitist machines of the highest caliber. 🍆

Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1806 Post(s)
Liked 1,662 Times in 952 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
You have been misguidedly fixated on improvement, which has never been the point of discussion. The point is that your claim that "As a result traffic related deaths or injuries elsewhere in the world are a fraction of what they are here in the US." is just wrong.

Except for all the places globally that got safer to make driving safer on a global level. Which jives with the link you originally posted that you incorrectly used to infer that US driving had somehow become safer.



No, it does not -- for precisely the reason that I already explained, and which virtually everyone who uses statistics is already aware of. Please stop with this particular nonsense, as it is an embarrassing waste of time.
Like it or not it is the most recent data we have. You can't simply dismiss the data's existence because it doesn't fit a particular narrative. COVID happened and it affected humanity in a number of ways. Through any number of mechanisms, people's driving behaviour, evidently one of them. Your entire argument seems to be: "Only the data that I want to include is the only data that counts and that data only says what I want it to mean. Data that doesn't agree with my motivated reasoning doesn't count." Cognitive dissonance at it's finest.

Again, make up your mind -- in just that brief pair of sentences, you claimed that there is both a lack of consequences and a greater frequency and severity of consequences. Sit down and have a think about what your argument actually is, before writing, next time.
You are aware that if you build a matrix with the "x" axis having 3 demarcations of severity: "insignificant," "serious," & "catastrophic" Then you demarcate the "Y" axis as levels of frequency: "Rare," "sometimes," & "common." That you have now built 9 classes that cover all possible traffic incidents, correct?

The complete and total lack of enforcement efforts has removed all consequences (outcomes) from the common/insignificant consequences block (ie: traffic tickets) and owing to excessive speed and misuse of wide flat American road design has moved the negative outcomes towards the common/catastrophic block of the outcome matrix. We see this in the American traffic fatality data.

So yeah. There can be both no consequences for bad behaviour and catastrophic consequences in the form of fatality incidents. All incidents & potential incidents fit on the same matrix. It's a matter of where. You need not be so obtuse in your intentional misreading. I gave you apparently undeserved credit for being a competent, thinking person.

No, but to start with, you might want to understand that the plural of 'anecdote', is not data.
And the data in the rest of the world suggests that US style infrastructure is dangerous and easily misused.

No, it does not. It specifically describes many of the ways in which Brussels is no longer similar to the US, in this area. And despite those changes, the country's road fatality rate is identical to the US.
You asked me to explain why the 2017 US and BelgiŽ data were the same. I explained that the data was the same because at the time they used the same basic infrastructure design.

Then you link an article that explains the 20-whatever divergence:
"At first gradually and then stunningly fast, Brusselsí transportation network has been reconfigured, shifting trips away from cars and toward bikes, transit and walking. The share of bike commuters has tripled in just four years, and transit ridership has already bounced back to pre-Covid levels. In 2017 cars accounted 64% of the miles traveled within the city; by 2021 the figure had fallen under 50%. Meanwhile, a huge pedestrian zone has emerged in the city center."

"If car-choked Brussels can transform itself in less than a generation..."

And that's just Brussels, for the record. Someone who visits as often as you claim to might be aware that Belgium is composed of more than just Brussels.

Great. This is what I want. This style and change to actual good road and street design, urban design, these planning models. This type of design yields lower traffic deaths than the now even worse and further along the divergent path that the US models have taken.

For the record: I don't claim to go to Brussels often. I claimed to go there once in 2019 at the tail end of the data period you site and before all the current changes that made an improvement in the pedestrian and traffic deaths.

The "good designs" to which you refer have no beneficial effect on safety, and this has been proven too many times to count by now. In every case, after wasting time, money, and lives attempting to build safety, municipalities have seen the failure, and changed tack. And the tack they always switch to, which does work, is increased law enforcement and decreased motor vehicle usage.
The good designs I refer to are the changes that everywhere else in the world, Belgium included has adopted to make driving and cycling and walking safer. Changes the US traffic designers and urban planners need to make. You are trying really hard to make me the enemy, here. You are coming at me as if I am some sort of establishment first, patriotic American fool. I assure you that is not the case. American road design killed the people in this peleton. Good road design would have prevented it.

And, since you'll likely miss the point, if you can accomplish those two goals, there's nothing at all wrong with the US' infrastructure -- it will remain the world's gold standard. The US has 4 million miles of roads that are almost all perfectly suitable for any type of transport that is legal upon them -- the one and only problem is with the users of the infrastructure, and their misuse of it. And that cannot be designed-away, as is being seen in the Netherlands right just now.
If the users can misuse a product then that product is poorly designed. It's one of those first principals sort of things. A big. problem is we have streets designed as roads and roads used as streets. This needs to change if America is to change the traffic and pedestrian death trend. Streets and roads are 2 different types of product with different use criteria. But if course, you already knew that.

No, it does not, because you are claiming that infrastructure can be built to completely prevent a driver from killing non-drivers. And, as I explained to you with a bunch of examples, that is impossible.
Except for the places outside of America that do and have. All the places that top the list in pedestrian and traffic fatality reduction. Seriously, using examples of terrorism to make a point undermines whatever point you are trying to make. What next, Hitler did/used/liked "x" like the good ol' days of AOL? Grow up.

Furthermore, the incident in-question was not even urban, so you are displaying an embarrassingly-low level of familiarity with the discussion.
Yep.. It was rural. The very definition of low density of land use design that requires automobile useage to function in society. It was also a road which is defined as a high speed connection between two points with limited entrance and exit opportunity. A properly designed road would have a separation barrier between uses. We can discuss easy and cheap ways to implement a separation of uses if you'd care to actually learn ways this peloton tragedy could be avoided.

As I already explained, only one person is responsible for a motor vehicle being operated in a dangerous manner -- and that's the operator thereof.
And the traffic engineer and the urban planner that set the stage and the gameboard into play. Then you have the operator who operates within the confines of environment presented.


For not the first time, attempt to keep your argument straight in your head, before setting your fingers loose on the keyboard. Having to repeatedly explain your own points to you is becoming tiresome. You very recently claimed:



So, I was forced to illustrate to you that all of the cities which you claim have done that "proper urban planning" have completely failed to prevent murderous felons from killing people with vehicles.
By citing terrorism: The last effort of a desperate man.

Do you understand now, or do I need to use even smaller words?
Oh, yes. I do understand your desperation to somehow be right. I'm going to leave this conversation here. I have no further inclination to discuss the matter with you further.

Have a nice day.

Last edited by base2; 03-18-24 at 07:59 AM.
base2 is offline  
Old 03-18-24, 04:02 PM
  #232  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
Liked 129 Times in 84 Posts
Originally Posted by base2
Except for all the places globally that got safer to make driving safer on a global level. Which jives with the link you originally posted that you incorrectly used to infer that US driving had somehow become safer.
Again, as I already explained to you, you are the only one here misguidedly fixated on rates-of-change. I did not speak about any rate of change.

Originally Posted by base2
Like it or not it is the most recent data we have. You can't simply dismiss the data's existence because it doesn't fit a particular narrative.
Again, learn thing-one about statistics before continuing. Pandemic data is not dismissed because it doesn't fit a narrative, it is dismissed because it is corrupted by many variables that cannot be controlled for.

Originally Posted by base2
The complete and total lack of enforcement efforts has removed all consequences (outcomes) from the common/insignificant consequences block (ie: traffic tickets) and owing to excessive speed and misuse of wide flat American road design has moved the negative outcomes towards the common/catastrophic block of the outcome matrix. We see this in the American traffic fatality data.
No, we do not find support for your hypothesis. https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-ve.../introduction/ among others, which show the decline in motor vehicle deaths until the Pandemic -- at which time, as I've already patiently explained to you, a number of uncontrolled variables come into play, such as drastic reductions in public transport, and serious issues for first response medical care, among others.

Originally Posted by base2
So yeah. There can be both no consequences for bad behaviour and catastrophic consequences in the form of fatality incidents. All incidents & potential incidents fit on the same matrix. It's a matter of where. You need not be so obtuse in your intentional misreading. I gave you apparently undeserved credit for being a competent, thinking person.
Again, your blathering is unsupported by the facts of the situation. https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-ve...sues/speeding/



Originally Posted by base2
And the data in the rest of the world suggests that US style infrastructure is dangerous and easily misused.
Again, no, as I already explained. The rest of the world's roads are more dangerous than the US', on average. Why are you incapable of understanding this?


Originally Posted by base2
The good designs I refer to are the changes that everywhere else in the world, Belgium included has adopted to make driving and cycling and walking safer.
Why then do these designs not accomplish that anywhere that they have been tried?

Originally Posted by base2
Changes the US traffic designers and urban planners need to make. You are trying really hard to make me the enemy, here. You are coming at me as if I am some sort of establishment first, patriotic American fool. I assure you that is not the case. American road design killed the people in this peleton. Good road design would have prevented it.
No, I am "coming at you" as if you have no idea what you are talking about -- because your comments illustrate that over and over again.

Originally Posted by base2
American road design killed the people in this peleton. Good road design would have prevented it.
This is fantastic nonsense -- as I already explained to you. You cannot design roads to prevent a motor vehicle operator from killing others, and I provided with you a number of examples to help you understand this simple point.

A dangerous driver killed those people in Arizona. Not an engineer.

Originally Posted by base2
If the users can misuse a product then that product is poorly designed. It's one of those first principals sort of things. A big. problem is we have streets designed as roads and roads used as streets. This needs to change if America is to change the traffic and pedestrian death trend. Streets and roads are 2 different types of product with different use criteria. But if course, you already knew that.
None of which matters without driver training and enforcement -- both of which are vastly cheaper than rebuilding the entire country.

Originally Posted by base2
Except for the places outside of America that do and have. All the places that top the list in pedestrian and traffic fatality reduction. Seriously, using examples of terrorism to make a point undermines whatever point you are trying to make. What next, Hitler did/used/liked "x" like the good ol' days of AOL? Grow up.
There is no meaningful difference between the driver who plowed through the Arizona peloton and the many examples of drivers in Europe plowing through groups of people. Yet you continue to claim that all of those events can be prevented by design, despite the fact that your "good designs" precisely did not prevent any of those European incidents.

If you cannot understand that, you may want to discontinue here. Either way, you'll want to stop resorting to pathetic insult.

Originally Posted by base2
Yep.. It was rural.
Finally, it reads.

Originally Posted by base2
The very definition of low density of land use design that requires automobile useage to function in society.
Clearly not, since 20-odd people were happily cycling through that area on the fateful day in question.

Originally Posted by base2
It was also a road which is defined as a high speed connection between two points with limited entrance and exit opportunity.
It's a bridge.

Originally Posted by base2
A properly designed road would have a separation barrier between uses. We can discuss easy and cheap ways to implement a separation of uses if you'd care to actually learn ways this peloton tragedy could be avoided.
Okay, go ahead. Explain how you are going to separate all road users by type, everywhere. This will be riot.

Originally Posted by base2
By citing terrorism: The last effort of a desperate man.
Explain the precise difference between the Arizona killer and any of those European terrorists.

Originally Posted by base2
Oh, yes. I do understand your desperation to somehow be right. I'm going to leave this conversation here. I have no further inclination to discuss the matter with you further.
Runaway! Better luck next time -- but do your homework first.
TC1 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.