Dchiefransom

We wonder where some of the kooks behind the wheel come from, but look at the second story below the short article in your link. The Sheriff's Dept found 11 kids locked in cages in their own home.

Sarahb

Patrick was one of about 10 neighborhood kids in our close knit Sunnyvale cul de sac. His mother, and the other "court Moms" loved and nurtured each others' kids. Everyone loved Patrick. I taught my son to ride a two wheeler, and taught Patrick, too. Patrick's dad always kidded me about that.

I am so shocked at this rediculous accident.

Sarah

Swami'sPrincess

Sarah- check private msg...

John E

Thanks for posting, Sarah. As you will find, bicyclists are a close-knit group. I never had the pleasure of meeting Patrick, but I somehow feel as though I have just lost a good friend.

MarkS

Driver Who Killed Marine In Hit-And-Run Pleads Guilty

genec

A Mira Mesa man, who hit and killed a Marine Corps Officer while the officer biked to work, will be sentenced today.

Jose Cifuentes pleaded guilty to the hit-and-run accident, which killed Capt. Patrick Klokow in August.

Klokow was riding his bike to work on Kearny Villa Road when he was hit and died at the scene.

Cifuentes stopped briefly but then drove away. He was pulled over about four hours later.

He faces up to four years in prison.


https://news.yahoo.com/s/kgtv/20051101/lo_kgtv/3032606

genec

Apparently the judge in the case has reduced the sentence to 3 years as the defendent was able to show up on time in court... "good behaviour."

Nice touch judge... and the dead Marine gets what?

Bikepacker67

With any luck it'll be a life sentence:


Sounds like a heavy drinker.

Helmet Head

Well, it's a good thing Cifuentes didn't stop. If it wasn't for the hit-and-run, he probably wouldn't have even been charged with anything, much less sentenced to jail time.

John Wilke

"Riding a bike is actually safer today than ever before. The number of fatalities has dropped nationally nearly every year since 1993, when 816 people died riding bikes. In 2003, the latest year for statistics from the National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 622 people died."

I think this is because medicine is better today than it was in 1993, NOT because it's safer out on the roads !

John Wilke
Milwaukee

Helmet Head

That assumes a significant number of cyclists deaths are not "dead at the scene", and a significant number of those that could not be saved just 15 years ago, can be today.

I don't think trauma/emergency care has improved that much in that period.

genec

Of course that statistic assumes that "safer" is dictated by deaths alone... how many cyclists have been significantly injured since then?

One of my big fears is not death, but permanent disability due to an injury... Think about long term health care expenses and even the possibility of not being able to work and being a burden on your family... or being some vegetable in a hospital for year and years.

At least with a clean "death" my family gets certain insurance and other monetary benefits...

This perhaps more than anything else put me off cycle commuting during my son's very early years.

As gruesome as all this sounds, it is reality. Couple all this with the idea that some Ahole does a hit and RUN, and it really paints an ugly picture.

Dchiefransom

You'll notice that the article says he pled guilty to the hit and run, not vehicular manslaughter. I'm not a lawyer, and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I'm wondering how hard it would have been to prove that the initial collision killed the cyclist. He was struck by two other vehicles after the initial collision.

genec

This from a local news message board, reportedly as a letter to the editor of the local paper:

Judgement doesn't make streets safer.

I found the sentence of Jose Cifuentes in the death of Patrick Klokow has only increased the risk of bicyclists in San Diego. Mr. Cifuentes struck, killed and left the scene. I have thought about Mr. Cifuentes' circumstances but found nothing to abate him deserving the maximum penalty under law.

I bicycle and motor on the streets of our fair city. Compared to other cities, San Diego is engineered for bicycle commuting. Most motorists are very considerate. If I may advocate for a group then it is for the cyclists.

Bicyclists should obey the traffic laws, wear adequate protection, and be visible at all times. Yet, even these precautions do not avoid accidents or tragedy. A bicyclist that challenges motorists is egregiously stupid.
However, there are motorists that challenge cylcists and what have they got to lose? Motorists are well-protected and can get to their destination quicker than cyclists. Motorists should stay out of the bike lanes. Road hazards are exponentially greater to cyclists. Motorists should be aware that slowing down, yielding for a just a few seconds, and providing an a foot or so of extra space can make the difference. A cyclist will still be alive and will be very thankful.

Always defer to safety and regard to life, that usually requires letting the cyclist have the right of way. Motorists should drive thinking that a cyclist is nearby and is sharing the road with them.

If there is one problem that I'd like law enforcement to address it would be excessive speed on residential streets. I have a computer on my bike and it amazes me how many motorists exceed the speed limit by more than ten mph! Even through Balboa Park, posted at 15 mph, speeds of 25 mph are common.

The problem I have with the sentencing of Mr. Cifuentes is that it implies more risk to cyclists and pedestrians if some motorists get the idea that this sentence isn't much at all. A young person with a full life ahead may think three years is nothing. I am appalled that a man living as long as Mr. Cifuentes, hadn't learned the value of life. He should have been given the sentence deserving of a killer.

https://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?a...7138556&mid=63

I took the time to try to fix the paragraphs to make it more readable. This is NOT my writing.

MarkS

Wouldn't they usually press a charge of lying to an officer? Remember, he initially made up a story about hitting lumber that had spilled from a truck.

Helmet Head

Exactly. Which is why I said he probably wouldn't have even been charged with anything, much less sentenced to jail time, had he not fled the scene.

Frankly, I don't think it would have been any different had he been the only who hit the cyclist and did not leave the scene. I'm not a lawyer either, but to be found guilty of vehicular manslaughter, I do know negligence has to be proven, and whether we like it or not, simply hitting a cyclist who has the audacity to ride his bike on the road is not considered as negligence by most jurors. Now, if the driver was blatantly drunk, okay, or maybe if he ran a red light. Maybe...

We had a tragic incident here a few years ago on a 2 lane highway where a pickup truck driver was in the oncoming lane while passing slower vehicles moving in his direction when he struck and killed an oncoming cyclist riding (legally) at the very edge (2" shoulder) of his lane. Despite the fact that the driver was clearly in violation of the law (it is illegal to cross the center dividing line into the oncoming lane when there traffic in that lane, and cyclists clearly constitute traffic by CA law), the officer let him go at the scene, declaring he did nothing wrong. Later the CHP reversed their position, but the DA never prosecuted, believing that a jury would never find the driver in this situation to have been negligent.

I should add that the cyclist was in a paceline, and when the cyclists in front of him saw the pickup coming at them, they suddenly slowed causing this cyclist to swerve left out in front of the pickup. Last I heard the cyclist's family was suing the pickup driver, who in turn was counter-suing the other cyclists.

Anyway, since that pickup driver was not prosecuted, I don't see how Cifuentes would be, since he wasn't doing anything blatantly negligent like driving in an oncoming lane when he struck the cyclist.

Helmet Head

Only if the fibber's name is Martha Stewart.

Lying to an officer is minor compared to criminal hit-and-run, so it's a moot point.

Helmet Head

I sure don't drive with that attitude around cyclists. I mean, I do yield and slow down when the vehicular rules of the road dictate that I should, but I certainly don't just let the cyclist have the ROW simply because he is a cyclist.

And I'd add that any cyclist who expects drivers to have the attitude expressed above is in for a world of hurt.

Blue Order

Any motorist who could avoid an accident, but chooses not to, simply because he has the right of way, is in for a world of hurt. Battery. Negligence. Wrongful Death.

Helmet Head

I hope you don't think I said or implied anything that would support motorists choosing not to avoid an accident because they have the ROW.
However, from what I've observed, if they do have the ROW they are very unlikely to get charged with, much less convicted of, battery, negligence, wrongful death or anything else.

Blue Order

Well, there's the criminal justice system, and there's the civil justice system. One can always hope that the D.A. will press charges in a criminal case, but if they seem disinclined, the community needs to pressure the D.A. to press charges. The animal welfare community does it on every single case of animal abuse. The D.A. always hears from animal welfare people about pressing charges, and the judge always hears from the animal welfare community at sentencing time. It doesn't mean the defendant always has the book thrown at him, but they never let a single case slip through the cracks. To the extent that cyclists don't do that, they need to. There is one caveat to that: you can't assume that just because the police are investigating an accident that the person they're investigating actually committed a crime. It may be that when charges aren't pressed, it's because the motorist didn't do anything wrong. In this hit and run case, it's clear that regardless of how the accident occurred, the motorist violated the law when he did a hit & run.

Now, even if the criminal justice system declines to prosecute (or, in fact, even if they do prosecute) there's nothing to prevent the cyclist's family from filing a lawsuit. If the motorist has the ROW, that doesn't mean that he's free from liability. It would all depend upon the motorist's behavior. If the motorist did everything right, and did everything possible to prevent an accident, and the accident was 100% the fault of the cyclist, it would be pointless to sue. On the other hand, if the motorist had the ROW, but was careless, and both the cyclist and motorist were partially to blame for the accident, the motorist can still be sued. Now, one other problem is money. If the motorist has absolutely no assets, that doesn't prevent someone from suing, but they will have a legal bill to pay at the end of the trial. It's a judgement call. This guy is a 58 year old guy in poor health-- he may have no money and no chance of ever getting money. But suppose he wins the lottery in 3 years when he gets out of prison? Suppose he writes a book about his conversion to religion behind bars? A judgment now would prevent him from ever cashing in. A kid in med school may also have no money, but he's got a future earning potential that looks pretty good, and a judgment against him stands a fair chance of collecting. It's all a judgment call.

Remember, OJ was acquitted by the criminal justice system, but got nailed by the civil justice system. And yeah, he had his assets well-protected (which won't be the case for most people), and got away with murder, but you'll never see him making new money-- because it would go to the families who got the judgment. And you'll never hear him say he was found innocent.

Helmet Head

Blue Order, did you read post #117 in this thread?

I described a case where the CHP report found the driver guilty, and the DA still chose not to prosecute, because of her desire to have a 100% (or 99.95%) conviction rate coupled with the likelihood that a jury would find the driver not negligent, despite the CHPs finding. Yes, the civil route is always an option, but that can often get real ugly. In this case the driver is counter-suing the other cyclists that were riding with the one that was killed. That's an incident I happen to be familiar with, but I read about similar cases all too often.

The only time you ever read about a motorist convicted related to a cyclist death is pretty much only when the motorist did something blatantly wrong, usually either drunk driving or hit-and-run. In fact, I cannot recall a single case of a prosecution of a motorist involved in a cyclist death who was sober and did not flee the scene. Do you know of any? Anyone else?

Blue Order

Yes, I actually did read that. I don't know a lot about the dynamics of prosecutors' offices, but that doesn't surprise me. I'm not even sure what the requirements would be for a prosecution in that case. BUT. To get a criminal conviction, she would need to prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt. To try the case civilly, you only need a preponderance of the evidence. Basically, that means more likely than not. So for a criminal conviction, you need something approaching certainty, and for civil liability, you only need probability.

As far as the counter-suit goes, he's hired himself a decent attorney (meaning his attorney is zealously representing his client). The attorney would be remiss in his duties if he didn't counter-sue under the circumstances (which, if I recall, were that the other cyclists contributed to the accident). However, under the circumstances you described, it would be very simple, in my view, to establish a case of negligence. He has a duty not to cross into the oncoming lane when there is oncoming traffic, he crossed into the oncoming lane when there was oncoming traffic. Relatively simple stuff. The other cyclists who were riding in formation may or may not have contributed to the accident (and unless they were violating a traffic law, I seriously doubt that they could be found to be negligent), but that doesn't alter his own negligence. It just has the potential to deflect some of the burden of damages away from the motorist.

budster

This is why I take comfort in the fact that my numerous and heavily-armed redneck relatives would want "a word" with anyone who ran over me and didn't get serious jail time for it.