chennai

Driver hits and kills doctor bicycling
(Jeep slams into cyclists from behind)
https://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?se...cal&id=3817402

Teen's sentence is safety lesson
(Nitwit who killed cyclist while text messaging is sorry now)
https://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_3482506

fordfasterr

it seems like the kid from the 2nd link got off real easy.... I hope they throw the book at the guy who was suspected of being drunk/ on drugs...

Wulfheir

The victim in the 2nd store, Jim Price, was a valued poster over in the bicycle mechanics forum. There are 2 stickies there about him, go read if you haven't before.

thdave

Tragic.

Obviously the punishment for this drunk driver will be much more severe. Yet, in my opinion, operating a motor vehicle while talking on a phone is the same as one who is drunk!

Drunk: sluggish response, loss of concentration
Talking on phone: sluggish response, distracted, loss of concentration

Obviously, a drunk who is at 0.2 alchohol level is worse off than a cell phone user. But a drunk who is at 0.08 to 0.12 or so is, in my opinion, comparable to a person using a phone while driving.

(Certainly, when the guy hangs up he is no longer at risk--that is something a drunk can't do.)

chajmahal

thdave,
I've never heard the case for banning cell phone use put that way. It makes a lot of sense and seems like a valid comparison. Thanks.

Regarding the kid who got 9 days in jail, probation and community service for taking a life: I think only the sentencing judge, widow and kids can have input into the kids perceived remorse and sentencing. But having said that, I do believe that harsh punishments are valuable tools for a society. There's 2 reasons I have no police record and never will: 1. My family/friends/teachers etc raised me that way (moralistic, ethical, right vs. wrong aspect). and 2. I don't want to go to jail (the selfish, individualistic, instinctual aspect).

Looking at this 17 yr olds situation and #2, I don't think this sends a real message to anyone. I remember being a kid and sat in on dozens of those community service assemblies at school. Drugs, alchohol, crime, gangs... No rehabilitated stranger ever made me stay on the straight path. It was when I watched the news with my dad and he explained why the guy on tv was going to jail for 40 years and wouldn't see his family or choose how to spend his day. Humans are selfish. Most won't give up their cell phone "rights" unless there's a good reason. But then his relatives seemed to feel the kid had suffered enough. Just hope the sentence protects the rest of us a little more.

Ever hear of a "thrill killing"? Apparently there's a phenomenon occuring where people go out and do things for the rush. What's to stop someone from running over a biker and claiming they were distracted? Week in jail and community service. Seems pretty light. No, I'm not some paranoid crazy ultra-conservative.

lala

Moved to Advocacy and Safety....

chennai

I think it's interesting to ask oneself, if the kid had been doing something reckless with a gun and shot an innocent man, would the sentence have been the same?

genec

I still contend that if you kill a cyclist or a ped, you are out of the driving pool. Period. No more driving forever.

The person killed is dead forever, so why shouldn't the offender also have a forever sentence... one that fits the crime... they are now forced to be a ped or cyclist... No more driving, ever.

thdave

genec,

I think you need to think that through more carefully. There are many different kinds of accidents.

My father-in-law once killed a woman with his car. Roads were dark and he was coming over a hill. She was lying in the road, being beat upon by her husband. The husband lived.

There was nothing he could do.

genec

A court of law could make that decision.

But it still sounds like he was driving too fast for the conditions... it could have been anyone/anything just over that hill and he wasn't prepared for it.

The current sentences handed out tend to favor the offender... a slap on the wrist and "well, the shame will follow them forever." Great, but at the same time the victim is dead forever.

Look, I am not locking someone in jail forever, I am simply taking away their driver's license... they simply will be reminded of the situation everytime they want to drive somewhere... and cannot.

People can live car free.

Cyclist0094

A guy I went to High School with got drunk on his 40th birthday and drove his car through a redlight and t-boned another car killing the woman driving. He was sentenced to 30 months in Jail , 1000 hours comunity service and 5 years probation.

I saw him a couple of years ago and he was telling me about it. He said the 22 months he served in Jail were no where near as bad as the 1000 hours of community service were he had to face groups of people on a weekly basis and tell them the details of what he had done while a slide projector showed the accident pictures in the background.

thdave

genec,

Imagine you are traveling hilly country roads in the dark at the posted speed limit in a car. Tell me if you could stop immediately when going around any curve or hill if someone was lying in the road.

I guess you'd propose also that all people who hit a deer while driving should have their license revoked.

twahl

Too fast for the condition that there was somebody unable to move lying in the road at night? Do you seriously believe that's a reasonable level of responsibility? Obviously not the vicitim's responsibility. Who put her in the dangerous situation? Not the driver. The husband. He didn't kill her but he was fully responsible for her being someplace where something bad was likely to happen to her. The driver has no way of anticipating every possible condition. Should we drive down the Interstate at 15 MPH on the off chance that someone might toss their grandmother off an overpass?

No, you aren't doing any of those things. As you pointed out, the courts make those decisions. Thank God.

genec

Look, none of us know the actual circumstances... but cresting a hill on a dark road at night should be done at probably less then the speed limit. Rather than a person lying there, it could have been a stalled truck, and then what would have been the outcome?

Most of the interstates where I live are well lighted. The back country roads are not... they are full of blind corners and rises... if you take these at full speed, there is a good chance you will meet a cow head on. Have we learned anything yet?

If one cannot see to the length of their headlights, then I suggest you slow down. You don't drive fast in fog do you?

I learned how to drive in Texas, where there are plenty of blind country roads... I learned early to slow down, whether I knew the road or not... because "if you can't see it, you don't want to hit it."

Now, look to the other side of the situation in which I proposed a fine of losing one's driver's license forever... Currently the law tends to give a slap on the wrist, but the victim is still dead forever. It is not likely that you are going to come across an innocent victim being beat upon in a roadway or a grandma being thrown off a bridge... both of which a jury should understand are extraodinary events...

But failing to control a vehicle, or speeding, or text messaging or failing to yeild a right of way to a ped or cyclist... these were all decisions made by otherwise sane drivers that really knew better... in those cases, the offender should not be allowed to drive again. If the public knew that was a possible sentence, they would think twice about some of the foolishness they conduct behind the wheel... but these days... if you want to commit murder... do it with a car and you will get away with it.

That plain sucks!

thdave

genec,

My father-in-law broke no law and was not ticketed. Yet you want his license taken away forever. Don't you see how goofy that is?

If one drives as you suggest, you would travel much slower than we do today. Presently, as conditions permit, we can travel at the speed limit on roads. There is no law that requires us to stop at any instance to avoid hitting anything. That would be quite a drastic change. It would mean ticketing all who hit deer. It won't happen. Neither will your enactment of your strange suggestion of revoking licenses of those who don't break the law.

In this bicycle accident case where someone drifted off the road and killed someone, and you have a clear case of guilt, then a law change like the one you propose or the one I propose could be significant and important to protecting people's lives. But if you don't properly bound your suggestions, no one will listen.

scarry

The posted speed limit is not always the maximum speed allowed. You should never drive faster than conditions safely allow. This is the basic speed law. If you cannot see over a hill, around a blind corner, or if it is foggy, heavy rain, etc. the maximum speed may be much less than the posted speed limit.

Is this clear enough?

scarry

sounds good to me. Hit a deer, lose your license. One more cyclist.

This would be a very good thing, esp. for cyclists.

genec

+1

Thank you. Far too many people drive as if the maximum speed limit is the minimum...

The speed limit is just that... a LIMIT. It is not the speed you must drive, it is not the average speed, nor is it a requirement to ever drive the LIMIT.

People, we are not in a road race out there... slow down, be aware of your surroundings and fewer of us will be involved in auto accidents... which already kill some 45,000 people per year. There are nearly 5000 pedestrian deaths each year and some 700 cyclist deaths.

Now granted, some people do some very stupid things when walking, such as steping from curbs without looking, or suddenly changing direction, or falling off bridges... in none of these cases should a driver be found guilty or at fault.

But in those cases where drivers are speeding, text messaging, drinking, fooling with the CD, DVD, GPS, Food, Makeup, etc... Driving wrecklessly... they are guilty of abusing the privilege of driving. We grant that privilege far too easily, and then refuse to revoke it in the most obvious cases of abuse... There is no reason for instance that anyone with three (or two) DUIs should ever drive again... and there is no reason that anyone that does not take the responsibility of the privilege of driving seriously should be given a second chance... if through their bad judgement, a helpless human life is taken.

thdave

There are many circumstances where you cannot stop for something.

A woman lying down on the road is one. A deer coming out of the woods is another. How ignorant to suggest we all need to drive slow enough to never hit anything.

To hear you pontificate that my father-in-law was going too fast is to much for my stomach to handle. You come to that conclusion based on my quick retelling of the story?

Go on with your high level theories and ignore reality with your goofy proposals. You won't change a thing. However, if you accept reality and pull together for realistic law changes, such as ones that apply to those actually breaking the law, then you have a chance to improve the world.

slagjumper

In Germany, if a bike and car are involved in an accident, the motorist is deemed "at fault". Unfortunately they, like my beloved contry see fit to only slap a wrist and collect some small punishment fine. You could agument your idea by adding, "If you are breaking the law in any other way, (speeding, drunk, running a light or stop), and; the person(s) you hit where acting lawfully then you loose your license. Of course we all know that laws dont actually govern behavoir, only people do.

ItsJustMe

AFAIK the basic speed law means that if someone is standing in the road, no matter where or what the conditions are, you should be able to stop before you hit them. If you're coming around a blind corner, topping a hill, it's icy, whatever, you are supposed to reduce your speed until you could stop before hitting any conceivable stationary obstacle.
That's pretty much the DEFINITION of driving too fast for conditions.

Follow traffic around sharp corners sometime and see if people even come CLOSE to reducing their speed to even the POSTED limit on the curves. We have some 25 MPH blind curves I drive through all the time near home; I've had people practically rear-end me when I was doing 25 around those corners, even if it was raining or foggy.

People are complete nutcases when behind the wheel; they have NO concept of Newton's laws of motion, or what it really takes to CONTROL 3000 pounds of steel in adverse conditions.

EDIT: I will say that "lying down" in the road is a very extreme case, and I don't think anyone could be blamed (much) for hitting that. But remember, it could have been a log, and it could have caused him to lose control of the car and kill himself and many others if the situation were different. You really should be able to at least seriously reduce your speed in that situation.

genec

Well let's see... I mentioned that we don't know the circumstances, and that a court of law would ultimately decide, and that in situations where there was clearly no fault, then a license should not be taken away... but none of these statements seem to mean a thing to you... on the other hand, some 5000 pedestrians are killed each year along with 700 cyclists... yet you don't see that some folks SHOULD have their licenses revoked.

Sounds like you need to take another look at your thinking.

Personally I find it rather unnerving that folks with multiple DUIs are still allowed to drive and that others who do not take driving seriously are also permitted to drive after killing due to idiotic acts such as text messaging while driving.

Right now too many bad drivers are permitted to continue driving as for some strange reason we as a nation value "driving" over human lives.

I think you need to consider all those bad drivers before condeming my thinking. Your father in law was not an example of bad driving... in this case...

But as a nation we do tend to drive too fast... so that too is a problem. 45,000 folks die in auto accidents every year, 1/3 of which are due to speeding...

I want you to convince me that this is not a problem... can you do it?



BTW for anyone reading this... these numbers are approximate, but can be found and confirmed by anyone doing a web search.

genec

Exactly... if the driver is found at fault, then rather than the typical hand slap, the fine should include revocation of license... along with any other fines/penalties.

thdave

ItsJustMe--

My father-in-law did seriously reduce his speed. He always drives under the speed limit and is an excellent driver. He's a farmer--he's a strong and resourceful man. Very competent.

My frustration here is that it's a misconception that while driving that if you are attentive and slow, you will never hit anything. Sure, many or most never hit anything. But in some cases it is unavoidable. First of all, no driver is perfect. Also, there are circumstances where situations are out of your control and you get into an accident.

My point is that there is an opportunity to change drivers laws to add substantial penalty to drivers who commit accidents while talking on a cell phone. Clearly, they are distracted while doing so and pose a greater risk to society, as evident in sydney's death (https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...ghlight=Sydney) and others. If all campaign against this, we could change laws and people's behavior to reduce accidents.

But if everyone is focused on punishing drivers who commit no offense under the law you will never get public opinion on your side and you will not suceed, IMO.

scarry

No Joke

Let us count the ways.