Folks. I hate to say this but both parties were wrong. This woman would be spending hard time in prison for what she did but since the conditions were dark and the cyclists' was NOT wearing lights and the helmet, I doubt she's going to get any time. More than likely, she'll get time for dunk driving and a lesser charge of vehicular manslaughter.

A couple of months in jail, seveal years probation and she's out!

GET THOSE BLINKIES OUT!

Why do you hate to say it? That, as I read it, is an emergent theme of this thread. The other theme, one that arises from this one, is what the consequences are. The cyclist has already paid the ultimate consequence, one far more severe than the "wrong" that precipitated it. I suspect you're right, however, that the consequence for the motor vehicle driver will be less severe than the wrong she committed.

I think all these details are relevant:

Lack of lighting is obviosly a high risk factor

SUV collisions are statistically more likely to kill pedestrian and cyclists than are those involving real cars.

SUVs are badly compromised in handling and braking compared to real cars.

Unless we know that the cyclist did not suffer a head injury, I would not dismiss the "no helmet" bit as irrelevant. Helmets are good to have on when you sail over the car and land flat on your head. Unless you wear one on each knee, they will probably not help much in a typical fall.

Paul

Not true in ice or snow.

Especially true on ice. An SUV is at a severe disadvantage due to its weight when compared to a car when driving on ice.

On thick snow, they are generally better. On packed snow their handling is equal or worse than a front drive car, again due to their excess weight and momentum.

4WD and AWD only helps you get moving from a stop in those conditions.

I don't think anybody was celebrating this death, far from it. I, for one, find nothing to celebrate in stupidity. However, we need to be realistic here, riding at night without proper lighting is just stupid, and it is a form of natural selection.

In saying that, it doesn't make the actions of the driver right by any means. Aren't they also supposed to have lighting (i.e. headlights)? As said by someone else, both parties are in the wrong here. The cyclist has paid the ultimate price, now I wait and see if the driver will pay any price.

I doubt she'll even get that. Furthermore, I doubt the sentence would have been any different had the cyclist been wearing 50 watt rear flashing lights, or been struck in broad daylight. As has been said here before, killing someone with a gun or a knife will always get you more time than killing someone with a car, seemingly irrespective of the circumstances.

What car vs. what SUV? I doubt a Caddy would handle better than an AWD SUV.

I have an SUV and had a FWD car. Trust me the SUV is better in the snow. My Subaru is great be it stopping or starting as long as you don't slam the brakes on. Having all wheels in gear is much better for slowing down and staying in control. Especialy in turns.

In Jeff Garcia's case, he took the breath test and he was sited for being over 3 times over the limit, he would have been better off refusing the test and not contesting that he was dui.

as for not wearing a helment and not having any lights, what can we say?

If I'm ever struck by a motor-vehicle, no one will be able to say that I didn't do everything in my power to remain upright and unharmed. If everyone who straddles a bicycle takes serious inventory and asks themselves the crucial question "Am I truly prepared?" without the indulgence of ego ("I'm a great rider!") or the false pretense of haste ("I just don't have the time to worry about it, I have to go!"), we would read of far fewer incidents such as this.

The very same criteria pertains to motorists, of course.

Subarus arent SUVs. They're nice cars.

Back to topic ... Darwin Award I guess. But I agree that both parties are wrong. If she is found guilty of DUI in court and convicted, any kind of time in jail will kill her career, so it's more or less a life sentence IMO. From what I've heard, if you've been a convicted criminal, you lose all your rights as a citizen. Am I right?

Possibly I should explain my feelings further, in regard to the Darwin and Natural Selection comments. The way I read them is that there is a certain level of acceptance of people dying from their incaution. The thinking is that with natural selection there are fewer stupid people to procreate and produce an even greater stupid person gene pool? Maybe that's a good thing? If they're picked off young enough. I personally think that there are other factors at play, besides genetics.

We all learn from our experience. If the cyclist had lived a charmed life and not had close calls, he would be more likely to throw caution to the wind. If he survived this collision he might have gone out and bought sensible gear. He'd probably be posting his experience as a warning to others on this forum, from his hospital bed. Or the 'stupid' cylist might have been poor and uneducated, thinking, "can't afford lights and stuff- gonna ride anyway. It beats walking"

I was much more likely to die biking, when I was younger. The feller who posted that he would only ride on bike paths for safety reasons, then was killed by a drunk driver was less likely to die. There are plenty of people that would say that bicyclists generally should receive a Darwin award, because its more dangerous than driving. Of course each person thinks that he is better than everyone else becase he is neither overly cautious nor overly reckless. So where should the Darwinists draw the line?

Hmmm... could be a valid point. I guess I've just lived here (where most people would take the latter option - and not because they're poor), too long. Still, it does raise the whole issue of education. In many areas, education for cyclists is non-existent, however, it's pretty easy to find education telling people to wear lights if they ride at night. Heck, the "operating manual" of every bike I've ever bought said the same thing. It isn't too hard to find this material.

Not to anyone who's actually seen the statistics on cyclist death and injury rates on bikepaths vs roads -- but that's another rant. We've all done stupid things in the past, myself included. However, some are more stupid than others.

Again, anyone who's ever actually seen statistics on death rates for cycling vs driving would realise that driving is the more dangerous of the two activities, but again that's another rant.

I think the "all cyclists should receive a Darwin award" or "all drivers should receive a Darwin award" argument is extremely short-sighted and probably only perpetuated by Darwin award canditates (or idiots as I prefer to call them). The fact is that any activity is going to be much more dangerous if it isn't done properly. If you don't believe me, try driving down the wrong side of a major highway in rush hour and see how long you last. That is why I say this guy should receive a Darwin award. Not because he was cycling, but because he wasn't cycling properly.