Bicyclist warned about night riding, then killed a little bit later by a car
 

http://www.islandpacket.com/2010/08/...bicyclist.html

Proving that the widely held belief that ninjas are invincible is erroneous.

Sad.

SC law requires a front light and rear reflector when riding at night. The deputy stopped him but then let him go on his way...I smell a civil suit coming.

Sad news.
I've often wondered if it's somehow a badge of pride not to ride with lights of any kind...it seems so in my town.

Any chance that the deputy will receive any kind of punishment for not issuing a citation and/or requiring the cyclist to call his mother to come and pick him up?

And possibly a wrongful death suit as well.

Given how many who ride like that it must be. Last light at about 2030hrs there was a two car collision by my apartment. And most of the people on bikes that went past didn't have any lights on them. Given the number of LEOs that were around I would have thought that one of them could have said something to those cyclists who didn't have lights or reflectors, but they didn't.

A wrongful death suit is a civil suit, DC -- unless you've fallen back into your old habit of making up random laws, believing that they're real, and complaining that they're not enforced.

But seriously, why would the cop or the county be liable? The cop told the guy that what he was doing is dangerous, and presumably told him it's also illegal. Issuing a citation rather than a warning wouldn't have saved the guy. Physically impounding the bike or arresting the cyclist are the only things that would have guaranteed he get off the road, and I hope no one is going to argue that a cop should do these things every time they see a violation.

Cops issue warnings all the time; it would be a terrible idea to say that makes their city or county liable for the consequences if someone disregards the warning.

But you just argued that if the cops do say something, they should become liable if the cyclists ignore their warnings.

No, I figure people ought to be mostly responsible for themselves. If you can't do the basics, I don't consider a little Darwinism a bad thing.

In this case, yes, that is exactly what they will probably argue at some point in a court. Whether they win or not...who knows...but think hot Mickey D's coffee and you'll see that it isn't at all far-fetched that the argument might fly.

We're not dealing with truth or justice here, we're dealing with the sad reality of our litigious society and the fact that no deed, good or otherwise, gets away for free.

Yeah, you're right Chip -- it's totally possible the guy's family will sue the county, and they might win. I was just saying it shouldn't happen, not that it won't...

The McDonalds coffee example is frequently used...and also a classic example of why tort reform is ridiculous. The woman who sued had second degree burns as I recall and required extensive medical attention. If memory serves, she might have even needed a skin graft. It wasn't a frivolous suit and that McDonalds had received a warning to fix the coffee maker twice before by a Government agency. It was substantially hotter than normal coffee and was deemed unsafe prior to the accident. This case has become this legendary myth and few of the peiople who quote it seem to actually know anything about it.

You can sue anybody for anything...and yes...there is a chance there could be a suit here...I wouldn't give it much chance of going anywhere. There are built in protections against frivolous suits...lawyers want to get paid, so they aren;t going to take a case they can't win without a large chunk up front. Most people aren;t going to waste that money on something unwinnable up front. As a practical matter, it's extremely difficult to sue most Government agencies in most states...most attorneys won't touch it unless it's truly gross conduct.

It's easy to say a case is frivolous when you aren't the one burned. Most of the tort reform arguers would be first in line sueing if they were injured. Having the right to a trial and having access to a legal system is part of what makes our country what it is. I'd much rather have some frivlous suits than lose my right to unfettered court access. I want a judge and/or jury deciding what's frivolous...not public opinion or politicians.

+1 KAS The infamous McDonald's coffee case rears its ugly head again. BTW that case only went to court because McDonald's refused to pay the womans' medical bills.

http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?eve...wPage&pg=facts

It's this weird myth that people just accept as fact...and the truth is that the reason McDonalds got hit so hard in that case is because their actions were so gross and irresponsible.

In this case as I said the cop in question could have had the cyclist call his mother (or someone else) for a ride to his mother's. This is also good example of how in those cities where the cops that carry light sets to hand out to "ninjas" could have saved a life. Or the cop could have ordered the cyclist in question to get off of his bike and walk it.

In the situation reported in the OP the deputy acknowledged that he himself had difficulty in seeing the cyclist. And he should have known that any other motorist coming upon said cyclist would also have difficulty in seeing the cyclist. And should have either instructed him to call his mother, a friend, a cab or even offered to drive him to his mothers house.

True dat. The bottom line is that for the average joe/jane, the only recourse you have in a lot of cases is through a contingency fee tort attorney. And they're not stupid. They don't take cases if there isn't:

1. a good case on the facts and law
2. significant damages
3. a defendant who can pay

I doubt the family of the deceased could recover here. He's of age and capable of making his own decisions. Now as for the poor woman who struck him ...

It makes me think of all the cars parked on pavements that could cause accidents, and the police do nothing. Its done so often that no-one complains, because there are so many cars.
But yet if you park on double yellow lines, 9am-5pm, u could get a £50 ticket.

Sad to hear about another cyclist dying. I'm surprised at the arguments here. Mr. Jenkins was a 21 year old grown man, responsible for his own actions. What kind of nanny state do you want to run here?

Making a grown man "call his mother?" Is this because the name of the deceased is African American? I don't really like to bring race into things like this, but there is a long history of treating grown African American men like children.

It's not a simple black and white issue. Drivers ought to always take the most care possible-- actively defensive drivers expect unexpected and even illegal activity in the road ahead and plan for it. Even pedestrians and cyclists in black.

Warning a citizen and telling him to stay off the road certainly fulfills the LEO's responsibility. This is a case of an adult making a mistake. The price paid is undeserved and tragic, but not the fault of anyone else. Canopus-- this should not be seen as "darwinism..."



People who make these kinds of errors do not deserve death, and it is not the job of motorists to mete out capital punishment for traffic violations.

The discussion of bike ninjas and events such as this one here in A&S seems to perpetuate the assumption that executing and maiming people is part of the role of motorists in our society.

Unfortunately for all of us, it is also a belief obviously held by far too many motorists.

May we all evolve beyond looking at tragedies like this as "the darwin effect."

What he ^ said.

One could easily make the case that the deputy was negligent and could have possibly prevented the boy's death if he had used better judgment without it being considered frivolous. In the eyes of many the deputy's non-action is just as gross and irresponsible as Mickey D's. That is my point.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. If this had been a drunk driver, rather than a lack of legal lighting, do you really think any DA, judge or jury would think that the LEO had fulfilled his responsibility? How about if he was stopped for carrying a gun? The key issue here is that violation of the applicable law might endanger lives...and it was obviously more than a might in this case.

Cutting someone some slack then finding that doing so cost a life is one of a cop's worst nightmares.

Was this a drunk driver? No, it wasn't. Neither was he a serial killer.

Your argument is absurd. Cops are not there to police the town down to the tiniest infraction. I mean, what do you say... every accident that happens downstream of a speed trap makes the officers-- who didn't pull over the 56 mph scofflaws-- liable? Ridiculous.

Drunk driving is a serious crime. The standard procedure is to arrest the driver and impound the car (unless there's another sober driver available, then maybe.)

A lack of lights is a simple "ticket" offense, and the only time people are arrested for it and their bikes impounded is when either 1) there's other crimes involved or 2) the cops are trying to be dicks.

Taking your poor analogy further, when you see a driver that you *know* is drunk on the road, do you call the police and give the plates and location every time? Do you do the same when you see a bike ninja?

If the answer to both is true, how do the police respond to being called six times every time you go out riding at night?

As I see it, the cop did his job in an appropriate manner, and I hope he doesn't get in any trouble for it. He's likely to have to do some soul-searching, but I see nothing wrong with what he did. I'm not a fan of bike ninjas, and I wouldn't mind them all getting tickets (but giving them lights would be even better) but I do realize it's pretty minor on the list of bad things cyclists do.

Probably true, but that still doesn't mean he did anything wrong.

All state laws that I have looked into have included front light, rear reflector, and bell. If this is the case in your state, every last cop that has come across you has been derelict in their duty.

chipcom, you liked this video in the "Educating LEOs" thread...
what about the ones the cops let by first? are they bad cops? what about tickets? No tickets for anyone?