Digital_Cowboy

I've seen the video on another mailing list. And not that it excuses the drivers actions. But the cyclists did run a stop sign, pass too close to several parked cars, as well as traveling straight through a right turn lane.

Was the driver eventually arrested? If so what charges are they facing?

I'd just watched enough of the video to see that I had already saw it elsewhere, I didn't read the article. After having read the article I realized that the driver and/or passenger were arrested.

Digital_Cowboy

Good question, given that they run not only the stop sign but go straight in a right turn lane, would the police be just as obligated to ticket them as they would be in ticketing/arresting the driver for hit and run?

Granted there is (AFAIK) no law preventing the riding in a door zone, it's just unsafe, but they did commit a few infractions themselves. If they turn the video over to the police will the face tickets? Or will the be "smart" enough to edit it so that it only shows the hit and run?

Digital_Cowboy

It is my hope that none of us EVER have to experience a similar situation. But sadly, we know the truth of the matter.

Digital_Cowboy

Then police departments shouldn't be using red light (or other) cameras to issue tickets for running red lights. As really what is the difference?

Agreed, it would have been in their best interest to edit the video to show from just before the crash on, why did they show their law breaking?

Digital_Cowboy

I wonder how much time had passed between the crash and the car was reported as being "stolen?" I suspect that the police found no other fingerprints but the owners and/or his passenger.

Digital_Cowboy

Paul,

Granted the running of the stop sign didn't have any impact on the hit and run, but the way the law is written IIANM is that all vehicles (except in Idaho and a small number of states that are adapting the Idaho stop) will stop for red lights and stop signs. So therefore the cyclists (even though they obviously "safely" ran the stop sign) are required to stop for the stop sign before making their right turn.

And in regards to the Idaho stop, IIANM it doesn't give a cyclist a license to just run the red light or stop sign, they still have to slow down and be prepared to stop if it isn't safe for them to proceed through red light/stop sign.

In regards to the riding in the door zone, it would have been better if they had taken the lane and remained there until they'd passed the last of the parked cars. It would have been safer for them and more considerate (even if they don't understand it) to the motorists behind them as they would be behaving in a predictable manner.

Daves_Not_Here

No excuse for the hit & run and the motorist is 100% at fault. That said, as I watch these cyclists ride, they seem like preventable accidents waiting to happen - (1) they ride through multiple door zones, and (2) they appear to be completely oblivious to the traffic approaching from the rear - in fact, just prior to the collision, the front cyclist moves leftward nearly a foot. If you have a car coming up behind you that has drifted rightward over the line, on a collision course, why wouldn't you bail out to the right?

It's curious to me that during this discussion, mention has been made of rolling stop signs (legal violation that does not significantly increase risk of cyclist injury/death) versus not caring to know when an approaching vehicle has drifted to the right and is on a collision course (violation of common sense that significantly increases risk of cyclist injury/death).

MMACH 5

^^ What is a "legal violation?"

dougmc

I've answered this one before. I think you were even involved in that thread.

In general, red light camera tickets are civil actions -- akin to parking violations -- and police officer given tickets are criminal actions. In general, red light camera tickets aren't even administered by the police at all -- their biggest involvement in the programs is getting caught non-stop running red lights.

Yes, there's some exceptions, but for the most part, this is how it's set up.

They do this because civil actions are much easier to prove in court. In a criminal case, you have the right to face your accuser (how do you face a camera?) and guilt is to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt.

K'Tesh

Now I'm thinking about this little "toy" for my bike....

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1080-720p-60...ht_5035wt_1163

pletcgm

I am glad they got the driver, but they were also stupid idiots for running stop signs like that. That is one of the reasons we have such a bad rap because so many blatantly disobey the road laws like that!

Digital_Cowboy

Yes, I think I was.

Then maybe the question should be why is video/photographic evidence allowed at all. How many people have been convicted on grainy, blurred video/photographic evidence?

Also I'm pretty sure that I've read articles that have made it clear that at least in some jurisdictions that an officer DOES in fact review the video footage before a ticket is issued.

So in those jurisdictions shouldn't ANY video be given the same weight?

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, and why those of us who do obey the road laws get lumped in with those who don't. Because sadly given human nature we (as a collective) tend to remember the negatives longer than we do the positives, i.e. if a motorist sees 10 cyclists riding legally and safely, and then sees one lone cyclist riding "late" at night with no lights, reflectors, against traffic, and blowing red lights and stop signs. Which do you think that they'll remember?

eugenek

I don't know about Texas, but, here in California, this is one hundred percent false. Red light camera tickets are violations of traffic code, administered by the police, reviewed by a police officer, adjudicated by the traffic court, with sections of the traffic code dedicated specifically to the tricky legal aspects. It is explicitly prohibited for anyone except a government agency to operate red light cameras, and there were court cases where convictions were thrown out on appeal because the police failed to handle all aspects of the action (for example, relying on a private subcontractor to maintain the cameras).

pletcgm

I agree, but I have also noticed that drivers do take note when they see you consistently and notice that you are courteous and obey the laws. I take the same route commuting to the office and drivers have actually become nice and will yield to me when I am just waiting for them to get by, and some even talk to me at red lights once they realized that I am not one of those buttholes. That is why I quit riding in groups. They would just continue through the stop light like it was OK. If it is the fact that they want to keep their cadence up and not have to stop and go, then they should be riding in the countryside, not the cities. All I ever see is hatred from car drivers about how cyclists consistently disobey the laws. I saw one run the red light one day and I pulled up beside him on my CBR and really lectured him that he was part of the problem in giving the rest of us the bad rap.

Digital_Cowboy

I'm not 100% certain, but I think that I read somewhere that here in Fl/St. Pete that red light camera footage is reviewed by a police officer before a ticket is issued.

Bikepacker67

Arghhh... I am so tired of the scofflaw cyclist argument.

Yes, there are jackholes who ride bicycles. Some are arrogant roadies, some are clueless homeless people, some are grandmas salmon-ing along the bike paths.
Just like there's arrogant sports car drivers, ignoramuses mindlessly driving jalopies, and 80+ year olds, who have no business behind the wheel.

You know what the difference is?
The former are UNDER THERE OWN POWER, piloting at worst, a 50lb vehicle.

The latter, is traveling upwards of 100 feet per second and carrying the momentum of a ton.

THIS IS WHY a scofflaw cyclist is NOTHING LIKE a scofflaw motorist.

Fer crissake F=MA.

fuji86

caught him !

https://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...-29134035.html

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, which is why when I'm riding and someone waits for me to clear the intersection before they pull out I'll wave and thank them. Like most here I ride the same or close enough to the same route that I am sure that I encounter the same drivers at the same time at the same places. So hopefully as you've noted they'll come to recognize me and realize that like you I am not one of the "buttheads" but am someone who truly cares and rides in both a safe and legal manner.

One of the sad things is that even though we know that we're riding in a safe and legal manner, not ALL motorists understand/realize that what we're doing is legal and safe.

So sadly we end up having "well meaning" motorists yelling at us about what we're doing "wrong."

I also agree with you in regards to riding in groups, particularly large groups, i.e. 50 - 100+ cyclists. I think that smaller groups 20 or so cyclists that then break down into smaller groups as the ride progresses is probably the better way to go. Also the group can then arrange to meet up and various spots along their route to regroup.

Which is what the smallish group that I ride with on Monday's and Thursday's does. We usually have about 20 or so skaters/cyclists per ride. We're generally strung out down the road in smaller groups. We have "designated" spots along the route where we regroup. We take off from these spots as a group, but again once we get going, we again break down into small groups.

And for the most part the rules of the road are obeyed. Yes, there are a few who will run red lights, but for the most part that doesn't happen all that often.

The really sad thing is that I don't (as I believe others have said) think that those who ride in a questionable manner are aware of what it is that they're doing wrong. They're just doing what their parents taught them to do when they were kids.

That's not to say that there aren't those out there who know the rules/law of the road but just don't care and are going to ride however the hell they want.

An example of that mindset is a pedestrian I encountered not too long ago on the local MUP. She was walking on the wrong side of the MUP, i.e. the bike side. When I politely talked to her about it. Her response was "I'm 70-years old and I'll walk wherever I want." I left her with this word of advice "When you get hit by a bicycle don't blame them." To which she replied "I won't."

Digital_Cowboy

I have you not been reading the threads where cyclists have hit and killed pedestrians? How much comfort do you think that the deceased and/or their family took/take in the fact that they were hit by a bicycle?

And what about the scofflaw cyclist who causes a motorist to swerve to avoid hitting them. And in doing so hitting and killing one or more pedestrians or hitting another car? Do you really think that there is a "difference" in their actions then?

Unsafe/illegal/dangerous behavior is unsafe/illegal/dangerous behavior regardless of the vehicle that one is operating.

Yes, typically bicycles are smaller and lighter and typically less "dangerous" then a moped, motorcycle, car, truck OR bicycle. BUT they can STILL cause the loss of life or even severe injury.

That is why so many of us here see little to no difference between scofflaw motorists and scofflaw cyclists. Their actions endanger more then just themselves.

Bikepacker67

Yes Digital Cowboy, I've read the threads - and as tragic as they are - they are still the anomaly. Cars kill people - bikes, not so much.
And I'm still not sure the pedestrian killed was the cyclist's fault, as the last I read, the rider was in the intersection when the light turned red. The crosswalk light should account for vehicles in the intersection.

Digital_Cowboy

I agree with you that they area an "anomaly" but that doesn't mean that they should be "ignored" either.

Like you, I'm not fully convinced that the cyclist was totally at fault for the crash that resulted in the pedestrian's death. As, as everyone is saying that the cyclist had entered the intersection under the yellow and the pedestrian(s) for whatever reason decided to start crossing against the light. Then he/they are at least partially to blame for what happened that day.

Also as I have said when I'm riding in the downtown area (and even in the areas away from the downtown area) I constantly see too many pedestrians who are crossing against the light. And if they're hit and injured or killed then they should bear the lions share of the responsibility for their actions/injuries/death. As well as those who jaywalk.

Which is something I don't understand. If there is a crosswalk within a couple of feet then why not cross there?

As I've said about the cyclist in the S.F. thread. I say charge him with reckless driving (if that charge is applicable) and allow the deceased's family to take him to civil court suing for wrongful death. Where he may or may not be found guilty.

But I do not think that charging him with felony vehicular manslaughter is the right charge.

CB HI

And yet this thread OP is CA, where red light camera tickets are criminal violations issued by the police.

UnsafeAlpine

And once again, the attention is diverted from a horrific hit and run to whether the cyclists should have stopped at the stop sign. Well done in being no better than idiot motorists whose comments are the exact same.

Paul Barnard

Never mind the fact that by not stopping at either stop sign they actually facilitated better overall tarffic flow. It is very likely, based on my experience, that the motorist in the white car at the beginning of the video waved them through the intersection. It happens as often as not when i approach a 4 way stop at about the same time as another motorist. At the second stop sign, they could have stopped in the middle of the lane, waited for oncoming traffic to clear then entered the main travel lane. That would have slowed their progress, the progress of motorists behind them at the stop and the progress of vehicles behind them on Tunnel Rd. As it worked out, they slow rolled through the stop and entered the parking lane at the same time as vehicles were passing on Tunnel. Win/Win/Win. Idaho got it right with their laws. Sometimes it serves everyone's best interest to treat bicycles like bicycles rather than like motor vehicles.