Bicyclist killed by SUV

"Ben Kaufman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

...
The Salt Lake City woman was wearing a helmet and brightly colored
clothing and
was riding at the right side of the road when she was hit from behind by a
SUV,
whose driver said she did not see the cyclist.
...

http://kutv.com/utah/UT--BicycleFatality-en/resources_news_html

That is a real shame. Class A misdimeanor, punshable by up to 1 year in
jail.
Humans aren't worth much anymore.
I am surprised the authorities didn't try and put the blame on the cyclist.
Here in Texas, it seems, everyone does hit and runs. I'll probably be found
one day dead, on the side of the road because of some scumbag that
ran me down, using that tired excuse that 'they didn't see me". If they ever
catch the scumbag.
I have thought about attaching a minicam to the back of my bike to record
everything behind me, so maybe if I am lucky, it'll record the scumbag who
runs me down and takes off. Maybe two minicams, front and back would even be
better. They are getting cheaper nowadays.

I am trying to figure out a way to bike commute once a week from Grapevine
Texas to Addision Texas (Friday casual day), but there is about 8 to 9 miles
of roads that aren't all that safe for cyclists, if I do it. Granted it is
only 26 miles one way by car, which is probably more like 30-32 miles by
bike, but those two-three road stretches aren't very good at all, plus there
aren't any sidewalks either.

Ben Kaufman said:

...
The Salt Lake City woman was wearing a helmet and brightly colored
clothing and was riding at the right side of the road when she was
hit from behind by a SUV, whose driver said she did not see the
cyclist. ...

http://kutv.com/utah/UT--BicycleFatality-en/resources_news_html

Check the driver's cell phone records for the time of the accident. On the
phone, maybe?

A mile, tomorrow, for the fallen. Tragic. Tragic.

"Neil Brooks" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ben Kaufman said:

...
The Salt Lake City woman was wearing a helmet and brightly colored
clothing and was riding at the right side of the road when she was
hit from behind by a SUV, whose driver said she did not see the
cyclist. ...

http://kutv.com/utah/UT--BicycleFatality-en/resources_news_html

Check the driver's cell phone records for the time of the accident. On
the
phone, maybe?

A mile, tomorrow, for the fallen. Tragic. Tragic.

I was hit and nearly killed just over 2 years ago by a teenage driver who
was talking on a cell phone. They were on-coming and made a left turn right
into me. Hit me head on.

For the life of me, I can't understand why we let teenagers drive AT ALL.
But the ultimate stupidity is that we let them drive and talk on cell
phones.

For the life of me, I can't understand why we let anyone drive and talk on
cell phones AT ALL. But the ultimate stupidity is that we let TEENAGERS
drive and talk on cell phones.

I know this thread isn't about that. Sorry. My condolensces to the slain
cyclist and her family.

Bob C.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ben Kaufman said:

...
The Salt Lake City woman was wearing a helmet and brightly colored clothing and
was riding at the right side of the road when she was hit from behind by a SUV,
whose driver said she did not see the cyclist.
...

http://kutv.com/utah/UT--BicycleFatality-en/resources_news_html

"Bicyclists and members of Johnson's family held a rally at the
Capitol Wednesday in support of legislation that would require
motorists passing bicycles to give them a three-foot clearance,
except where the roadway is too narrow."

While such a law /should/ be enacted, it won't be worth
a mound of lima beans if it isn't enforced. I can see
legalistic arguments around the ability of drivers or
witnesses to discern the difference between 35 and 37
inches. Just slapping another arcane law in the books
won't affect the mayhem. As for "where the roadway is
too narrow," that's when cyclists should be free to
take the lane.

Drivers who take lives so lackadaisically must be held
accountable, made to assume responsibility, and face
consequences according to the gravity and severity of
their actions. Or else this kind of tragedy will just
continue. And such killer drivers should be automatically
banned from driving for life, just for starters.

Maybe such drivers should also be compelled to pay for
advertising/media blitzes about the rights of cyclists, in
the jurisdictions in which they offended. And while they're
at it, maybe they should be compelled to appear in TV adverts
where they admit to disregarding the rights of the cyclists
(or pedestrians) they killed, and explain the hard
consequences they're undergoing.

regards,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

It's weird, but it does seem like lives don't mean much.. at least not
strangers lives.
I was crossing the street with my friend going from the main university
campus to the art building, where I have to cross a street well known for
it's international semi truck traffic. We were crossing at the pedestrian
crosswalk, and a truck came screaming through the intersection to make a
right hand turn, we were nearly hit.. All I could do was throw my arms up in
a "WTF?" sort of manner.. the driver looked at us and continued to
mcdonalds.

Like, he almost killed 2 students on the way to class.. and thought nothing
of it. WTF indeed.

Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com

"Tom Keats" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ben Kaufman said:

...
The Salt Lake City woman was wearing a helmet and brightly colored
clothing and
was riding at the right side of the road when she was hit from behind by
a SUV,
whose driver said she did not see the cyclist.
...

http://kutv.com/utah/UT--BicycleFatality-en/resources_news_html

"Bicyclists and members of Johnson's family held a rally at the
Capitol Wednesday in support of legislation that would require
motorists passing bicycles to give them a three-foot clearance,
except where the roadway is too narrow."

While such a law /should/ be enacted, it won't be worth
a mound of lima beans if it isn't enforced. I can see
legalistic arguments around the ability of drivers or
witnesses to discern the difference between 35 and 37
inches. Just slapping another arcane law in the books
won't affect the mayhem. As for "where the roadway is
too narrow," that's when cyclists should be free to
take the lane.

Drivers who take lives so lackadaisically must be held
accountable, made to assume responsibility, and face
consequences according to the gravity and severity of
their actions. Or else this kind of tragedy will just
continue. And such killer drivers should be automatically
banned from driving for life, just for starters.

Maybe such drivers should also be compelled to pay for
advertising/media blitzes about the rights of cyclists, in
the jurisdictions in which they offended. And while they're
at it, maybe they should be compelled to appear in TV adverts
where they admit to disregarding the rights of the cyclists
(or pedestrians) they killed, and explain the hard
consequences they're undergoing.

regards,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

"Bicyclists and members of Johnson's family held a rally at the
Capitol Wednesday in support of legislation that would require
motorists passing bicycles to give them a three-foot clearance,
except where the roadway is too narrow."

While such a law /should/ be enacted, it won't be worth
a mound of lima beans if it isn't enforced. I can see
legalistic arguments around the ability of drivers or
witnesses to discern the difference between 35 and 37
inches.

The purpose of the law isn't to rigidly enforce 36-inch clearance, it's
to eliminate the common defense that the cyclist swerved a foot to the
left and therefore caused the accident. If the law requires 36-inch
clearance and you hit a cyclist while overtaking when your car is only
three feet from the curb, you are by definition guilty of not leaving 36
inches of clearance.

--
[email hidden] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Books for Bicycle Mechanics and Tinkerers:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/bikebooks.html>

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:37:10 -0500 in rec.bicycles.misc, Ben

Kaufman said:

The Salt Lake City woman was wearing a helmet and brightly colored clothing and
was riding at the right side of the road when she was hit from behind by a SUV,
whose driver said she did not see the cyclist.

yeah, that's what they always say. i've had folks pull
alongside, look directly at me, and then do right turn in front
of me and tell me that they didn't see me.

was she on a cell phone?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Joshua Putnam said:

The purpose of the law isn't to rigidly enforce 36-inch clearance, it's
to eliminate the common defense that the cyclist swerved a foot to the
left and therefore caused the accident.

Okay, that deals with after-the-fact. I submit We need to
focus on more before-the-fact stuff to keep people from
getting killed.

And if the penalty for not respecting a 36-inch passing
clearance is small, or if the law is unenforcable (or
perhaps worse: unknown), what's the use?

regards,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Tom Keats said:

"Bicyclists and members of Johnson's family held a rally at the
Capitol Wednesday in support of legislation that would require
motorists passing bicycles to give them a three-foot clearance,
except where the roadway is too narrow."

I object to that last phrase, "except where the roadway is too narrow."

If the road is too narrow to pass safely, the motorist should wait until he
can pass safely (and the cyclist should "take the lane" to prevent the
motorist from trying to pass to closely).

Art Harris

Tom Keats said:

"Bicyclists and members of Johnson's family held a rally at the
Capitol Wednesday in support of legislation that would require
motorists passing bicycles to give them a three-foot clearance,
except where the roadway is too narrow."

I object to that last phrase, "except where the roadway is too narrow."

If the road is too narrow to pass safely, the motorist should wait until he
can pass safely (and the cyclist should "take the lane" to prevent the
motorist from trying to pass to closely).

Art Harris

psycholist wrote:
(snip)

Quoted message said:

For the life of me, I can't understand why we let anyone drive and

talk on

Quoted message said:

cell phones AT ALL. But the ultimate stupidity is that we let

TEENAGERS

Quoted message said:

drive and talk on cell phones.
Bob C.

I know this might start a riot but we have laws in our town regarding
talking on cell phones while driving. And they are strictly enforced.
The police are relentless. They look for people on cell phones and the
fines are high. Its the same in many towns around my area.

As for allowing teenagers to drive, I sometimes think the same about
having teens on bikes. My friend was driving and some kid decided to do
a wheelie on his BMX or whatever you call it and she hit him. They had
to take HER to the hospital. He is fine. She hasn't driven since the
accident it upset her so much. She was not driving fast, she was
obeying all the rules of the road. This type of thing happens alot with
teens on bikes, skateboards, and thos motor bikes. Did you ever know
anyone who killed someone who flew out from between two parked cars. I
do. His life went to hell, and it was not his fault. He had a hard time
living with the memory and it led to his life being destroyed.

I think both sides of this issue should be discussed instead of placing
all the blame on motorists. Drivers have to be educated and cyclists
must be educated. This is not an issue that is new nor is it one
sided. I know this is a cycling thread, but I really do think,
"bicyclists can sometimes be at fault." Especially teenagers on bikes.
Reckless in traffic, is reckless in traffic. On wheels, two, four or on
foot. The word "Reckless" is not confined to teens either. I just feel
lumping all teens into the category of stupidity. I am getting older
and I know that the most discussed group of BAD DRIVERS at the moment,
are senior citizens.

Maggie.

Joshua Putnam said:

The purpose of the law isn't to rigidly enforce 36-inch clearance,
it's to eliminate the common defense that the cyclist swerved a foot
to the left and therefore caused the accident. If the law requires
36-inch clearance and you hit a cyclist while overtaking when your
car is only three feet from the curb, you are by definition guilty of
not leaving 36 inches of clearance.

Good point, Joshua. A common defense is playing to a jury's (mis)conception of
cyclists as erratic, etc.

Matt O.

Tom Keats said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Joshua Putnam said:

The purpose of the law isn't to rigidly enforce 36-inch clearance,
it's to eliminate the common defense that the cyclist swerved a foot
to the left and therefore caused the accident.

Okay, that deals with after-the-fact. I submit We need to
focus on more before-the-fact stuff to keep people from
getting killed.

And if the penalty for not respecting a 36-inch passing
clearance is small, or if the law is unenforcable (or
perhaps worse: unknown), what's the use?

People with defeatist attitudes like yours deserve to be run over.

Matt O.

psycholist said:

For the life of me, I can't understand why we let teenagers drive AT ALL.

Hold on! Many teens (including a couple of my own) are very responsible
drivers. Perhaps there should be a limit to how many teens can be in a car,
and of course the penalties for violations should be stiff. But no blanket
ban on teen drivers, especially those that need to drive to get to work or
school.

Quoted message said:

But the ultimate stupidity is that we let them drive and talk on cell
phones.

The fact that we let _anyone_ drive while talking on a cell phone is absurd.
Here in NY we have a law against it, but people ignore it. The answer is to
_enforce_ the law and have very stiff fines. I would like to see a $1000
fine for first offence, $2000 for the second, etc.

Art Harris

Matt O'Toole said:

Tom Keats wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And if the penalty for not respecting a 36-inch passing
clearance is small, or if the law is unenforcable (or
perhaps worse: unknown), what's the use?

People with defeatist attitudes like yours deserve to be run over.

Coffee bitter this morning, Matt?

Arthur Harris said:

Tom Keats said:

"Bicyclists and members of Johnson's family held a rally at the
Capitol Wednesday in support of legislation that would require
motorists passing bicycles to give them a three-foot clearance,
except where the roadway is too narrow."

I object to that last phrase, "except where the roadway is too
narrow."

If the road is too narrow to pass safely, the motorist should wait
until he can pass safely (and the cyclist should "take the lane" to
prevent the motorist from trying to pass to closely).

You can say that again!

Arthur Harris said:

Tom Keats said:

"Bicyclists and members of Johnson's family held a rally at the
Capitol Wednesday in support of legislation that would require
motorists passing bicycles to give them a three-foot clearance,
except where the roadway is too narrow."

I object to that last phrase, "except where the roadway is too
narrow."

If the road is too narrow to pass safely, the motorist should wait
until he can pass safely (and the cyclist should "take the lane" to
prevent the motorist from trying to pass to closely).

Bingo.

The law is a good idea. All laws are after the fact. It helps
determine liability, it does not need to be enforced on a daily basis,
although it can give the police a reason to pull someone over and issue
a ticket, and you can file a complaint against a driver for it in
court.

I hope the family and the bike groups make the DA understand that the
woman should serve the FULL YEAR. People HATE to go to jail.

Perhaps they can get the sentence changed to two years for the future,
can't see many people arguing with that.
This lady sounds rich, make her pay in civil court big time.

Xiaoding

Arthur Harris said:

psycholist said:

For the life of me, I can't understand why we let teenagers drive AT
ALL.

Hold on! Many teens (including a couple of my own) are very
responsible drivers. Perhaps there should be a limit to how many
teens can be in a car, and of course the penalties for violations
should be stiff. But no blanket ban on teen drivers, especially those
that need to drive to get to work or school.

How did they get to school before they turned 16 and got a drivers' license?
And about work -- after figuring in the cost of the car, are they really making
any money? Companies like Dominoes Pizza are heavily subsidized by parents of
these kids.

I agree that teens shouldn't be driving. Cars are an expensive and dangerous
waste of time and money for kids.

Matt O.