Can someone explain the difference with these two auto fatalities

[ilikebling]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

That is completely and utterly wrong according to Texas Code:


Sec. 551.101. Rights and Duties. (a) A person operating a bicycle has the rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle under this subtitle, unless: (1) a provision of this chapter alters a right or duty; or (2) a right or duty applicable to a driver operating a vehicle cannot by its nature apply to a person operating a bicycle.


So do you have a personal list of where bicycles should and should not be operated? Are pedestrians also automatically at fault on certain roads?

In both instances cited by the OP there would have been no fatalities had the motorists obeyed traffic laws.

Are you also aware that there is a 3 foot passing law in Austin? I can go on if you like........

Austin TX recreation: Running, cycling, swimming, parks, Fit City | Austin360.com

What is the 3 foot passing law?

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by ilikebling

What is the 3 foot passing law?

A car passing a bicycle has to maintain at least 3 feet of clearance.

[10scoachrick]

Reported by the Statesman today:
Verter Ginestra, a 54-year-old entrepreneur from Austin, was struck about 3 p.m. April 28 just north of Redbank Drive, officials have said.
The driver, Maurice Widener, came upon traffic, moved onto the shoulder and was passing cars at an unsafe speed when he struck Ginestra from behind, the report said. The report said drivers are not allowed to pass on the shoulder.
An investigation is ongoing, and Widener has not been charged, DPS spokesman Tom Vinger said. Results of a blood test taken on Widener are pending, the report said.

Sounds like they should charge him with "You don't get to drive any more". Of course, given the number of times a report describes a violator as 'driving without or with a suspended license', it wouldn't matter. I'm a bit dismayed at the number of incidents resulting in death or injury to a pedestrian or cyclist, when the driver is clearly at fault, that the driver faces no punishment.

[atxcio]

So the 85 year old was breaking at least 2 laws when he killed the cyclist. Certainly he should receive more punishment than just having his license revoked.

What makes it more strange is that apparently he hit the cyclist from behind. Originally I figured the guy just moved to the shoulder without checking his blind spot. But now it seems like he must have seen the cyclist, he was right in front of him. Unless he was distracted, looking down or something.

Bottom line, less and less like an accident and more and more like criminal negligence.

[owlman]

Originally Posted by atxcio

What makes it more strange is that apparently he hit the cyclist from behind. Originally I figured the guy just moved to the shoulder without checking his blind spot. But now it seems like he must have seen the cyclist, he was right in front of him. Unless he was distracted, looking down or something.

I think the road curves to the left there, so anyone or anything on the shoulder was likely obstructed from view by the traffic in the main lanes. Since he was driving too fast, there was probably no way he could stop in time for an obstruction! Very careless... probably criminal.

[Don in Austin]

Originally Posted by atxcio

So the 85 year old was breaking at least 2 laws when he killed the cyclist. Certainly he should receive more punishment than just having his license revoked.

What makes it more strange is that apparently he hit the cyclist from behind. Originally I figured the guy just moved to the shoulder without checking his blind spot. But now it seems like he must have seen the cyclist, he was right in front of him. Unless he was distracted, looking down or something.

Bottom line, less and less like an accident and more and more like criminal negligence.

Certainly. But there will still be a significant % of the population blaming the cyclist for being there. I guess we should blame the Town Lake hiker who recently got killed by a dude nodding out on Xanax for walking on a path too close to a street?

Whenever a cyclist riding 100% legally gets killed by an obviously at-fault motorist there are "blame the victim," or "its just an accident," arguments that make me want to puke.

Don

[die Eichkatze]

Originally Posted by Don in Austin

There is no excuse for what this driver did.

I am a cyclist and I choose not to ride on 360 as it doesn't meet my standards for safety and comfort. However, those who blame the cyclist for being there are shamelessly blaming the victim.

Don

I'm not that much into riding, but you would also never catch me on this road. This person had every right to ride there and did everything correctly and still ended up being killed. There are just too many reckless idiots out there (whether they are 16, 35, 60, or 85) for me to take that risk even if I have every legal right to be there. That is why when I do ride, it is on a road with a daily traffic count of probably under 100. I hope they throw the book at both of them.

[verybadgnome]

I think this has a lot to do with it (posted from another forum):

"And it wasn't just New York. Across the country, drivers were held criminally responsible when they killed or injured people with their vehicles. So what happened? And when?"

I'm not sure, but I can guess ...


Back around the turn of the last century, cars were luxury items -- only a few people had them. Their owners were in the minority, so it was more palatable for those who didn't have cars to punish those who did when they did wrong.


Today, most everybody is a driver. So if a "technical manslaughter" case came before a jury, the jury would put themselves in the shoes of the defendant and consider if that could be them out there. If the guy was drunk, high on drugs, going 120 mph in a 40 mph zone -- they can distance themselves mentally from the defendant pretty easily. But if it's just some guy who got distracted for a bit ... the jury sees that could be themselves on the defendant's chair, and don't want to convict. And the DA doesn't want to bring charges that he's not very likely to get a conviction for.
Now, the jury could see this another way ... "That guy screwed up, and somebody died because of it. I should make sure I never screw up!" -- but that's not really the way people seem to think. Instead, they think it could never happen to them, because they're better drivers than that. (Everybody is above average, you see ...).


As for how to fix this for real, I don't see how -- not without a fundamental change in how people think. But if we could make auto drivers the minority again, then people (mostly not drivers at that point) would stop identifying with them so much when they kill somebody and instead would identify more with the person killed.