another slap on the wrist (Houston, Dallas: apartment complex, home, gated)

[Trainwreck20]

Why are you assuming that the bike rider was operated his bike unsafely?

I am not assuming that he was, I just am not assuming that he wasn't. The information that a jury gets is often much more detail and/or fact based than what the press releases. Again, unless I was there, I would not assume anything about a car wreck, either.

My wife, many years ago, was riding on a road in Austin with a friend. The friend was struck by a car turning onto the main road and seriously injured, with years of rehab. The driver definitely was at fault, although the probably reason was somewhat just bad luck...the location of the sun and the exact angle that the connecting road intersected the main road led to a blind spot. Anyway, that driver was charged with reckless driving, but the civil suit led to an out of court settlement for a very significant sum of money. The criminal conviction did nothing for the victim, but the civil result was much more important to their continued livelihood. I suspect that will be the case here, as well.

As for the driver of the car - I suspect that most individuals suffer quite a bit, prison or not. A highschool classmate struck and killed a skateboarder that skateboarded out into a busy street from a blind driveway from some apts. He was innocent of everything (except being in the wrong spot at the wrong time), but ended up killing himself a little over a year later. Truthfully, who hasn't done something on the rare occasion, like accidently swerve or drive a little fast through a neighborhood, and, except for the grace of God, could be in the same situation? Again, the guy could be a raging driving with constant road rage and speeding issues, or he could be the guy driving through a neighborhood looking at houses and did not know the street well enough.

[woodinvilleguy]

fair enough. I think the thing that really PO'ed me was the fact that he took off and later turned himself in and wasn't charged with hit and run.

[CarnivalGal]

I don't think I am informed enough to comment on this particular case. However, I will say that drivers who cross over the middle lane and strike another car are often not charged with anything or are only charged with a minor offense (provided there was not alcohol involved or other factors). So I don't know if this driver is getting off any easier than he would if he had hit a car and killed someone.

I will say, however, that a lot of cyclists tend to think that there is some sort of bubble around them preventing any car from hitting them. It's simply not true. Even the most cautious driver may look and simply not see a cyclist. I see cyclists on 2222 between 360 and 620 every weekend. There is no shoulder and many turns and hills. A driver can be going below the speed limit and still not have time to react once the cyclist is in his line of sight.

I think it's irresponsible to assume that car drivers must be reckless or careless if they stike someone on a bike.

[Trainwreck20]

I think the thing that really PO'ed me was the fact that he took off and later turned himself in and wasn't charged with hit and run.

Hmmm...I did not catch that the first time through...they just say he turned himself in. You know, they could have SAID he left the scene of the accident . That is odd how they don't mention that directly, since failure to render aid can be a bigger deal than an accident.

[dburatti]

Originally Posted by mm57553

I will say, however, that a lot of cyclists tend to think that there is some sort of bubble around them preventing any car from hitting them. It's simply not true. Even the most cautious driver may look and simply not see a cyclist. I see cyclists on 2222 between 360 and 620 every weekend. There is no shoulder and many turns and hills. A driver can be going below the speed limit and still not have time to react once the cyclist is in his line of sight.

I think it's irresponsible to assume that car drivers must be reckless or careless if they stike someone on a bike.

This cyclist and the people I ride with certainly don't even BEGIN to believe that we have a protective bubble around us in ANY circumstance. A knowledgeable, experienced, and skilled driver is supposed to see everything on the road and things off the road,even cyclists and pedestrians, that may affect that driver. When one is driving a vehicle, he is responsible for the vehicle, its occupants, and fellow road users regardless of their choice of mobility.

I know that I'll be the loser in a car/bike collision and make every attempt to avoid getting myself into a situation that could cause such an interaction.

Also, many times the news outlets will publish stories about a "cyclist" being hit by a car or running into a car. IMO (and I could be wrong) a person riding a bike is not necessarily a cyclist. Only in the purest form, though. Most of the true cyclists (recreational and commuting types with saddle bags, lights, etc.) know not to ride against the flow of traffic or on side walks, etc. This kind of behavior contributes to the poor image cyclists have.

Lastly, most of the cyclists I know, including myself, also have bikes that cost more than some high end TVs and want to keep them from being damaged as much as possible. I certainly hate replacing parts that cost >$100.

D

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by dburatti

This cyclist and the people I ride with certainly don't even BEGIN to believe that we have a protective bubble around us in ANY circumstance. A knowledgeable, experienced, and skilled driver is supposed to see everything on the road and things off the road,even cyclists and pedestrians, that may affect that driver. When one is driving a vehicle, he is responsible for the vehicle, its occupants, and fellow road users regardless of their choice of mobility.

I know that I'll be the loser in a car/bike collision and make every attempt to avoid getting myself into a situation that could cause such an interaction.

Also, many times the news outlets will publish stories about a "cyclist" being hit by a car or running into a car. IMO (and I could be wrong) a person riding a bike is not necessarily a cyclist. Only in the purest form, though. Most of the true cyclists (recreational and commuting types with saddle bags, lights, etc.) know not to ride against the flow of traffic or on side walks, etc. This kind of behavior contributes to the poor image cyclists have.

Lastly, most of the cyclists I know, including myself, also have bikes that cost more than some high end TVs and want to keep them from being damaged as much as possible. I certainly hate replacing parts that cost >$100.

D

I don't necessarily disagree with you, and I can assure you that the vast majority of drivers don't want to hit someone on a bike. But the reason I used 2222 as an example is because there are blind curves. You could be the most cautious driver in the world, but it is physically impossible to see something (or someone) around those corners. And if you are going 50 mph (which is 15 mph BELOW the speed limit), and come around the corner, you will not have time to stop after you are physically able to see the cyclist going 30 mph. There is no shoulder.

[dburatti]

Originally Posted by mm57553

I don't necessarily disagree with you, and I can assure you that the vast majority of drivers don't want to hit someone on a bike. But the reason I used 2222 as an example is because there are blind curves. You could be the most cautious driver in the world, but it is physically impossible to see something (or someone) around those corners. And if you are going 50 mph (which is 15 mph BELOW the speed limit), and come around the corner, you will not have time to stop after you are physically able to see the cyclist going 30 mph. There is no shoulder.

I don't disagree about 2222 or any similar road...Old Spicewood Springs comes to mind. The liability is the same whether a cyclist is riding down the road legally or a stalled car is parked in or partially in the lane.

D

[verybadgnome]

The fact that the driver left the scene of this accident AND it was acknowledged that he did cross the center line AND nothing from the jury indicated that the cyclist was doing something he shouldn't all point to the occam's razor of this being a totally preventable accident that was caused by one party's actions. A more fair outcome from this would have been along this lines of this also quite preventable accident:

Woman receives six years in prison for texting while driving | News for Austin, Texas | KVUE.com | Top Stories (http://www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/040609kvue-texting-sentence-eh.aa8fd6e9.html?ocp=2#slcgm_comments_anchor - broken link)

Yes dburatti your example of a stalled vehicle could also extend to farmers driving their tractors far below the speed limit on public roads.

[TexasGirl@Heart]

Originally Posted by woodinvilleguy

fair enough. I think the thing that really PO'ed me was the fact that he took off and later turned himself in and wasn't charged with hit and run.

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Hmmm...I did not catch that the first time through...they just say he turned himself in. You know, they could have SAID he left the scene of the accident . That is odd how they don't mention that directly, since failure to render aid can be a bigger deal than an accident.

Exactly! Leaving the scene of an accident in which a fatality has occurred is a felony here in PA. I believe it is considered a felony in most states. Even if you turn yourself in later, you can still be charge with a felony.

[TexasGirl@Heart]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

I am not assuming that he was, I just am not assuming that he wasn't. The information that a jury gets is often much more detail and/or fact based than what the press releases. Again, unless I was there, I would not assume anything about a car wreck, either.

My wife, many years ago, was riding on a road in Austin with a friend. The friend was struck by a car turning onto the main road and seriously injured, with years of rehab. The driver definitely was at fault, although the probably reason was somewhat just bad luck...the location of the sun and the exact angle that the connecting road intersected the main road led to a blind spot. Anyway, that driver was charged with reckless driving, but the civil suit led to an out of court settlement for a very significant sum of money. The criminal conviction did nothing for the victim, but the civil result was much more important to their continued livelihood. I suspect that will be the case here, as well.

As for the driver of the car - I suspect that most individuals suffer quite a bit, prison or not. A highschool classmate struck and killed a skateboarder that skateboarded out into a busy street from a blind driveway from some apts. He was innocent of everything (except being in the wrong spot at the wrong time), but ended up killing himself a little over a year later. Truthfully, who hasn't done something on the rare occasion, like accidently swerve or drive a little fast through a neighborhood, and, except for the grace of God, could be in the same situation? Again, the guy could be a raging driving with constant road rage and speeding issues, or he could be the guy driving through a neighborhood looking at houses and did not know the street well enough.

As unfortunate as this story is, it's also true that not all drivers are reckless. This accident probably could not have been prevented..."wrong place at the wrong time" is very spot on.

A few Winters ago, a child was sled riding down a hill that butted up against a heavily traveled road. The hill was not a designated "sled riding" place and the child had no business being on a sled on that hill. Anyways, this child was struck by a motorist and killed outright. Was the driver to blame? No, he wasn't. It was as unfortunate as the skateboarder who was struck in the above story. The driver was not charged with any crime, but I'm sure he suffers from guilt over killing a child.