This makes me angry... when does it become a crime?

[Pax]

I knew this couple, they were a fixture in the local community and everyone knew their bike. She was blind and her beloved husband is mentally handicapped, they were such a loving couple, caring for each other. Now Cindy is dead and David is alone.

http://www.smilepolitely.com/news/no_criminal_charges_for_maul_in_combs_crash/

[Biciclista]

the guy's alibi stinks too. Very very sad story.

[bmccasland]

That just sucks. The system stinks. If there aren't any extenuating circumstances for bad driving (DUI, cell use, blinded by sun rise/set), the you can get away with killing someone with your car? Oops, I didn't mean to? Not only take away the dude's driver's license, sell the car, while he's in jail.

[Pax]

The opinion has been put forth that in Illinois, if you want someone dead simply use your car as there are very few consequences to committing murder using a car.

[Tri Girl]

The opinion has been put forth that in Illinois, if you want someone dead simply use your car as there are very few consequences to committing murder using a car.

It's the same way in Oklahoma, too. :mad:

This story saddens and sickens me at the same time.

When will the law protect us? If he hit another car and killed someone he certainly wouldn't have gotten off with two minor fines. Disgusting.

I'm so sorry for your loss. :(

[Pax]

It's just maddening that nothing has changed in the five years since Matt (another local rider) was killed by some dumbass downloading ringtones while she drove!! :mad:

[Xrayted]

What a crock of ****!! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[PamNY]

No matter how I try, I cannot understand this. Just tragic all around.

[Pax]

My non-riding friends keep saying "but he didn't mean it", "he's broken up over this and he has to live with the guilt"...

I keep trying to explain that if it were unacceptable to do anything except DRIVE THE VEHICLE when you're behind the wheel, if drivers (me included) knew that not paying attention had HUGE consequences, then this sort of thing would happen less and less.

But we keep making cars that insulate us more and more from the act of driving, we are becoming bored passengers who are only peripherally aware of the fact we are piloting a two ton chunk of metal on roads that are populated by other, less armored creatures.

[indysteel]

Geonz (I think) posted about this when it first happened. I cried at my desk in reading about this couple. It's just tragic. Clearly, our law on vehicular negligence has developed in such a way as to excuse inexcusable behavior. It's not just a bike versus car issue. If this man had hit another car, it likely would have yielded the same result--at least in terms of fines/crimes. Unless and until our laws (and law enforcement) really crack down on distracted and aggressive driving, nothing will change--to our collective peril, whether we are on our bikes or in our cars. Some people are just SO cavalier in how they drive. They forget/ignore that it's inherently dangerous.

[Kitsune06]

The law is like this because the majority of americans are still cagers. More of them (us?) can relate to the motorist ("That poor man! What a thing to live through and be forced to remember his whole life!") than the cyclist or the cycling community, whose perspective is all too often "I saw the car in my rear view mirror and couldn't go anywhere fast enough."

This problem is not unique to the cycling community, either. Every year, many motorcyclists are killed in a similar way. A friend of mine was stopped at a red light on his motorcycle and hit by a drunk driver who just failed to stop altogether when she came up behind him. He was laid up quite badly and would have been killed had it not been for the helmet and leather gear he was wearing.

The public continues to think "Well, if they didn't want to get hit, they'd be driving a car. They know the risks."

It's "us vs them" and will be until we are common enough to be considered 'the usual'. Even then... who knows?

[Mr. Bloom]

I recall Geonz's post and particularly appreciate this one because of all the detail it provides.

This week, our club passed a resolution endorsing a Vulnerable Road User ordinance that I wrote and intend to lobby for both locally and at the state level beginning in two weeks.

To have a real world example to apply this to is both sad, but useful.

Key observations:
- the driver admitted his guilt and recklessness in the accident report. I don't get why there is any concern about the "burden of proof"!:mad::mad::mad:
- the cyclists were operating in the realm of the law, in the proper place on the road! They can't be deemed at fault!:mad::mad:
- the citations didn't refer to the on scene fatality!:mad::mad:

I think many law enforcement personnel are inclined to want to chalk things like this up to a "terrible, unfortunate event"...when in reality, it was AVOIDABLE (and apparently RESPONSIBILITY is also AVOIDABLE) thereby making SOMEONE NEGLIGENT.

My proposed law also mandates:
- three feet clearance (six ft for trucks),
- automatic yielding to a VRU (which is not just defined as bikes) regardless,
- exit of the lane occupied by a VRU if two or more lanes exist
- protection from a VRU being "cut off" or harassed verbally or physically.

If a cyclists (or any VRU) is operating outside the law or being reckless, then I don't believe that a driver should be treated more onerously, but if the VRU is in the right, I believe they warrant well defined protections and a driver injuring them should be held to a higher standard of punishment.

I'll get off my soap box now.

Thanks for posting this Pax

[OakLeaf]

Rehashing the same thing over and over again ...

I don't think "vulnerable" road users should be granted special protections. That only exacerbates the "us vs. them" mentality.

I think ALL road users should be held to a standard of responsible operation. And I think the mens rea for killing someone should be at least as easy to prosecute as that for speeding.

Remember that these are the same people who "didn't see" the garbage truck or school bus that they rear end, week after week after week. The only difference is that when they rear end the garbage truck, THEY get killed, and when they rear end the school bus, at worst a few kids get bumps and bruises, but when they rear end the bici, an innocent person dies or has permanent life-altering injuries.

[Mr. Bloom]

...and despite being the generally conservative small government person that I am, this is an area we disagree in. ;). To me, on this matter, the law becomes the mechanism for education, since the profound ignorance is persistent and education through traditional channels isn't working fast enough. IMHO

[Geonz]

Unfortunately, things sort of *have* changed -- we did get new laws in January. However, our State's ATtorney feels that she really wasn't sure she could get a conviction because there wasn't "wanton, willful" behavior involved and the guy has a "squeaky clean" record.

One of our guys dug and found that the new law also says in black and white that if your little traffic violation includes killing somebody, your license shall be revoked. Oh, but they haven't deemed that necessary to follow through on either. I am wondering if in the fine print the "offense" had to be besides the petty ones he pled guilty to -- but... as I said before, I have not seen or heard a single, solitary action or inaction -- or even lip service -- from our State's ATtorney saying she thought this was wrong. As far as I know she also believes that David and Cindy should just have kept their disabled selves in their little apartment all day and night, because they couldn't drive. She hasn't even uttered an "it sucks" comment.

I am fervently, feverishly hoping the lawyers the Combs' have will exert some financial justice.

On an assistive tech listserv I'm on, somebody asked whether speech recognition was improved, because she wants to be able to dictate notes and things during her commute. Somebody said something about stuff for handsfree driving... and somebody posted "LOL about handsfree driving!" I had already answered that yes, speech recognition was better but that my friend had just been killed by a distracted driver who didn't even need technology.

David, by the way, is doing rehab in Paxton (where his parents live) at one of the nursing homes there. THey anticipate more surgery ... and, of course, if he weren't so fit from cycling he wouldn't have stood a chance.

[Pax]

Thanks for the update Sue, the whole thing sickens me. It's going to be interesting when the SA comes up for reelection. :mad:

[Geonz]

Thanks for the update Sue, the whole thing sickens me. It's going to be interesting when the SA comes up for reelection. :mad:

Welp, this a.m. our public radio station may have lost them a supporter.

"Legal issues in the news" featured this issue. The lady who did it who left usually did an excellent job (at least to me) of tugging out what mattered from the law.
http://will.illinois.edu/search/searchresults/3bf6a849f8512b5d5b6865569d0c3709/ has the podcast.
What did this guy do? Talk about the law we keep bringing up, that went into effect 1/1 that says if you have a traffic infraction and somebody dies int he process, you get your license revoked? I mean, maybe there is some clause or precedent I don't know about.
So far 100% of the response to the question has been IGNORING it.
Rather than discuss the laws that do exist, he discussed a law that doesn't exist (vehicular homicide, which Julia Rietz advocated but won't got through with current opposition -- which makes me think she's the Lip Service Queen and that that's why she 'pushes' for it and uses it as an excuse for not trying to push the laws we have) and why it wouldn't apply anyway.
What about the law that does exist?
And yes, he tacitly and strongly reinforced the notion that it is asking TOO MUCH of drivers to be able to avoid large vehicles on an open road on a clear day. The man was "just" looking down at some papers, after all.

Seems they don't get too many comments on their "legal issues in the news" blurbs. They got mine. I asked why he didn't discuss the laws in effect, since to the best of my knowledge the law says the license *shall* be revoked -- not "unless the driver has a reasonably clean record" or "unless it's just a cyclist." I suggested he might be a distracted lawyer, and that I would be ashamed if I weren't angry when distractions cost innocent lives. (I wonder if hey, he's a young lawyer and is simply currying the good graces of our state's attorney, going that extra mile to make her look good. Welp, all he did was remind me...)

35,000 people die in this country in car wrecks every year. Not 3500. 35,000. It could happen to anybody. Hey, good people, it doesn't *have* to be that way.