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

[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.

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!!

[Xrayted]

What a crock of ****!!

[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"!
- the cyclists were operating in the realm of the law, in the proper place on the road! They can't be deemed at fault!
- the citations didn't refer to the on scene fatality!

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