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

[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

[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.