R.I.P. Jim Price (aka. "biker_billy", "sydney", "Boudreaux")

spin156 said:

A very sad note that Jim Price was struck and killed a couple of days
ago. He was a frequent poster on several forums and famous for his
incredible knowedge of bicycles and for his very sharp wit. The
story is that Jim (63 yrs old) was in a bike lane and struck by a 17 yr
old driver who was attempting to text message and drive at the same
time. This is very sad loss for the cycling world.

My condolences to his family. Rest in peace, Jim. You will be
missed.

Please see a message from his daughter:
http://forums.bicycling.com/thread.jspa?threadID=147561&tstart=0

Now THIS sucks.

If you knew Jim in one of his online personas ... then you *knew* Jim.

Controversial, condescending, right far more often than wrong, and
immutable in his style

Sorry, Kids, but I *relish* the "HANG UP!" sign in my back window....

Fare thee well, Jim. You'll be missed .....

A mile today for the fallen.
--
Live simply so that others may simply live

spin156 said:

A very sad note that Jim Price was struck and killed a couple of days
ago. He was a frequent poster on several forums and famous for his
incredible knowedge of bicycles and for his very sharp wit. The
story is that Jim (63 yrs old) was in a bike lane and struck by a 17
yr old driver who was attempting to text message and drive at the same
time. This is very sad loss for the cycling world.

My condolences to his family. Rest in peace, Jim. You will be
missed.

Please see a message from his daughter:
http://forums.bicycling.com/thread.jspa?threadID=147561&tstart=0

Wow, someone just posted a very matter-of-fact article about this in rbm
(which was the point of his post -- that the article was TOO
matter-of-fact). I don't he (or I, for that matter) recognized the victim's
name.

Damn sad story; R.I.P. indeed...

This story has moved onto the national news:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/26/textmessage.death.ap/index.html

Jim's daughter, Kimberlee, has put up a bunch of posts on
bikeforums.net and cyclingforums.com (and probably more) using Jim's
logins and discussing her
father's life and his death. As you can see from the CNN article,
Jim's wife,
Shirley, is being very forgiving of the young driver. Considering
how high his
profile was on all of these forums, it's all kind of surreal. I'm
going to miss this
guy. He added more than a little spice to this broth we are in.

-- Bill

CEarly said:

and he chose to fool with his cell phone will driving.

It's *STRICTLY* forbidden here and huge fines are given. Only hands free
calling is allowed here. I'm amazed this is considered to be normal in the
US.

Greets, Derk

"spin156" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This story has moved onto the national news:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/26/textmessage.death.ap/index.html

Jim's daughter, Kimberlee, has put up a bunch of posts on
bikeforums.net and cyclingforums.com (and probably more) using Jim's
logins and discussing her
father's life and his death. As you can see from the CNN article,
Jim's wife,
Shirley, is being very forgiving of the young driver. Considering
how high his
profile was on all of these forums, it's all kind of surreal. I'm
going to miss this
guy. He added more than a little spice to this broth we are in.

-- Bill

So, the CNN article says the kid on the cell phone who couldn't control
his truck is being considered for a misdemeanor charge that might result in
1 year in the slammer. Big deal. As long as we Americans continue to view
killing cyclists with our vehicles as not particularly loathsome,
prosecutions for vehicular homicide will continue to be weak.

Typically, a spokesperson for the local sheriff tries to minimize the
severity of the driver's act with, "We do not believe it was an intentional
act..." The driver chose to drive, which involves the inherent
responsibility to do so safely and not kill other people, and he chose to
fool with his cell phone will driving. The root causes for Jim Price's
death were choices made by this driver. It wasn't an unavoidable
"accident". It was manslaughter. Killing a cyclist probably isn't what the
driver set out to do that day, but his criminal negligence and lack of
responsibility should net him much more than a misdemeanor prosecution. He
screwed his life up, but at least he's still alive. Jim Price isn't and
that's entirely the fault of this driver.

We have far too much of a "forgive and forget - let's get back to driving"
attitude in this country regarding killing other people with our vehicles,
and it needs to change. We've got stronger laws for killing other people
than the specially weakened ones that tend to get used when vehicles are
involved. Let's use them! Maybe it will start to change the mindset that
killing someone with your vehicle is somehow less serious than doing it with
a baseball bat.

I hope the initial shock of Jim's death wears off soon and his surviving
family members seek redress in a civil suit. The driver's parents need to
feel some pain for allowing their minor child to pilot that truck, knowing
he had a cell phone and probably being the signatories for the service
agreement for it. Why is a 17-yr old kid so important that he needs a cell
phone to use while driving alone anyway?

As many have expressed: Rest in peace, Jim

Cal

In article <[email hidden]>,

Derk said:

CEarly said:

and he chose to fool with his cell phone will driving.

It's *STRICTLY* forbidden here and huge fines are given. Only hands free
calling is allowed here. I'm amazed this is considered to be normal in the
US.

Almost everyone focuses entirely upon the mechanics of
cellular telephone usage by operators of motor
vehicles. This is not the main problem. The main
problem is that the motor vehicle operator removes
attention from his surroundings and activities to
devote his attention to the mvo's relationship with the
person at the other end of the telephone connection. We
are all very social and very interested in our
relationships.

Another thing to consider is that the other party to
the conversation is not in the motor vehicle, so the
other party is free to provoke the mvo, to hurt the
mvo's feelings, and otherwise render him unfit to
operate a motor vehicle. The party on the other end is
free to do things he would never consider were he a
passenger in the motor vehicle.

One resultant that I see very often is a mvo in the
fast lane slowing and slowing and slowing, and when I
finally get around it see that it is engaged in a
telephone conversation.

--
Michael Press

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Derk said:

CEarly said:

and he chose to fool with his cell phone will driving.

It's *STRICTLY* forbidden here and huge fines are given. Only hands free
calling is allowed here. I'm amazed this is considered to be normal in
the
US.

Almost everyone focuses entirely upon the mechanics of
cellular telephone usage by operators of motor
vehicles. This is not the main problem. The main
problem is that the motor vehicle operator removes
attention from his surroundings and activities to
devote his attention to the mvo's relationship with the
person at the other end of the telephone connection. We
are all very social and very interested in our
relationships.

Another thing to consider is that the other party to
the conversation is not in the motor vehicle, so the
other party is free to provoke the mvo, to hurt the
mvo's feelings, and otherwise render him unfit to
operate a motor vehicle. The party on the other end is
free to do things he would never consider were he a
passenger in the motor vehicle.

One resultant that I see very often is a mvo in the
fast lane slowing and slowing and slowing, and when I
finally get around it see that it is engaged in a
telephone conversation.

--
Michael Press

True. Obviously, distraction is the problem, regardless of the reason for
it. Here, the reason was dicking around with a cell phone on the part of a
mimimally experienced driver. Result: death (unfortunately, not the
driver's)

Cal

Derk said:

CEarly said:

and he chose to fool with his cell phone will driving.

It's *STRICTLY* forbidden here and huge fines are given. Only hands free
calling is allowed here. I'm amazed this is considered to be normal in the
US.

Some individual states in the US have similar laws, but personally I
think they miss the main message of the safety studies that have been
done. All the studies I've seen that compared hands-free vs. regular
cellphone use found that both resulted in greatly increased risk
compared to driving without any cellphone use. The main problem is not
that the driver's hand is in use on the phone, but that his mind and
attention are engaged there rather than on his driving. The situation
is quite different from normal conversation with a passenger who is
present in the car and can see when the driving situation is more
critical and their possibly heated discussion should be suspended.

The cellular industry has cleverly joined with legislators in creating
laws that allow only hands-free devices as a way to forestall more
restrictive rules that would restrict all phone use while driving.
This allows the cellular companies to continue to increase sales and
even to gain additional profits from sales of the hands-free
accessories. And of course it's a popular approach with many
legislators who themselves rely on their cellphones while driving.

Derk said:

CEarly said:

and he chose to fool with his cell phone will driving.

It's *STRICTLY* forbidden here and huge fines are given. Only hands free
calling is allowed here. I'm amazed this is considered to be normal in the
US.

Study after study have shown that driving with a cell phone, hands free
or not, increases your risk of a mishap as much as driving drunk. Hands
free units make NO difference.

-paul

Paul Cassel said:

Derk said:

CEarly said:

and he chose to fool with his cell phone will driving.

It's *STRICTLY* forbidden here and huge fines are given. Only hands free
calling is allowed here. I'm amazed this is considered to be normal in
the
US.

Study after study have shown that driving with a cell phone, hands free or
not, increases your risk of a mishap as much as driving drunk. Hands free
units make NO difference.

-paul

I would generally agree that that is the case. I embarrasingly admit that I
have caused an accident where I was chatting intently with my friend SITTING
NEXT TO ME with my eyes on the road, but somehow distracted enough in
conversation not to see what was happening. Yes, autopilot driving can
happen even with eyes on the road! After the accident, my first thought
was, "How the heck did that happen?" Thankfully, the accident was a minor
one with only minor damages. I am now very aware of how even minor
distractions affect driving and feel that I am a safer driver from the
experience.

But in this particular case, the driver was TEXT MESSAGING on a cell phone.
Eyes were most certainly drawn away from on the road for an extended period
by the gadget.

Well.. In this uncivilized state (NY) or perhaps just our county, we
have mandatory hands free driving. Seldom enforced, as the moronic
manhattanites that take over our streets all summer drive, talk on cell
phones, eat, and do makeup all at the same time... It's a good thing
that they buy the biggest SUV they can find, so they feel nice and
safe......yeah.

What do I think about this??
1- The kid CHOSE to drive. The kid CHOSE to text message. Any
reasonable person should believe that a-This requires use of at least 1
hand, b- This requires use of most of your brain. (Being 17 it's a
pretty safe bet what was on the rest of his brain..) In my book, this
is murder, or at the very least manslaughter..

But let's look at the real issue here. Lack of country wide intelligent
laws. Do people in the US really think it impinges on their
constitutional rights/freedoms to have to use a hands free?? Can the
country REALLY not pass legislation across the board to ban cell phone
use while driving?? Christ, they can't even mandate day time running
lights for cars, something that is proven to reduce accidents
drastically... Got to save the big 3 43cents a car you know... Second
issue.. What does a hands free REALLY cost?? Nokia can probably build
one for about 50cents. Can anyone think of a REAL reson they don't
include one in each phone box you buy?? Even if they jack you 5$ for
the thing that cost them 50cents... Everyone WOULD buy a phone still,
and they woul dhav ea hands free already. I think they would be way
more inclined to use something they didn't have to go out and find the
right one, and purchase, adn use, and blah bla blah.. .Throw the book
at the [censored].. rip jim

myles

bikeguy11968 wrote:
Can the

Quoted message said:

country REALLY not pass legislation across the board to ban cell phone
use while driving??

Legislation will do nothing. It's already illegal to kill folks. The
problem is behavior. I have to agree 100% with the folks on this thread
that this is a manslaughter issue just as if the kid shot a gun at Jim
as a joke, but ended up killing him by bad aim.

I admire Jim's wife not being loaded down with vengeance because that
won't bring the man back. However, what we have in our country is
supposed to be a system where the law takes over for personal vengeance.
Here, Jim's wife is behaving properly, but the law isn't.

-paul

The kid is being charged with a misdemeanor. IMHO he should be charged
with vehicular manslaughter, but then I'm not involved in the
situation. It's too bad that your life means less to the law when
you're riding your bike.

peter said:

Some individual states in the US have similar laws, but personally I
think they miss the main message of the safety studies that have been
done.

The Police do not enforce the laws and are unwilling to do so.
Chicago has such a law. The other day I was driving (in a car) on a
major expressway. A rental truck was wandering back and forth across
the lanes. I had the other person in the car (OPIC) use a cell phone
to call the police. The OPIC reported to the police about the truck
and suggested that the driver might be drunk. Suddenly the driving
improved (while the OPIC was on the phone) and told this to the Police
as well. They responded (according to the OPIC) "oh, he must just have
been on a cell phone and he has hung it up". The OPIC asked about the
law about driving with a cell phone, and the police said its a Chicago
law and not enforced by the state police (the people who enforce the
expressway system withint the City limits).

Tim McNamara said:

The kid is being charged with a misdemeanor. IMHO he should be charged
with vehicular manslaughter, but then I'm not involved in the
situation. It's too bad that your life means less to the law when
you're riding your bike.

This may have some truth to it, but motorists who kill other motorists
are often charged with merely a misdemeanor as well.

Wayne