Austin Cyclist dies after being hit by car--Police say alcohol was contributing factor

[ie]

Deja vu...

Cyclist dies after being hit by car
Police say alcohol was contributing factor

By Tony Plohetski

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Austin police today are investigating an overnight accident that killed a
man riding a bicycle near downtown.

Police said the man was riding westbound in the 1400 block of West Sixth
Street near Lamar Boulevard when he was struck by a four-door Honda Civic
that was also traveling west. The man, whose name has not been released
pending family notification, died at Brackenridge Hospital a short time
after the 3 a.m. incident.

The driver, Omer B. Sen, 26, left the scene, drove to MoPac Boulevard (Loop
1) and 35th Street and called 911 to report that he had possibly struck
someone on Sixth Street, police said. Officers already had responded based
on information from another 911 caller, police said.

Sen is in custody, and detectives anticipate charging him, police said.
Alcohol is believed to be a contributing factor.

 

[jj]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:23:19 GMT, "ie" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Deja vu...
>
>Cyclist dies after being hit by car
>Police say alcohol was contributing factor
>
>By Tony Plohetski
>
>AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
>
>Thursday, August 11, 2005
>
>Austin police today are investigating an overnight accident that killed a
>man riding a bicycle near downtown.
>
>Police said the man was riding westbound in the 1400 block of West Sixth
>Street near Lamar Boulevard when he was struck by a four-door Honda Civic
>that was also traveling west. The man, whose name has not been released
>pending family notification, died at Brackenridge Hospital a short time
>after the 3 a.m. incident.
>
>The driver, Omer B. Sen, 26, left the scene, drove to MoPac Boulevard (Loop
>1) and 35th Street and called 911 to report that he had possibly struck
>someone on Sixth Street, police said. Officers already had responded based
>on information from another 911 caller, police said.
>
>Sen is in custody, and detectives anticipate charging him, police said.
>Alcohol is believed to be a contributing factor.

He wasn't killed by a -car- he was murdered by a drunk driver who couldn't
even be bothered to taking the man to a hospital. I love the way they use
euphemysms instead of calling it what it is. This man's life will be traded
for two month's community service and a slap on the wrist and the drunk
will live on to do it again.

jj

 

[ie]

> He wasn't killed by a -car- he was murdered by a drunk driver who
> couldn't
> even be bothered to taking the man to a hospital. I love the way they use
> euphemysms instead of calling it what it is. This man's life will be
> traded
> for two month's community service and a slap on the wrist and the drunk
> will live on to do it again.
>
> jj

If that....maybe nothing at all...we have a history in this town. It wasn't
until Lance pushed the envelope in 1998 and took a guy to court see:
http://bicycleaustin.info/justice/whynojustice.html

" On my radio show in late 1998, I asked, "What does it take for a
cyclist to be able to have action taken against a hostile motorist? Well, if
recent news is any indication, it takes being local cycling celebrity Lance
Armstrong." After Michael Carter ran Lance and his buddies off the road,
Carter was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon that same
day.

But Armstrong's celebrity was not enough to keep Carter in jail for long.
District Judge Jon Wisser honored the request of Carter's lawyer to lower
his bail by 90% (from $300,000 to $30,000), despite the fact that when
Carter attacked the cyclists, he was already out on bail for tying up,
beating, and raping his wife. Wisser noted of the attack on the cyclists,
"No one was actually injured in the incident. In the scheme of things around
here, it was not as serious an offense." If Judge Wisser really feels that
way, we'd like to see him get his ass on a bike riding around Austin and see
how he feels when some lunatic runs him off the road with a deadly weapon.
Incidentally, Wisser is the judge who will hear the case against the
motorist who ran a red light and killed cyclist Ben Clough in 1998. [Update:
Since this article was first written, prosecutors offered a plea bargain to
the motorist of community service. So for running a red light and killing
Ben, she was never arrested, served no jail time, didn't pay any fine, and
didn't even get a traffic ticket for running the red light.] "

and

"Michael Memon was drunk when he killed Tom Churchill on S. Lamar. His blood
alcohol level tested at 0.08, which is just shy of the threshold for
illegally drunk, though the test reportedly wasn't administered until at
least half an hour after the crash (giving time for his alcohol level to go
down). In addition, 0.08 will soon be the new legal limit as the laws are
currently being changed. It's clear that Memon was drunk, even though
there's a chance he wasn't legally drunk under the laws at the time.

Tom was riding on the right-hand side of the road and was wearing a helmet
when Memon hit him. It's likely that Memon was going too fast, since in a
30mph zone he should have had plenty of time to slow down after seeing Tom,
and you generally don't flip your vehicle at such a low speed. Despite all
of this, the grand jury decided not to indict Memon. Why? We can't know for
sure, because grand juries don't write out the reasons for their decision
(just like trial juries, which say only "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" with no
explanation). But we can speculate. What else could it be, besides a feeling
that the cyclist shouldn't have been on the road in the first place? "

It is the land of the red pickuptruck....

 

[Bob]

ie wrote:
> Deja vu...
>
> Cyclist dies after being hit by car
> Police say alcohol was contributing factor
>
> By Tony Plohetski
>
> AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
>
> Thursday, August 11, 2005
>
> Austin police today are investigating an overnight accident that killed a
> man riding a bicycle near downtown.
>
> Police said the man was riding westbound in the 1400 block of West Sixth
> Street near Lamar Boulevard when he was struck by a four-door Honda Civic
> that was also traveling west. The man, whose name has not been released
> pending family notification, died at Brackenridge Hospital a short time
> after the 3 a.m. incident.

Others here have already concluded that the driver was certainly at
fault and likely drunk to boot. Be that as it may, I have a few
questions. The answers would not exonerate the driver ("I *think* I hit
something"? Yeah, right.) but when someone on a bike is hit by a car at
3:00 AM, I have to wonder:

What was the *deceased's* blood alcohol?
What's the nature of the roadway
What kind of roadway lighting was present?
Was the bike equipped with lights?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[jj]

On 11 Aug 2005 20:44:17 -0700, "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>ie wrote:
>> Deja vu...
>>
>> Cyclist dies after being hit by car
>> Police say alcohol was contributing factor
>>
>> By Tony Plohetski
>>
>> AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
>>
>> Thursday, August 11, 2005
>>
>> Austin police today are investigating an overnight accident that killed a
>> man riding a bicycle near downtown.
>>
>> Police said the man was riding westbound in the 1400 block of West Sixth
>> Street near Lamar Boulevard when he was struck by a four-door Honda Civic
>> that was also traveling west. The man, whose name has not been released
>> pending family notification, died at Brackenridge Hospital a short time
>> after the 3 a.m. incident.
>
>Others here have already concluded that the driver was certainly at
>fault and likely drunk to boot. Be that as it may, I have a few
>questions. The answers would not exonerate the driver ("I *think* I hit
>something"? Yeah, right.) but when someone on a bike is hit by a car at
>3:00 AM, I have to wonder:
>
>What was the *deceased's* blood alcohol?
>What's the nature of the roadway
>What kind of roadway lighting was present?
>Was the bike equipped with lights?
>
>Regards,
>Bob Hunt

And what if it was a pedestrian drunk as a skunk, standing on the sidewalk
waiting for a taxi and the drunk ran up the curb and ran him over -
contributory negligance on the part of the pedestrian?

What if the bikerider was sober as a judge and lit up like a christmas tree
going to deliver life saving medicine to hospitalized Nuns? Will that
strengthen his case against the guy driving drunk? Nope - he'll still get
off when his lawyer says 'My client said he didn't see the guy'.

jj

 

[Robert Uhl]

jj<[email protected]> writes:
>
> He wasn't killed by a -car- he was murdered by a drunk driver who
> couldn't even be bothered to taking the man to a hospital.

You don't know that--the article merely says that alcohol is believed to
have been a contributing factor. For all we know, the cyclist was drunk
and swerved in front of the car.

> This man's life will be traded for two month's community service and a
> slap on the wrist and the drunk will live on to do it again.

Doubtful. So far as I know, no major metropolitan area gives mere slaps
on the wrist to drunk drivers, even without and injury or fatality.

--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves
largess out of the public treasury. --Alexander Tytler

 

[jj]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:23:02 -0600, Robert Uhl <[email protected]>
wrote:

>jj<[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> He wasn't killed by a -car- he was murdered by a drunk driver who
>> couldn't even be bothered to taking the man to a hospital.
>
>You don't know that--the article merely says that alcohol is believed to
>have been a contributing factor. For all we know, the cyclist was drunk
>and swerved in front of the car.

Learn to read:

"The driver, Omer B. Sen, 26, left the scene..."

"Sen is in custody, and detectives anticipate charging him, police said.
Alcohol is believed to be a contributing factor."

>> This man's life will be traded for two month's community service and a
>> slap on the wrist and the drunk will live on to do it again.
>
>Doubtful. So far as I know, no major metropolitan area gives mere slaps
>on the wrist to drunk drivers, even without and injury or fatality.

Get real. Happens ALL the time.

jj

 

[Robert Uhl]

jj<[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> He wasn't killed by a -car- he was murdered by a drunk driver who
>>> couldn't even be bothered to taking the man to a hospital.
>>
>>You don't know that--the article merely says that alcohol is believed
>>to have been a contributing factor. For all we know, the cyclist was
>>drunk and swerved in front of the car.
>
> Learn to read:
>
> "The driver, Omer B. Sen, 26, left the scene..."
>
> "Sen is in custody, and detectives anticipate charging him, police said.
> Alcohol is believed to be a contributing factor."

Considering that I've repeatedly gotten perfect scores on reading
comprehension tests, from childhood on, I don't think that it's _I_ who
needs to learn to read. Neither of those passages conclusively
indicates that the driver was drinking, or is suspected of doing so.

As for the first passage, it's not at all unlikely that a sober driver
might be struck by a drunken cyclist yet not be certain, and so leave
the scene--and yet call the police to say that he thought he might have
been hit.

As for the second, it merely says that charges are anticipated, and that
alcohol is believed to have contributed to the incident--it says nothing
about on whose part alcohol contributed. If you knew much about
accident statistics, 'alcohol-related car crash' includes a perfectly
sober driver striking a drunk who leapt off the kerb in front of him.
If you knew much about auto accidents in general, you would know that
it's quite common for fault to be assigned on a percentage basis. That
is, the driver could be charged and yet not have the majority of blame.
Heck, they could just be charging him with leaving the scene of an
accident which was 100% the cyclist's fault.

Now, I happen to agree that it's almost certainly a case of a drunken
driver, and I'd give even odds that the cyclist was drunk as well.
Really, I'm playing devil's advocate more than anything else. While my
gut instinct is to figure that the cyclist is completely innocent and
the driver is completely guilty, I've seen too many other cyclists on my
morning commute ploughing through red lights and stop signs to believe
that it's always the driver at fault.

My point is simply this: we don't know enough from the article to pass
judgement. We can make our guesses, of course, but we don't know all
the circumstances.

--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
My favourite movie is They Live And Let Die Hard Rain Man Without A
Face/Office Space Jam. --Hogwash McFly

 

[GaryG]

"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> ie wrote:
> > Deja vu...
> >
> > Cyclist dies after being hit by car
> > Police say alcohol was contributing factor
> >
> > By Tony Plohetski
> >
> > AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
> >
> > Thursday, August 11, 2005
> >
> > Austin police today are investigating an overnight accident that killed
a
> > man riding a bicycle near downtown.
> >
> > Police said the man was riding westbound in the 1400 block of West Sixth
> > Street near Lamar Boulevard when he was struck by a four-door Honda
Civic
> > that was also traveling west. The man, whose name has not been released
> > pending family notification, died at Brackenridge Hospital a short time
> > after the 3 a.m. incident.
>
> Others here have already concluded that the driver was certainly at
> fault and likely drunk to boot. Be that as it may, I have a few
> questions. The answers would not exonerate the driver ("I *think* I hit
> something"? Yeah, right.) but when someone on a bike is hit by a car at
> 3:00 AM, I have to wonder:
>
> What was the *deceased's* blood alcohol?
> What's the nature of the roadway
> What kind of roadway lighting was present?
> Was the bike equipped with lights?
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt

We average 1 or 2 "DUI cyclist" deaths per year around here. The typical
accident scenario is a guy riding on a darkened stretch of semi-rural road,
late at night, on a Wally World bike with no lights, reflectors, or helmet.

The last one killed like this was a well-known transient and burglar who was
killed by a hit and run drunk driver around 3 am. Given the tools found on
the deceased, the detectives theorized that he was high on meth, and out
cruising for something to steal (can you say, "Karma"?).

Just because it's a cyclist that gets injured or killed doesn't mean that
they aren't liable.

GG

 

[Dennis P. Harris]

On 11 Aug 2005 20:44:17 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Bob"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> when someone on a bike is hit by a car at
> 3:00 AM, I have to wonder:
>
> What was the *deceased's* blood alcohol?

most folks i've seen biking at that time were poor folks going to
their early shift jobs.

 

[catzz66]

Bob wrote:
> ie wrote:
>
>>Deja vu...
>>
>>Cyclist dies after being hit by car
>>Police say alcohol was contributing factor
>>
>>By Tony Plohetski
>>
>>AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
>>
>>Thursday, August 11, 2005
>>
>>Austin police today are investigating an overnight accident that killed a
>>man riding a bicycle near downtown.
>>
>>Police said the man was riding westbound in the 1400 block of West Sixth
>>Street near Lamar Boulevard when he was struck by a four-door Honda Civic
>>that was also traveling west. The man, whose name has not been released
>>pending family notification, died at Brackenridge Hospital a short time
>>after the 3 a.m. incident.
>
>
> Others here have already concluded that the driver was certainly at
> fault and likely drunk to boot. Be that as it may, I have a few
> questions. The answers would not exonerate the driver ("I *think* I hit
> something"? Yeah, right.) but when someone on a bike is hit by a car at
> 3:00 AM, I have to wonder:
>
> What was the *deceased's* blood alcohol?
> What's the nature of the roadway
> What kind of roadway lighting was present?
> Was the bike equipped with lights?
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt
>


Sixth Street is a famous night spot area of downtown Austin with many
drinking, music and dancing venues, for what it's worth. It would be
wrong to conclude anything about the decedent without knowing any facts,
though these are appropriate questions. Other than that, it is a fairly
well lighted, busy downtown area with what I'd consider heavier than
normal nighttime traffic because of the clubs. It is situated between
the University of Texas, the State Capital area on the north and the
beautiful riverfront on the south. During the day, it would be an
attractive area to ride through, but I'd personally avoid it after dark
because of the clubs.

 

[Robert Uhl]

jj<[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> He wasn't killed by a -car- he was murdered by a drunk driver who
>>> couldn't even be bothered to taking the man to a hospital.
>>
>>You don't know that--the article merely says that alcohol is believed
>>to have been a contributing factor. For all we know, the cyclist was
>>drunk and swerved in front of the car.
>
> Learn to read:
>
> "The driver, Omer B. Sen, 26, left the scene..."
>
> "Sen is in custody, and detectives anticipate charging him, police said.
> Alcohol is believed to be a contributing factor."

[superseded by removing pointless snarky bit]

Neither of those passages conclusively indicates that the driver was
drinking, or is suspected of doing so.

As for the first passage, it's not at all unlikely that a sober driver
might be struck by a drunken cyclist yet not be certain, and so leave
the scene--and yet call the police to say that he thought he might have
been hit.

As for the second, it merely says that charges are anticipated, and that
alcohol is believed to have contributed to the incident--it says nothing
about on whose part alcohol contributed. If you knew much about
accident statistics, 'alcohol-related car crash' includes a perfectly
sober driver striking a drunk who leapt off the kerb in front of him.
If you knew much about auto accidents in general, you would know that
it's quite common for fault to be assigned on a percentage basis. That
is, the driver could be charged and yet not have the majority of blame.
Heck, they could just be charging him with leaving the scene of an
accident which was 100% the cyclist's fault.

Now, I happen to agree that it's almost certainly a case of a drunken
driver (I'd give even odds that the cyclist was drunk as well). Really,
I'm playing devil's advocate more than anything else. While my gut
instinct is to figure that the cyclist is completely innocent and the
driver is completely guilty, I've seen too many other cyclists on my
morning commute ploughing through red lights and stop signs to believe
that it's always the driver at fault.

My point is simply this: we don't know enough from the article to pass
judgement. We can make our guesses, of course, but we don't know all
the circumstances.

--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
My favourite movie is They Live And Let Die Hard Rain Man Without A
Face/Office Space Jam. --Hogwash McFly

 

[jj]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:35:11 -0600, Robert Uhl <[email protected]>
wrote:

>jj<[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>> He wasn't killed by a -car- he was murdered by a drunk driver who
>>>> couldn't even be bothered to taking the man to a hospital.
>>>
>>>You don't know that--the article merely says that alcohol is believed
>>>to have been a contributing factor. For all we know, the cyclist was
>>>drunk and swerved in front of the car.
>>
>> Learn to read:
>>
>> "The driver, Omer B. Sen, 26, left the scene..."
>>
>> "Sen is in custody, and detectives anticipate charging him, police said.
>> Alcohol is believed to be a contributing factor."
>
>Considering that I've repeatedly gotten perfect scores on reading
>comprehension tests, from childhood on, I don't think that it's _I_ who
>needs to learn to read. Neither of those passages conclusively
>indicates that the driver was drinking, or is suspected of doing so.

Sure, parsing it uncritically, as you suggest, for all we know...

"...detectives anticipate charging him, police said. Alcohol is believed to
be a contributing factor."

....the detectives were drunk and the alcohol was a contributing factor in
their charging the poor driver.

jj

 

[jj]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 06:54:33 -0600, Robert Uhl <[email protected]>
wrote:

>jj<[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>> He wasn't killed by a -car- he was murdered by a drunk driver who
>>>> couldn't even be bothered to taking the man to a hospital.
>>>
>>>You don't know that--the article merely says that alcohol is believed
>>>to have been a contributing factor. For all we know, the cyclist was
>>>drunk and swerved in front of the car.
>>
>> Learn to read:
>>
>> "The driver, Omer B. Sen, 26, left the scene..."
>>
>> "Sen is in custody, and detectives anticipate charging him, police said.
>> Alcohol is believed to be a contributing factor."
>
>[superseded by removing pointless snarky bit]
>
>Neither of those passages conclusively indicates that the driver was
>drinking, or is suspected of doing so.

Sure it does, otherwise it would have said 'detectives anticipate
exonerating him'.

Certainly it's not fair to direct any frustration at you. I'll agree to
wait and see if we get any more information.

When it comes to drivers running down cycists (or in this case a 'bike
rider') I'll admit to a strongly negative knee-jerk reaction. However I'm
not acting as a member of a judicial system, I'm just a cyclist having a
'throw the bum in jail and throw away the key' reaction.

I think the penalties should be applied without mitigation more often -
anytime someone gets in a car after drinking to the level of .08 I think
they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent for any incident. Right now
they frequently get off with some excuse, or hit-and-run to avoid the
consequences. It's ironic that they probably run to avoid blood level
testing when in many cases the courts find drunkenness an excuse for the
behavior.

I'd even come down on the side of a 'kill a cyclist or pedestrian' lose
your license law. Drivers need to be given a -very- healthy dose of
reality, imo. Imagine how much safer the roads would be to ride if the
entire onus was put on the driver to exercise the burden of the
responsibility.

I see drivers just floor it every day in situations where they should slow
down for 10 seconds, and exercise caution. Yesterday when riding home a car
raced to pass some pedestrians walking in the road on his side in order to
pass them before I got there approaching from the opposite direction rather
than be forced to slow 5mph to stay out of my lane. I like the law that
Clair posted from that website:

"HB 1108 which prohibits passing when bicyclists, pedestrians, law
enforcement or farm equipment is in view and approaching the opposite
direction."

If that guy had more of a realization that had he blown a tire or something
and hit the peds, or swerved into me and risked never driving again, I bet
he'd consider slowing down as the best option, not speeding up.

Sure people and cyclists can act a bit unpredictably - that's no excuse for
the kind of driving we all see every day.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, though. Sorry for the snarking - it was
meant as a bit of humor. ;-)

jj

 

[Robert Uhl]

jj<[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> "Sen is in custody, and detectives anticipate charging him, police
>>> said. Alcohol is believed to be a contributing factor."
>>
>>[superseded by removing pointless snarky bit]
>>
>>Neither of those passages conclusively indicates that the driver was
>>drinking, or is suspected of doing so.
>
> Sure it does, otherwise it would have said 'detectives anticipate
> exonerating him'.

At least here in Colorado there's a concept of partial responsibility.
I could hit a drunk pedestrian and yet still be (say) 27% responsible
for the accident (and he'd be considered 73% responsible). I believe
that Texas has a similar concept. So if the (dead) cyclist were 90% at
fault it's still possible that the motorist was 10% to blame, and
charged for that. Or they might charge him with leaving the scene.

I won't argue, though, that that's the _likely_ case

> When it comes to drivers running down cycists (or in this case a 'bike
> rider') I'll admit to a strongly negative knee-jerk reaction.

I'm the same way, tending to give cyclists a presumption of innocence
which, quite frankly, might not always be justified.

> Thanks for the thoughtful reply, though. Sorry for the snarking - it was
> meant as a bit of humor. ;-)

The snarkiness I referred to was my own--the post superseded one in
which I acted like a git, and so I replaced it. Your news server might
not support supersedes.

--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
There's only so many cookies one can pull out of a floppy drive before
losing faith in mankind.

 

[jj]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:59:50 -0600, Robert Uhl <[email protected]>
wrote:

>jj<[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>> "Sen is in custody, and detectives anticipate charging him, police
>>>> said. Alcohol is believed to be a contributing factor."
>>>
>>>[superseded by removing pointless snarky bit]
>>>
>>>Neither of those passages conclusively indicates that the driver was
>>>drinking, or is suspected of doing so.
>>
>> Sure it does, otherwise it would have said 'detectives anticipate
>> exonerating him'.
>
>At least here in Colorado there's a concept of partial responsibility.
>I could hit a drunk pedestrian and yet still be (say) 27% responsible
>for the accident (and he'd be considered 73% responsible). I believe
>that Texas has a similar concept. So if the (dead) cyclist were 90% at
>fault it's still possible that the motorist was 10% to blame, and
>charged for that. Or they might charge him with leaving the scene.
>
>I won't argue, though, that that's the _likely_ case
>
>> When it comes to drivers running down cycists (or in this case a 'bike
>> rider') I'll admit to a strongly negative knee-jerk reaction.
>
>I'm the same way, tending to give cyclists a presumption of innocence
>which, quite frankly, might not always be justified.
>
>> Thanks for the thoughtful reply, though. Sorry for the snarking - it was
>> meant as a bit of humor. ;-)
>
>The snarkiness I referred to was my own--the post superseded one in
>which I acted like a git

I didn't get that at all. You argued your point of view in a thoughtful and
balanced fashion, and that caused me to moderate my next reply.

Good to have you here, mate.

jj

>and so I replaced it. Your news server might not support supersedes.

 

[Bob the Cow]

"GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> We average 1 or 2 "DUI cyclist" deaths per year around here. >
> ...
> Just because it's a cyclist that gets injured or killed doesn't mean that
> they aren't liable.

Damn skippy. Sumbitch probly deserved it.

 

[Bob]

Dennis P. Harris wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2005 20:44:17 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Bob"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > when someone on a bike is hit by a car at
> > 3:00 AM, I have to wonder:
> >
> > What was the *deceased's* blood alcohol?
>
> most folks i've seen biking at that time were poor folks going to
> their early shift jobs.

Most 3 AM cyclists *I've* seen had a twelve pack tied to the upside
down handlebars of their ratty old "tenspeeds" but that proves nothing.
My questions stand.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Bob]

jj wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2005 20:44:17 -0700, "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Others here have already concluded that the driver was certainly at
> >fault and likely drunk to boot. Be that as it may, I have a few
> >questions. The answers would not exonerate the driver ("I *think* I hit
> >something"? Yeah, right.) but when someone on a bike is hit by a car at
> >3:00 AM, I have to wonder:
> >
> >What was the *deceased's* blood alcohol?
> >What's the nature of the roadway
> >What kind of roadway lighting was present?
> >Was the bike equipped with lights?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Bob Hunt
>
> And what if it was a pedestrian drunk as a skunk, standing on the sidewalk
> waiting for a taxi and the drunk ran up the curb and ran him over -
> contributory negligance on the part of the pedestrian?

The single most important difference between what was reported to have
happened and your hypothetical instance is the location of the impact.
Unlike your hypothetical drunken pedestrian, the cyclist- sober or
drunk, with brightly blazing lights on an all chrome bike or dressed in
black on an unlit flat black bike- was in the roadway. Put your
hypothetical pedestrian in the middle of the road and you are damned
right he'd *share* the responsibility for the crash. Note I say
"share". The hit and run driver would still bear plenty of criminal
liability.

> What if the bikerider was sober as a judge and lit up like a christmas tree
> going to deliver life saving medicine to hospitalized Nuns? Will that
> strengthen his case against the guy driving drunk? Nope - he'll still get
> off when his lawyer says 'My client said he didn't see the guy'.
>
> jj

First, it's not "his" case. It's the State's case. He's just the
unfortunate dead victim. Second, there's no reason to assume that the
driver is likely to "get off". That you assert the outcome of a trial
so confidently tells me that you lack much experience with criminal
prosecutions.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Bob]

jj wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2005 20:44:17 -0700, "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Others here have already concluded that the driver was certainly at
> >fault and likely drunk to boot. Be that as it may, I have a few
> >questions. The answers would not exonerate the driver ("I *think* I hit
> >something"? Yeah, right.) but when someone on a bike is hit by a car at
> >3:00 AM, I have to wonder:
> >
> >What was the *deceased's* blood alcohol?
> >What's the nature of the roadway
> >What kind of roadway lighting was present?
> >Was the bike equipped with lights?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Bob Hunt
>
> And what if it was a pedestrian drunk as a skunk, standing on the sidewalk
> waiting for a taxi and the drunk ran up the curb and ran him over -
> contributory negligance on the part of the pedestrian?

The single most important difference between what was reported to have
happened and your hypothetical instance is the location of the impact.
Unlike your hypothetical drunken pedestrian, the cyclist- sober or
drunk, with brightly blazing lights on an all chrome bike or dressed in
black on an unlit flat black bike- was in the roadway. Put your
hypothetical pedestrian in the middle of the road and you are damned
right he'd *share* the responsibility for the crash. Note I say
"share". The hit and run driver would still bear plenty of criminal
liability.

> What if the bikerider was sober as a judge and lit up like a christmas tree
> going to deliver life saving medicine to hospitalized Nuns? Will that
> strengthen his case against the guy driving drunk? Nope - he'll still get
> off when his lawyer says 'My client said he didn't see the guy'.
>
> jj

First, it's not "his" case. It's the State's case. He's just the
unfortunate dead victim. Second, there's no reason to assume that the
driver is likely to "get off". That you assert the outcome of a trial
so confidently tells me that you lack much experience with criminal
prosecutions.

Regards,
Bob Hunt