Bicyclist killed by SUV

[Dennis P. Harris]

On 28 Jan 2005 15:05:22 -0800 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Buck"
<[email protected]> wrote: (snipped)

> assengers
> Fatal crashes among 16-year-olds are more likely to occur when other
> teenagers are in the car. The risk increases with every additional
> passenger.
>
> > Night driving
> This is a high-risk activity for beginners. Per mile driven, the
> nighttime fatal crash rate for 16-year-olds is about twice as high as
> during the day.
>
our graduated licensing law just went into effect. i think it's
just what is needed --- it restricts driving for the first
several years for drivers under 21, including restricting the
number of passengers (with some exceptions for family members)
and the time of day.

kids have been writing whiny letters to the editor about it for
the past two years while the legislation was considered and after
it passed, but the continuing loss of carloads of teenagers got
it passed.

it's really the parents that should be enforcing good driving,
though. i was more scared of my old man than any cop. when i
got a speeding ticket at 17, the judge told me he wouldn't take
my license, but dad told him that he already had!

it has already worked well in other states that have it.

 

[Dennis P. Harris]

On 29 Jan 2005 01:11:57 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, [email protected]
(R15757) wrote:

> Dennis Harris wrote in part:
>
> >yeah, that's what they always say. i've had folks pull
> >alongside, look directly at me, and then do right turn in front
> >of me and tell me that they didn't see me.
>
> Just because a driver's head is pointed your
> direction doesn't mean they driver sees you.

no, i mean that in two cases, they looked right at me. right in
the eyes. it was like they were on autopilot, or zombies, or
something. neither one was drunk or obviously drugged. one was
a male in a big dodge pickup, and the other a woman driving a
neon.

they looked at me directly in the eyes, and then did the same
when they told me that they didn't see me. i just don't get it.

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Joshua Putnam <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> The purpose of the law isn't to rigidly enforce 36-inch clearance,
>>> it's to eliminate the common defense that the cyclist swerved a foot
>>> to the left and therefore caused the accident.
>>
>> Okay, that deals with after-the-fact. I submit We need to
>> focus on more before-the-fact stuff to keep people from
>> getting killed.
>>
>> And if the penalty for not respecting a 36-inch passing
>> clearance is small, or if the law is unenforcable (or
>> perhaps worse: unknown), what's the use?
>
> People with defeatist attitudes like yours deserve to be run over.

I'm afraid I fail to see how my opinion that
stuff like seriously educating drivers about
dealing with cyclists and respecting our rights
& understanding our responsibilities (you know:
before-the-fact stuff), is more effective than
the usual knee-jerk reaction to lobby for some
law or other to get passed, is somehow defeatist.
I mean, look at MADD. Sure, they've directly
influenced drinking-driving laws in many
jurisdictions. But they've gone further too,
with media presence, programs, literature, etc.
All I'm saying is, I think we need a similar
approach -- something that's /ongoing/ like
MADD does, something more than just slap-dashing
another law in the books, clapping the dust off
our hands, and saying, "There. That oughta do
it." I think such half-assed approaches are
worse than defeatism.

If I must be run over, please let my new Tung Lin
generator light set be spared. At least, the
headlight -- it's has some kewl styling.


cheers, & "To you from flailing hands we throw the torch",
Tom


--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Dennis P. Harris) writes:
> On 29 Jan 2005 01:11:57 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, [email protected]
> (R15757) wrote:
>
>> Dennis Harris wrote in part:
>>
>> >yeah, that's what they always say. i've had folks pull
>> >alongside, look directly at me, and then do right turn in front
>> >of me and tell me that they didn't see me.
>>
>> Just because a driver's head is pointed your
>> direction doesn't mean they driver sees you.
>
> no, i mean that in two cases, they looked right at me. right in
> the eyes. it was like they were on autopilot, or zombies, or
> something. neither one was drunk or obviously drugged. one was
> a male in a big dodge pickup, and the other a woman driving a
> neon.
>
> they looked at me directly in the eyes, and then did the same
> when they told me that they didn't see me. i just don't get it.

Bikes don't exist, same as people in gorilla suits
in basketball games:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr01/blindness.html

The label it's given is "inattentional blindness".

Whatever people want to call it, it's something to
be aware of, and to watch out for.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[RonSonic]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:40:04 -0900, [email protected] (Dennis P.
Harris) wrote:

>On 29 Jan 2005 01:11:57 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, [email protected]
>(R15757) wrote:
>
>> Dennis Harris wrote in part:
>>
>> >yeah, that's what they always say. i've had folks pull
>> >alongside, look directly at me, and then do right turn in front
>> >of me and tell me that they didn't see me.
>>
>> Just because a driver's head is pointed your
>> direction doesn't mean they driver sees you.
>
>no, i mean that in two cases, they looked right at me. right in
>the eyes. it was like they were on autopilot, or zombies, or
>something. neither one was drunk or obviously drugged. one was
>a male in a big dodge pickup, and the other a woman driving a
>neon.
>
>they looked at me directly in the eyes, and then did the same
>when they told me that they didn't see me. i just don't get it.
>

You didn't fit the template of things they had programmed themselves to notice.

We all do this, we must. Nobody processes everything all the time, we process
what we've taught ourselves we should.

They never considered a cyclist my be where you where.

Ron

 

[greggery peccary]

>
> A mile, tomorrow, for the fallen. Tragic. Tragic.
>
>
an extra mile tonight and perhaps an extra hill, to pay respect...

 

[Luke]

In article <[email protected]>, Neil
Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:

> Check the driver's cell phone records for the time of the accident. On the
> phone, maybe?

That's my suspicion also. Clear day, brightly colored clothing, there's
only one way you don't see that: your eyes are NOT on the road. And the
victim, Josie, was only 25. Shame, shame, shame. The motorist faces a
maximum of year in jail; I'll be surprised if she serves a day.


luke

 

[geemike]

"Luke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:290120052347457136%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Neil
> Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Check the driver's cell phone records for the time of the
>> accident. On the
>> phone, maybe?
>
> That's my suspicion also. Clear day, brightly colored clothing,
> there's
> only one way you don't see that: your eyes are NOT on the road.
> And the
> victim, Josie, was only 25. Shame, shame, shame. The motorist
> faces a
> maximum of year in jail; I'll be surprised if she serves a day.

Yep, her Husband owns a major ski resort. With those kinds of
funds on hand for lawyers she could have OJ'd the woman and gotten
off easy.

A woman wrote in to the local paper shortly after this incident.
She stated that any bicycler riding on public roads understands
and therefore must accept the risk of being run over.

But hey, this is the only Utah we got ;-)

Mike G

 

[Luke]

In article <[email protected]>, psycholist
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I was hit and nearly killed just over 2 years ago by a teenage driver who
> was talking on a cell phone. They were on-coming and made a left turn right
> into me. Hit me head on.

Yeah, the dreaded left hand turn. I empathize psycho, but it could have
been worse. A friend of mine suffered through a similar fate: the
driver was a 19 year old girl returning from New Year's festivities. My
buddy, Otto, went through the windshield.

When we stopped by the hospital, Otto had part of his skull removed. He
suffered extensive brain damage and was comatose. Even as I type, I
recoil at the haunting image of his young daughter climbing onto the
hospital bed, pleading "Daddy daddy, wake up. Daddy, WAKE UP!" Otto
never recovered.

luke

 

[Luke]

In article <[email protected]>, Ben Kaufman
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Being cyclists we are on "the other side of that fence." Although I like to
> think of myself as always having been a safe car driver I have to admit that
> being on the road bike for the last few years has opened my eyes a little
> wider.
>
> Ben

Yup, the adage rings true. If you could walk--or ride--a mile in my
shoes...

luke

 

[Luke]

In article <[email protected]>, Matt O'Toole
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I agree that teens shouldn't be driving. Cars are an expensive and dangerous
> waste of time and money for kids.
>

Not necessarily so: They can be. Rather than denying teens a driver's
license, why not instruct them to drive correctly and ensure (through
enforcement) that they do? After all, adults the world over have also
demonstrated a marked propensity for auto-centric profligacy and
idiocy; should they, as a class, be banned from driving as well?

luke

 

[Dennis P. Harris]

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:53:22 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc,
"geemike" <[email protected]> wrote:

> A woman wrote in to the local paper shortly after this incident.
> She stated that any bicycler riding on public roads understands
> and therefore must accept the risk of being run over.
>
i certainly hope that her letter does *not* go unchallenged!

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Dennis P. Harris) writes:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:53:22 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc,
> "geemike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A woman wrote in to the local paper shortly after this incident.
>> She stated that any bicycler riding on public roads understands
>> and therefore must accept the risk of being run over.
>>
> i certainly hope that her letter does *not* go unchallenged!

I believe her attitude is pervasive, and that's why much more
than merely enacting a law about passing distance must be done
to make things better. This attitude rationalizes drivers
running cyclists down, and it must be confronted directly and
continually.

So, I also hope her letter doesn't go unchallenged. But more
to the point, I hope her (and so many others') attitude towards
cyclists and other not-driving-people doesn't go unchallenged.
I've challenged, and continue to challenge it, myself. Many
drivers often seem to feel they have the right to jeopardize
other people's lives for their own convenience, and they'll
concoct all sorts of rationalizations to that end.

"... any bicycler riding on public roads understands and
therefore must accept the risk of being run over".

A lot of drivers think that way. That must be changed. I
want to see it changed, and will do all I can to change it.


Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[geemike]

"Dennis P. Harris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:53:22 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc,
> "geemike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A woman wrote in to the local paper shortly after this
>> incident.
>> She stated that any bicycler riding on public roads understands
>> and therefore must accept the risk of being run over.
>>
> i certainly hope that her letter does *not* go unchallenged!

It appeared the same week as the carelessness (can't call it an
accident now, can we).
It was too Cro Magnon to deserve a reply, but sadly, that
perspective regarding bicyclers is probably too common in many
locales.


Mike G

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] writes:

> The law is a good idea. All laws are after the fact. It helps
> determine liability, it does not need to be enforced on a daily basis,
> although it can give the police a reason to pull someone over and issue
> a ticket, and you can file a complaint against a driver for it in
> court.

That's not much consolation to the deceased, and their friends &
relatives. After the fact.

> I hope the family and the bike groups make the DA understand that the
> woman should serve the FULL YEAR. People HATE to go to jail.

I hope they make /everybody/ understand that lackadaisically
killing people is very, very bad. I suppose if the law is
enforced enough, after a number of deaths people might begin
to understand. I guess I have to believe that, or else I'd
be a defeatist.

cheers -
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Preston Crawford]

On 2005-01-30, Luke <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Matt O'Toole
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I agree that teens shouldn't be driving. Cars are an expensive and dangerous
>> waste of time and money for kids.
>>
>
> Not necessarily so: They can be. Rather than denying teens a driver's
> license, why not instruct them to drive correctly and ensure (through
> enforcement) that they do? After all, adults the world over have also
> demonstrated a marked propensity for auto-centric profligacy and
> idiocy; should they, as a class, be banned from driving as well?

I wish my parents had denied me a driver's license. I wasted 3 years of my
life driving 8 blocks and stupid cr*p like that, when I could have been
biking. I cycled all my life, then one day I got a car and that was
basically over. Stupidest thing I ever did, getting a car. And not a day
goes by that I wish I would have kept biking, because I missed a few years
in there where (for a number of reasons, but that being one of them) I got
extremely obese. Biking should be safer for kids. Driving should be made
more difficult. Period.

Preston

 

[[email protected]]

More details on this case at this URL (valid probably through about
2/5):

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2545340

Bill

____________________________________________________
| In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it |
| happens, you can bet it was planned that way. |
| --Franklin D. Roosevelt |
----------------------------------------------------

 

[Michael Nitabach]

RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:40:04 -0900, [email protected]
> (Dennis P. Harris) wrote:
>
>>On 29 Jan 2005 01:11:57 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, [email protected]
>>(R15757) wrote:
>>
>>> Dennis Harris wrote in part:
>>>
>>> >yeah, that's what they always say. i've had folks pull
>>> >alongside, look directly at me, and then do right turn in front
>>> >of me and tell me that they didn't see me.
>>>
>>> Just because a driver's head is pointed your
>>> direction doesn't mean they driver sees you.
>>
>>no, i mean that in two cases, they looked right at me. right in
>>the eyes. it was like they were on autopilot, or zombies, or
>>something. neither one was drunk or obviously drugged. one was
>>a male in a big dodge pickup, and the other a woman driving a
>>neon.
>>
>>they looked at me directly in the eyes, and then did the same
>>when they told me that they didn't see me. i just don't get it.
>>
>
> You didn't fit the template of things they had programmed
> themselves to notice.
>
> We all do this, we must. Nobody processes everything all the time,
> we process what we've taught ourselves we should.

This is exactly why it is much more important to be in the places on
the roadway where other traffic is expected to be and moving in the
the expected direction, than it is to be wearing bright or specially-
colored clothing.

I have to say that on a road such as described in this thread, with a
reasonably-wide shoulder, I would probably be riding not far from
where the killed cyclist was--about three feet to the right of white
line--although I tend to ride a bit closer to the white line--more
like between a foot and a foot and a half. This is probably not
optimal from the "inattentional blindness" perspective, as drivers do
not expect traffic on the shoulder.

--
Mike Nitabach

 

[Fritz M]

Maggie wrote:
> As for allowing teenagers to drive, I sometimes think the same about
> having teens on bikes. My friend was driving and some kid decided to
do
> a wheelie on his BMX or whatever you call it and she hit him. They
had
> to take HER to the hospital. He is fine. She hasn't driven since the
> accident it upset her so much

Well, imagine if this teen was driving a car...
I agree, BTW, regarding your thoughts on bicyclist eduction.

RFM

 

[VBadJuJu]

Ben Kaufman <[email protected]> wrote:

>...
>The Salt Lake City woman was wearing a helmet and brightly colored clothing and
>was riding at the right side of the road when she was hit from behind by a SUV,
>whose driver said she did not see the cyclist.
>...
>
>http://kutv.com/utah/UT--BicycleFatality-en/resources_news_html

"There was no evidence of speeding or alcohol, Deputy County District
Attorney Robert Stott said Thursday. The probable cause statement said
the SUV was driving in the shoulder and Stott said it is not clear why
it was."

Two words: Cell Phone

Drivers who yak and drive seem to do twice as many stupid things it
seems.