Bicyclist killed by woman driver who was downloading cell phone ring tones



Robert Coe wrote:
> : >>Sure Dave and that is why any Chinese city has 100's of cyclist head
> : >>injuries everyday of the year. Do not citation me I know it as common
> : >>knowledge. Anyone?
> : >>
> : >
> : > a) you must be new here - claiming such a patently ridiculous
> : > statistic to be true without any proof is only employed by trolls and
> : > pro-helmet zealots; and
> : >
> : > b) "common knowledge" isn't either.
> :
> : here is another from J. Hopkins U.
> : http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1380951


A fascintating paper [1]. "Motor vehicles were involved in 98% of the
police-reported bicycling injuries." Therefore the authors call for
cycling helmets.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

1. I would probably give it a C- if it was a first year univeristy
paper. I mean, they tried.
 
Robert Coe wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:17:44 -0800, Zoot Katz
<[email protected]> wrote:

> : Let me guess, you're one of the 70% who consider themselves above
> : average drivers.

> How the hell do you know all that? You must be a genius. Actually, you got
> most of the details wrong, but it is a fact that I'd be willing to bet, sight
> unseen, that I'm a safer driver than you are.

Point to Zoot Cat. !

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
 
> I can spot them a block away. They're the idiots piddling along and
> not looking where they're going. As a bicyclist I'm more aware of my
> surroundings than a caged scud jockey ever will be. I've learned to
> read a driver's body-language and can most often predict what they're
> going to do before they even have a clue themselves.
> --
> zk

Your right ZK
Drivers around here anyway rarely use traffic signals. I watch behind
and in front frequently and I know they are turning right but they
never use their signals. I then dodge their maneuver so I am in the
best position before they even know what is going on. That is to say I
will go extreme left and they end up going right. Keeps me on my toes
and I do not get caught behind cars much. And if they are piled up on
the right with no signal I will go to the inside lane because I figur'
someone is going to turn right.
You know you cannot report foreign licenses to the police because
they have no jurisdiction. So let them do whatever they want to do and
ignore it. They really have no clue and are usually lost. 2 reports I
would have liked to make came from Washington drivers.
 
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <42lch.409456$R63.64718@pd7urf1no>,
> "nash" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I donot fuccing care wise a$s. that was one article. Do you get the
> > jist of what I was saying No. Do more reading A$$ You people are
> > thoroughly disgusting. Do you believe everything read NO So why are
> > you taking me to task. Get over it already. Would you like to bike
> > in a Chinese city Monday morning rush hour. A little too dangerous
> > for my taste. That is alll I am saying about the dave's reck.
> > comment. Would you? Because that is what you are telling me.
> >
> > I did not say I had a source I said I heard it on a TV show. Have you
> > answered even one of my questions No
>
> Good grief. Unfortunately your writing makes it appear that you are
> unable to think critically as well.

Good grief. Unfortunately your writing makes it appear that you are
unable to think critically as well.
 
People do all sorts of wrong etiquette in this news group.
Mostly including the previous message.
waste of time
 
[email protected] wrote:
> nash wrote:
>
> > I was writing to Bicycles.misc the list I did not notice. I do not want to
> > be in those groups it just happened. But now I will cut them out.
> >
> > Plus I am in the highest brain sex category by a British Study that you can
> > be. I am meticulous about spelling and grammar and am smarter than most
> > male brains and most female brains combined. I work 4X better than you Carl
> > Fogel
>
> :)
>
> That from the guy who also posted:
>
> "I donot fuccing care wise a$s. that was one article. Do you get the
> jist
> of what I was saying No. Do more reading A$$
> You people are thoroughly disgusting. Do you believe everything read
> NO So
> why are you taking me to task. Get over it already. Would you like to
> bike
> in a Chinese city Monday morning rush hour. A little too dangerous for
> my
> taste. That is alll I am saying about the dave's reck. comment. Would
> you?
> Because that is what you are telling me.
>
> "I did not say I had a source I said I heard it on a TV show.
> Have you answered even one of my questions No "
>
> That's some meticulous spelling and grammar, all right! ;-)
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Glad you liked it.
 
conversations even with passengers is distracting. I was a taxi
driver for 3 years. So I have lived on both sides of this discussion.
 
Robert Coe wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:17:44 -0800, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
> : On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 07:55:20 -0500, Robert Coe <[email protected]> wrote:
> :
> : >: Studies of second-generation traffic calming methods have shown
> : >: encouraging reductions in the number of injury crashes, based largely
> : >: on reductions in speed and in the amount of vehicle traffic. The
> : >: Netherlands has noted an injury-crash reduction of more than 80
> : >: percent. In Germany, the number of crashes went up to some degree,
> : >: but the number of casualties decreased 30% - 56%, Great Britain, 24%
> : >: and Austria, 31%.
> : >:
> : >: Do some research
> : >
> : >Yeah, like into whether you and others proposing such madness are (or are
> : >shilling for) personal-injury lawyers.
> : >
> : >What does this have to do with Verizon cell phones? (Other than the obvious
> : >fact that if this method of traffic "calming" becomes widespread, we're all
> : >going to have to have 911 on speed dial.)
> :
> : Granted, the countries where "second generation" traffic calming has
> : proved effective at reducing causalities don't have the outrageous
> : personal injury suits and settlements prevalent in the litigious
> : culture currently infecting your US of A. They also have more
> : stringent rules, better enforcement and more comprehensive drivers'
> : education. In America any fool can drive a car and most of them do.
> :
> : Let me guess, you're one of the 70% who consider themselves above
> : average drivers. And perhaps too you erroneously believe that your
> : fuel costs and other vehicle expenses entitles you to exclusive
> : domain on the streets for which we all pay. I'd further wager that
> : you habitually exceed the speed limit, fail to signal turns and lane
> : changes, disregard pedestrians' right-of-way and neglect to check
> : your mirrors and blind spots while gabbing on your precious cell
> : phone.
> :
> : If you've not yet killed or injured anyone with your inattentive,
> : negligent or just plain incompetent driving, consider yourself lucky.
> : Hopefully when your luck runs out a bridge abutment absorbs the
> : "collateral damage" and it's only your estate being sued.
>
> How the hell do you know all that? You must be a genius. Actually, you got
> most of the details wrong, but it is a fact that I'd be willing to bet, sight
> unseen, that I'm a safer driver than you are. Or are you one of those
> self-styled experts who knows everything it's important to know about cars but
> has never actually driven one?
>
> Come to think of it, you did say you were just guessing. Oh, well ...
>
> Bob

Oh, Good save Bobby
 
Want to know how to freak out the driver next to you when you are
driving.
Lean your head to the left with the left eye shut like you are asleep
and hands not visible. Right eye open but not visible to them while
you drive. See what kind of reactions you get. ;)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"nash" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <42lch.409456$R63.64718@pd7urf1no>,
> > "nash" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > I donot fuccing care wise a$s. that was one article. Do you get
> > > the jist of what I was saying No. Do more reading A$$ You
> > > people are thoroughly disgusting. Do you believe everything read
> > > NO So why are you taking me to task. Get over it already.
> > > Would you like to bike in a Chinese city Monday morning rush
> > > hour. A little too dangerous for my taste. That is alll I am
> > > saying about the dave's reck. comment. Would you? Because that
> > > is what you are telling me.
> > >
> > > I did not say I had a source I said I heard it on a TV show. Have
> > > you answered even one of my questions No
> >
> > Good grief. Unfortunately your writing makes it appear that you
> > are unable to think critically as well.
>
> Good grief. Unfortunately your writing makes it appear that you are
> unable to think critically as well.

<snicker> You can cut and paste. Good for you!
 
John Everett wrote:

> Note that this took place in Illinois, which has a history of
> discounting the rights of cyclists. Note that the State's Attorney in
> defending her decision to not press for a more serious charge said,
> "...the driver could have no reasonable expectation of a bike on the
> side of the road."

I was myself pretty damn shocked when I read that quote.
I still can't fathom why this State Attorney, who formerly
worked for a personal injury law firm, would take a
bicyclists' unjust death so lightly.

My initial suspicion was that it had to do with what
corporations put her in office. Could it have been a cell phone
company? Or an auto manufacturer? If so which?

Unfortunately I haven't had any luck in learning
who bankrolled her. Any ideas how one might do that?
 
Yarper wrote:
>
> John Everett wrote:
>
> > Note that this took place in Illinois, which has a history of
> > discounting the rights of cyclists. Note that the State's Attorney in
> > defending her decision to not press for a more serious charge said,
> > "...the driver could have no reasonable expectation of a bike on the
> > side of the road."
>
> I was myself pretty damn shocked when I read that quote.
> I still can't fathom why this State Attorney, who formerly
> worked for a personal injury law firm, would take a
> bicyclists' unjust death so lightly.
>
> My initial suspicion was that it had to do with what
> corporations put her in office. Could it have been a cell phone
> company? Or an auto manufacturer? If so which?
>
> Unfortunately I haven't had any luck in learning
> who bankrolled her. Any ideas how one might do that?

What's even worse, to me, is that she's only the tip of the iceberg!

Notan
 
Please don't cross-post to the frugal living group.


"Notan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yarper wrote:
>>
>> John Everett wrote:
>>
>> > Note that this took place in Illinois, which has a history of
>> > discounting the rights of cyclists. Note that the State's Attorney in
>> > defending her decision to not press for a more serious charge said,
>> > "...the driver could have no reasonable expectation of a bike on the
>> > side of the road."
>>
>> I was myself pretty damn shocked when I read that quote.
>> I still can't fathom why this State Attorney, who formerly
>> worked for a personal injury law firm, would take a
>> bicyclists' unjust death so lightly.
>>
>> My initial suspicion was that it had to do with what
>> corporations put her in office. Could it have been a cell phone
>> company? Or an auto manufacturer? If so which?
>>
>> Unfortunately I haven't had any luck in learning
>> who bankrolled her. Any ideas how one might do that?
>
> What's even worse, to me, is that she's only the tip of the iceberg!
>
> Notan
 
Karen Newton wrote:
>
> Please don't cross-post to the frugal living group.
>
> <snip>

My mistake, although hitting the "Reply to Newsgroup" button includes
misc.consumers.frugal-living, just as it did when you hit the same
(or similar) button.

Notan
 
Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 23:05:26 GMT, me <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >She was so far off the road she hit the cyclist with the *drivers* side!
> >She wasn't just using the phone, she was *downloading* ringtones!
> >I find it pathetic that the DA didn't recommend a vehicular homicide
> >charge. I agree that the bias towards driving / against cycling is
> >systemic, but in this case I would have expected a more serious charge
> >and would expect a conviction.
>
> This tragedy happened in Illinois where until recently, or perhaps
> still, bicyclist aren't even considered the intended users of the
> road. I'm sure Bob can clarify this. Perhaps it was only one judge's
> ruling after a cyclist disappeared into a pot-hole and tried to sue
> the state.
>
> Yeah it's a systemic bias and one not confined to Illinois or the US
> of A. It happens everywhere the economy feeds on blood and oil. It
> happens everywhere fat-cat legislators are influenced by the
> automotive cartel's fat-cat lobbyists
>
> I sincerely doubt a BC cyclist would get any more justice
> post-humously.
> --
> zk

Wayne vs Boub, the Illinois Supreme Court case that held that
bicyclists are not "intended users of the roadway", is still the law of
the land here but really has nothing to do with this case. It (the
ruling) was basically a way to shield townships/road commissions from
civil damages when a roadway's character is unsuitable for bikes.

I'd guess that Ms Reitz' decision not to charge reckless driving:

(625 ILCS 5/11-503) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-503)
Sec. 11-503. Reckless driving; aggravated reckless driving.
(a) A person commits reckless driving if he or she:
(1) drives any vehicle with a willful or wanton
disregard for the safety of persons or property; or

(2) knowingly drives a vehicle and uses an incline in
a roadway, such as a railroad crossing, bridge approach, or hill,
to cause the vehicle to become airborne.

(b) Every person convicted of reckless driving shall be guilty of a
Class A misdemeanor, except as provided under subsection (c) of this
Section.
(c) Every person convicted of committing a violation of subsection
(a) shall be guilty of aggravated reckless driving if the violation
results in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement
to another. Aggravated reckless driving is a Class 4 felony.

or reckless homicide:

(720 ILCS 5/9-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 9-3)
Sec. 9-3. Involuntary Manslaughter and Reckless Homicide.
(a) A person who unintentionally kills an individual without lawful
justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts whether
lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to
cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs
them recklessly, except in cases in which the cause of the death
consists of the driving of a motor vehicle or operating a snowmobile,
all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft, in which case the person commits
reckless homicide. (Note- reckless homicide is a Class 3 felony)

was motivated more by the difficulty of convincing 12 jurors that
likely own cell phones that using a cell phone while driving, even if
that use is downloading ringtones or sending text messages, constitutes
a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.
Making that argument would be especially problematic since the accused
was
A- a 25 yr old U of I graduate in a county culturally and economically
dominated by the University of Illinois,
B- female (call it sexist if you wish but it *is* a fact that most
juries find it more difficult to convict women than men regardless of
the offense),
C- remorseful and,
D- employed.

Personally, if I were that State's Attorney I would have been inclined
to charge Ms Stark with:
1-reckless driving,
2- aggravated reckless driving, and
3- reckless homicide.

I'd offer to drop counts 1 and 3 later in exchange for a guilty plea on
count 2 but then, I'm not a State's Attorney or even a lawyer.

On the positive side- if it can be called "positive"- Ms Stark's age
and education mean that presumably she has quite a few years left in
the workforce to pay the real and punitive damages a civil jury will
most likely grant the decedent's survivors.

Regards,
Bob Hunt
 
Bob Hunt wrote:
> ...
> was motivated more by the difficulty of convincing 12 jurors that
> likely own cell phones that using a cell phone while driving, even if
> that use is downloading ringtones or sending text messages, constitutes
> a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.
> Making that argument would be especially problematic since the accused
> was
> A- a 25 yr old U of I graduate in a county culturally and economically
> dominated by the University of Illinois,
> B- female (call it sexist if you wish but it *is* a fact that most
> juries find it more difficult to convict women than men regardless of
> the offense),
> C- remorseful and,
> D- employed.
>
> Personally, if I were that State's Attorney I would have been inclined
> to charge Ms Stark with:
> 1-reckless driving,
> 2- aggravated reckless driving, and
> 3- reckless homicide.
>
> I'd offer to drop counts 1 and 3 later in exchange for a guilty plea on
> count 2 but then, I'm not a State's Attorney or even a lawyer.
>
> On the positive side- if it can be called "positive"- Ms Stark's age
> and education mean that presumably she has quite a few years left in
> the workforce to pay the real and punitive damages a civil jury will
> most likely grant the decedent's survivors.

Er Bob,

The victim was the 25 year old U of I graduate. The driver was 19 years
old (occupation unstated in the News Gazette article).

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
 
On 3 Dec 2006 15:46:24 -0800, "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>On the positive side- if it can be called "positive"- Ms Stark's age
>and education mean that presumably she has quite a few years left in
>the workforce to pay the real and punitive damages a civil jury will
>most likely grant the decedent's survivors.

Wouldn't her insurance company pay those damages? It's not like she's
been charged with anything more serious than inappropriate lane use.
All she'd be faced with is higher insurance premiums in the future.
That's not going to cause her enough hardship to teach her anything.

If she didn't have sufficient liability insurance to cover the
damages, what's to stop her from getting a shrink to say she's too
traumatised to work and have her end up on welfare. Or at 19 yrs. is
she considered a minor whose parents can be held accountable?
--
zk
 
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 08:07:05 -0500, Robert Coe <[email protected]> wrote:
>: The main jist of this "discussion", and the one that is topical to
>: your newsgroup, is that you, me, nor anyone is capable of driving
>: with their complete attention while engaged in a cell-phone
>: conversation or manipulating the damned contraption.
>
>As it happens, I never said I was. I use a cell phone while driving very
>rarely and only in situations when traffic is light and I can do it without
>getting into trouble. I never initiate a call except by voice activation. And
>I'm always ready to drop the call if the road needs my attention.

The road always needs your attention. Other road users deserve all of
it. It's their road too. With second generation traffic calming you'd
be giving the road and its occupants more of your attention. Driving
would no longer be a simple matter of keeping your scud between the
white lines while your brain goes on auto pilot.

Many times you've heard people say they don't remember how they got
to their destination. There are parts of the regular commute when
they're not really there. They're navigating by rote. This is more
true of highway or freeway driving involving longer distances with
commuters travelling wide, straight, boring roads. Driving is boring
hence the popularity of in car diversions and distractions, aka
entertainment units. The first thing I usually have to do when
starting to drive someone else's car is turn off the radio.

Afternoon commuters even doze off frequently. They're tired. They're
comfortably tucked into their couch on wheels with all the amenities
of home at their fingertips. The surroundings are boring and their
brain goes into a micro sleep. That's all it takes. Drivers are
stunned and lolled into complacency. They regard safety in terms of
their own post crash survival. They feel safe in a controlled
environment.

A more challenging or uncertain environment would demand more of
their attention. They may even be forced slow down a bit.

>It's really
>no different from talking to a passenger.

A passenger is an extra set of eyes. I don't like to be a "back seat
driver" but I can't help but do shoulder checks or hit the
nonexistent brake pedal when riding as a passenger. I've often warned
the driver "this one's coming", "there's a bicycle", "that one's
going to turn", etc.

A disembodied voice is a distraction. Your brain is working harder to
get the message. Less than 40% of the message is comprised of the
actual words. The rest is gestures, subtle nuances, tone, inflection,
facial expressions, etc. It's so ingrained that people unconsciously
use their hands for gesturing while engaged in phone conversations.
--
zk
 
In article <kD5ch.403837$5R2.135719@pd7urf3no>, nash wrote:
>Sorry Karen forgot
>
>"Dave Reckoning" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "Yarper" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Clear and obvious guilt. Result? A slap on the wrist, due directly to
>>>> Democratic State Attorney Julia Reitz, who ironically is listed as
>>>> working for a personal-injury law firm.
>>>
>>> Is her political affiliation somehow relevant?
>>>
>>>> What we need in the USA is separate bicycle lanes, like they have
>>>> throughout Denmark and parts of Holland.
>>>
>>> What Denmark and Holland have is a population that uses bikes in large
>>> numbers. That's what makes the difference. Separate bikes lanes are
>>> frequently more dangerous than riding on the roads.
>>
>> This is definatly the case. Bike lanes are the MOST dangerous. They make
>> the drivers think that they don't have to worry about the bikes because
>> they are off in their seperate lanes. The problem is that the drivers have
>> to cross those lanes to make turns and enter the street. Alas, sometimes
>> the drivers don't stay in their own lanes and drive over the bikes anyway.
>> The worst of them are the ones that are seperate sidewalk affairs. Also
>> this gives the car drivers the illusion that the street belongs to them
>> alone. Then theye make the bikes cross all of the streets at the worst
>> possible place and put the bikes in the position of having to enter the
>> private domain of the cars with every crossing of a side street.
>>
>> The best idea I have seen is counter-intuitive, take down all of the
>> traffic signs and street marking and make people rely on common sense!!!
>> Street markings and bike lanes just give the cars the false sense that
>> they can drive over anything that gets in their way.

Philadelphia has bike lanes on many of their streets, and the bike lanes
are in the streets.

I feel safer with these than without them. However, Philadelphia has
two big issues to fix, which don't appear too related to bike lanes since
the offenses also occur on streets that don't have them:

1. Double parking. In Philadelphia and nearby parts of Upper Darby, it
is common, even routine to see cars double-parked, even within a block of,
often even within half a block of an empty legal parking space.
Occaisionally cars will even double park against and not pull into a
parking space. Drivers waiting for a passenger often wait out of the
parking lane, even 20 feet from an empty parking space or loading zone
space. Drivers often think that waiting for a passenger in an occupied
car is better done in a traffic lane (bike or otherwise) than in an empty
curb lane where parking is not permitted but where stopping is.

2. In Philadelphia, all too many drivers:

a) Do not signal turns
b) Too many of those that do signal turns wait until turning to signal
c) Too many of those that do signal turns do not signal a right turn
until after encroaching onto a bike lane
d) Too many of those that signal turns do not signal lane changes
e) Too many of those that signal lane changes do not signal if the lane
change is into or out of the parking lane.
f) Some even feel the need to pass to the left of a cyclist 10-20 yards
before turning right or lane-shifting rightward to the parking lane
(or the bike lane to double-park on).

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Y
Update re Bicyclist was killed by woman driver downloading cell phone ring tones
Replies
5
Views
413
Road Cycling
Don Klipstein
D
S
SUV Killed By Bicyclist
Replies
7
Views
495
Road Cycling
Fritz M
F
B
Bicyclist killed by SUV
Replies
59
Views
1K
Road Cycling
VBadJuJu
V
M
Re: Bicyclist killed in Iowa
Replies
1
Views
331
Road Cycling
Tom Keats
T
A
Re: Bicyclist killed in South Carolina #1
Replies
2
Views
417
Road Cycling
Gary Smiley
G
Top Bottom Back