Jim Price's death reported on national news

[Paul Hobson]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> "damyth" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>The cell phone industry insists that it is safe to talk on the phone
>>while driving. While I don't think the cell phone industry has come
>>out and advocated text messaging was safe while driving, they have
>>not declared that act was dangerous either. And we citizens condone
>>this kind of behavior by not enacting strict laws against cell phone
>>use in a moving vehicle.
>
>
> Of course the cell phone industry portrays this as safe. Using a cell
> phone in your car is probably half if not more of the cell phone use
> in the U.S. It's often cited as one of the main reasons people buy
> cell phones.

I'm only 23 and I remember when they used to be called "car phones"

weird.
\\paul

 

[damyth]

Luke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> damyth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Wayne Pein wrote:
> >
> > <snipped>
> >
> > > 20 plus years ago when I was in college my girlfriend and her brother
> > > were killed while driving by a drunk driver. I advocate for tougher
> > > penalties for drunk driving, not for changing the roads.
> > >
> > > Wayne
> >
> > Yup. This succinctly sums up the situation regarding Jim's death. I
> > don't understand why people here have their panties in a bunch over the
> > "transportation system," tilt at windmills, and offer no specific or
> > concrete suggestions on what exactly in the transportation system needs
> > to be change or improved in order to prevent another needless homicide
> > by a cell phone user in a moving vehicle.
> >
>
> Well, off the top of my head, submissions to this thread have urged
> stiffer criminal penalties for cases such as this, more rigorous
> licensing standards, outlawing cellphone use in cars, discretion in
> choosing routes...
>
"Discretion in choosing routes?" Do you happen to have some inside
information on this case not privy to us? Do you know for a fact that
Jim didn't utilize discretion for choosing that route? You might as
well blame the victim for getting run over cause he didn't utilize
discretion in choosing his routes. Not to mention cell phone use occur
on all routes, good or bad, unless you get on a route that has no cell
signal.

"More rigorous licensing standards?" I fail to see how that will
prevent distractions such as cell phone use while driving, as long as
that act is considered legal and a birthright. I see more clueless
adults using the phone behind the wheel than teenagers, every day.
Just today (while I was driving) a clueless adult on the phone almost
broadsided me in a merge maneuver. When I honked, he gave me a look of
annoyance, as if I were the one at fault.

Look at the bulk of this thread. Stiffer penalties/enforcement were
only suggested yesterday after innumerable posts, and harsher penalties
don't really do any good in this particular case since Jim Price's wife
chose not to press charges against the teenager that killed her
husband.

The fuzzy thinking like "discretion in choosing routes (when it comes
to being killed by a driver on the cell phone)" is exactly
representative of the tilting at windmills mindset I was talking about
earlier. All the discretion in the world on Jim's part would not have
prevented him from being killed.

> > The only thing wrong with the "system" is our complicity of allowing
> > such distractions while we are driving.
>
> Complicit? I'd characterize this forum's sensibilities as anything but.
>
Then why are are majority of posts in this thread arguing about the
merits of one country's transportation system over another? How many
posts do you count taking an unequivocal stand against cell phone use
while driving vs. "transportation system sucks" in this thread?

> Luke

 

[Luke]

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

> Luke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > damyth <[email protected]> wrote:
> >

<snip>

> "Discretion in choosing routes?" Do you happen to have some inside
> information on this case not privy to us? Do you know for a fact that
> Jim didn't utilize discretion for choosing that route? You might as
> well blame the victim for getting run over cause he didn't utilize
> discretion in choosing his routes. Not to mention cell phone use occur
> on all routes, good or bad, unless you get on a route that has no cell
> signal.

Sheeesh! It was merely my intention to emphasize that this thread has
explored suggestions relevant to your concerns - and, typically of an
open forum, a few digressions also. Don't interpret my drawing
attention to this fact as an endorsement of arguments you find fault
with or that I'm an apologist for the state of affairs contributing to
Jim's death.

The fact is this: Jim Price was entirely blameless. His death was
caused through neglectful and irresponsible behavior - criminally so,
in my mind. I'd like to see the motorist charged with vehicular
manslaughter (or similar). Further, he should be denied the privilege
of a driver's license for a protracted period - say 10 years. Happy?

>
> "More rigorous licensing standards?" I fail to see how that will
> prevent distractions such as cell phone use while driving, as long as
> that act is considered legal and a birthright. I see more clueless
> adults using the phone behind the wheel than teenagers, every day.
> Just today (while I was driving) a clueless adult on the phone almost
> broadsided me in a merge maneuver. When I honked, he gave me a look of
> annoyance, as if I were the one at fault.
>
> Look at the bulk of this thread. Stiffer penalties/enforcement were
> only suggested yesterday after innumerable posts, and harsher penalties
> don't really do any good in this particular case since Jim Price's wife
> chose not to press charges against the teenager that killed her
> husband.

Well since you've ruled out tougher discipline for transgressors and a
more stringent licensing code, I suppose the only alternative left is
to accost Jim's wife with the error of her ways, and insist that she
demand a pound of flesh for the sake of justice. Or, perhaps, our sake.
Fortunately for us though, justice is not subjected to the impulses of
our outrage.

>
> The fuzzy thinking like "discretion in choosing routes (when it comes
> to being killed by a driver on the cell phone)" is exactly
> representative of the tilting at windmills mindset I was talking about
> earlier. All the discretion in the world on Jim's part would not have
> prevented him from being killed.

You're right. What do you have me say, that life's not unfair? But
there's nothing 'fuzzy' in acting to diminish the risks inherent in an
activity, and discretion serves that end. I'd wager during your rides,
you consult it constantly. Taking responsibility as much as possible
for your own safety is not quixotic; though it may not prevent the
possiblity of us ending as Jim did, it certainly will lessen the
likelihood.

>
> > > The only thing wrong with the "system" is our complicity of allowing
> > > such distractions while we are driving.
> >
> > Complicit? I'd characterize this forum's sensibilities as anything but.
> >
> Then why are are majority of posts in this thread arguing about the
> merits of one country's transportation system over another? How many
> posts do you count taking an unequivocal stand against cell phone use
> while driving vs. "transportation system sucks" in this thread?
>

Threads are prone to digressions, often grappling with arcane aspects
of an issue, while the most obvious receive little attention,
frequently because they're not contentious. Perhaps, there is tacit
agreement.

Luke

 

[Dave Larrington]

[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dave Larrington writes:
>
>>> Typically locally we have four lane roads in this town that have
>>> essentially polished curbstones beyond which there is dense
>>> shrubbery. The speed limit is 35mph but traffic speed is mostly
>>> above that. Every once in awhile I see bicyclists of your
>>> persuasion riding there to the consternation of drivers who cannot
>>> veer into the left lane upon discovering a 15mph bicycle as the car
>>> ahead takes advantage of a gap in the left lane.
>
>> When I was learning to drive, I was taught not to overtake until it
>> was safe to do so. Although having driven in California, I realise
>> that this may not be the case there...
>
> These are four lane roads. What has that to do with having a 15MPH
> bicycle directly in front of you after the car ahead has moved into
> the left lane with you going at least 35MPH with a another car next to
> you? That is the hazard that some bicyclists do not visualize when
> they ride on these streets, where car tires normally pass within
> inches of the curb (no sidewalk).

My car has brakes, as has, as far as I can recall, every other car I've ever
driven (with the possible exception of a 1987 VW Polo). If there is a
slow-moving "vehicle" in front of me, I slow down until there *is* space to
overtake, changing lanes if necessary. Blaming the cyclist for being hit
from behind because some muppet lacks the patience to wait for a few seconds
is missing the point in a spectacular fashion.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
My liver is evil, and must be punished.

 

[Dave Larrington]

(PeteCresswell) <[email protected]> wrote:

> Per ThreeLeggedDog:
>> The question is how to enforce it. In Alabama, where I live, a
>> police officer has to see a traffic violation take place in order
>> to ticket the violator. Reports from well meaning witnesses can not
>> be used as evidence for a traffic violation.
>
> I propose that every driver be granted an annual quotient of
> "Asshole" awards that they can bestow as they see fit. No formal
> criteria, no justifications.
>
> Let's say each driver gets to award a dozen Assholes.

A dozen a year? I think most people would be applying for more by January
3rd.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
They came for Eamonn Holmes; I think I'm right in saying that I
applauded.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting damyth <[email protected]>:
>Yup. This succinctly sums up the situation regarding Jim's death. I
>don't understand why people here have their panties in a bunch over the
>"transportation system," tilt at windmills, and offer no specific or
>concrete suggestions on what exactly in the transportation system needs
>to be change or improved in order to prevent another needless homicide
>by a cell phone user in a moving vehicle.

Well, I think the idiot should be charged with manslaughter, and so should
all such idiots - the UK has an offence of "causing death by dangerous
driving" which is generally used to hand out derisory sentences - but I'm
not sure that's a desperately contentious point. Surely everyone reading
this thread thinks that?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Leicesterday, November.

 

[Derk]

David Damerell wrote:

> Well, I think the idiot should be charged with manslaughter, and so should
> all such idiots
What I find most amazing, is that companies are taken to court to pay huge
amounts in damages when an employee spills hot coffee on someone, while one
seems to get away unpunished with dangerous driving, causing the death of
someone.

Or am I mistaken and did I miss something here?

Greets, Derk

 

[Neil Brooks]

Derk <[email protected]> wrote:

>David Damerell wrote:
>
>> Well, I think the idiot should be charged with manslaughter, and so should
>> all such idiots
>What I find most amazing, is that companies are taken to court to pay huge
>amounts in damages when an employee spills hot coffee on someone, while one
>seems to get away unpunished with dangerous driving, causing the death of
>someone.
>
>Or am I mistaken and did I miss something here?
>
>Greets, Derk

My e-mail to the District Attorney in that county.

Her e-mail address is [email protected]
----
Dear Ms. Chambers:

I read with much dismay about the death of Jim Price, 63, of Highlands
Ranch. Jim was cycling along Wildcat Reserve Parkway when he was
struck by a 17 year old driver who was sending text messages rather
than attending to the roadway (http://snipurl.com/k90q).

Aside from being a husband, a father, and a grandfather, Jim was an
exceedingly prolific contributor to the bicycling community, sharing
his expertise about bicycle mechanics with thousands via online
bicycling forums.

As an avid cyclist myself, I learned a great deal from Jim Price and
am deeply saddened by his passing. More than that, however, I am
outraged--as are, I'm sure, a great many--by the senseless, and
totally preventable, manner in which his life was taken.

Not a bicycle ride goes by for me where I am not nearly struck by a
driver who is clearly distracted by using a cell phone while driving.
The latest statistics indicate that drivers talking on the cell
phone--whether they use hands-free technology or not--are four times
more likely to be involved in a serious accident than drivers who are
not on the phone.

That rate is comparable to the impairment of a legally drunk driver.
What's different between those two groups, however, is that cell phone
drivers are that impaired *the minute they pick up that phone*.
Alcohol use, on the other hand, has a linear relationship between
quantity and impairment, arguably making it safer to drive with one's
first beer in one's hand than it is to drive while talking on the cell
phone.

I implore you to make an example of this unfortunate 17 year old
driver who--while he will live with the horror of having taken another
man's life due to his own foolhardiness--**will live**. Jim Price is
dead.
--
Live simply so that others may simply live

 

[[email protected]]

Dave Larrington writes:

>>>> Typically locally we have four lane roads in this town that have
>>>> essentially polished curbstones beyond which there is dense
>>>> shrubbery. The speed limit is 35mph but traffic speed is mostly
>>>> above that. Every once in awhile I see bicyclists of your
>>>> persuasion riding there to the consternation of drivers who
>>>> cannot veer into the left lane upon discovering a 15mph bicycle
>>>> as the car ahead takes advantage of a gap in the left lane.

>>> When I was learning to drive, I was taught not to overtake until
>>> it was safe to do so. Although having driven in California, I
>>> realise that this may not be the case there...

>> These are four lane roads. What has that to do with having a 15MPH
>> bicycle directly in front of you after the car ahead has moved into
>> the left lane with you going at least 35MPH with a another car next
>> to you? That is the hazard that some bicyclists do not visualize
>> when they ride on these streets, where car tires normally pass
>> within inches of the curb (no sidewalk).

> My car has brakes, as has, as far as I can recall, every other car
> I've ever driven (with the possible exception of a 1987 VW Polo).
> If there is a slow-moving "vehicle" in front of me, I slow down
> until there *is* space to overtake, changing lanes if necessary.
> Blaming the cyclist for being hit from behind because some muppet
> lacks the patience to wait for a few seconds is missing the point in
> a spectacular fashion.

You are not envisioning the circumstances. You and traffic in your
lane is flowing freely at 35+MPH, there being no cross streets due to
the adjacent RR and no hint of a sudden hazards. The car in front of
you encounters a bicyclist ahead at a relative standstill so rather
than stop, he sees an opening in the left lane and moves over. You
are suddenly confronted with the bicycle without having space to move
to the left. A distraction such as a glance in the rearview mirror at
this moment could miss the opportunity to apply brakes soon enough to
avoid a collision.

Fortunately, one seldom sees bicyclists who expose themselves to this
hazard, especially during rush hours. That is why the item about the
public transit advocate setting out on a five mile bicycle ride on
this road was newsworthy. It is not quite as bad as riding through
the Holland Tunnel (NY) on a bicycle. I think you can see the danger
in that.

http://www.panynj.gov/tbt/hthist.HTM

Just in comparison, i am sure you know that there are many roads that
are prohibited for bicyclists for the reason I explain in the scenario
above.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Wayne Pein]

Luke wrote:


> Well, you confound me. You reject a conclusion, informed by decades of
> experience - age before beauty Jobst!- and a personal acquaintance with
> the stretch of road in question without (I assume) having ever set eyes
> upon it yourself. I wonder that the issue is less a discrepancy in the
> opinion of the level of threat posed, and more a discrepancy in what is
> considered acceptable risk.

Jobst surmised that because vehicles may obscure a bicyclist from
following drivers on a 35 mph road (travel speed may be higher) that the
bicyclist is in danger of getting hit from the rear. I don't believe
that is a typical mechanism of collision. I say this from the experience
of having examined 3000+ bicycle-motor vehicle collisions from around
the country, and 25 years as an adult on a bicycle.


>
>
>>If I ride on roads I have to assume that I won't get hit
>>from behind, and I take measures to improve my odds. If I didn't assume
>>safety, I couldn't ride because I'd always be paranoid.
>
>
> As do I.
>
> <big snip>
>
>>>Where's the logic in
>>>securing a right at the cost of the ability to exercise or enjoy it?
>>>
>>
>>No advocacy leads to loss of the right.
>
>
> So does death. When was the last time a corpse exercised his rights?
>
>
>>20 plus years ago when I was in college my girlfriend and her brother
>>were killed while driving by a drunk driver. I advocate for tougher
>>penalties for drunk driving, not for changing the roads.
>>
>
>
> And I advocate that loss of life or limb need not occur to affect
> change.
So do I.

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

[email protected] wrote:


> You are not envisioning the circumstances. You and traffic in your
> lane is flowing freely at 35+MPH, there being no cross streets due to
> the adjacent RR and no hint of a sudden hazards. The car in front of
> you encounters a bicyclist ahead at a relative standstill so rather
> than stop, he sees an opening in the left lane and moves over. You
> are suddenly confronted with the bicycle without having space to move
> to the left. A distraction such as a glance in the rearview mirror at
> this moment could miss the opportunity to apply brakes soon enough to
> avoid a collision.
>
> Fortunately, one seldom sees bicyclists who expose themselves to this
> hazard, especially during rush hours. That is why the item about the
> public transit advocate setting out on a five mile bicycle ride on
> this road was newsworthy. It is not quite as bad as riding through
> the Holland Tunnel (NY) on a bicycle. I think you can see the danger
> in that.
>
> http://www.panynj.gov/tbt/hthist.HTM
>
> Just in comparison, i am sure you know that there are many roads that
> are prohibited for bicyclists for the reason I explain in the scenario
> above.
>

The road you describe is near freeway design, a design in which slow
traffic is not expected. Such a situation (freeway design) would warrant
a bike lane. Failing that, bicyclists could lobby for SLOW MOVING
BICYCLES USING RIGHT LANE or similar signs. I've seen such signs for
school busses (that can only do 35-40 mph) on I-40 (SL 65) in NC.


Wayne

 

[JF]

"damyth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> only suggested yesterday after innumerable posts, and harsher penalties
> don't really do any good in this particular case since Jim Price's wife
> chose not to press charges against the teenager that killed her
> husband.
>

The district attorney has complete control over whether or not criminal
charges are filed. Jim Price's wife does not have to press charges. The DA
can do it over her strenuous objection.

-JF

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Derk:
>What I find most amazing, is that companies are taken to court to pay huge
>amounts in damages when an employee spills hot coffee on someone, while one
>seems to get away unpunished with dangerous driving, causing the death of
>someone.
>
>Or am I mistaken and did I miss something here?

You missed the tort lawyer's share of the settlement
--
PeteCresswell

 

[Bill Bushnell]

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

> Dave Larrington writes:
>
> > My car has brakes, as has, as far as I can recall, every other car
> > I've ever driven (with the possible exception of a 1987 VW Polo).
> > If there is a slow-moving "vehicle" in front of me, I slow down
> > until there *is* space to overtake, changing lanes if necessary.
> > Blaming the cyclist for being hit from behind because some muppet
> > lacks the patience to wait for a few seconds is missing the point in
> > a spectacular fashion.
>
> You are not envisioning the circumstances. You and traffic in your
> lane is flowing freely at 35+MPH, there being no cross streets due to
> the adjacent RR and no hint of a sudden hazards. The car in front of
> you encounters a bicyclist ahead at a relative standstill so rather
> than stop, he sees an opening in the left lane and moves over. You
> are suddenly confronted with the bicycle without having space to move
> to the left. A distraction such as a glance in the rearview mirror at
> this moment could miss the opportunity to apply brakes soon enough to
> avoid a collision.

I have ridden with some frequency the street to which Jobst refers--O.K.
let's name it--Alma St. in Palo Alto, California. For this discussion
I'm referring to the segment between E. Meadow and San Antonio where
there is no reasonable alternative for fast ridden bicycles going
to/from Mountain View. Perhaps it's been too long since you rode bike
for purposes other than pleasure where minimizing time took priority
over scenery.

The scenario you describe is unlikely for the bicycle moving fast
(25-30mph)--hardly a standstill, even for the speeding traffic on Alma.
Bicycles not ridden fast will find the alternate routes acceptable
(sidewalk, convoluted "bike route" south of Bryant St., or
Wilkie/Miller, depending on ultimate destination).

Autos tend to move in platoons, often tailgating. This would seem to
lead to your scenario. Yet what I have observed many times is that the
platoon in the right lane approaching the cyclist slows when the lead
motorist cannot or will not slice into the left lane because the autos
in the left lane are following too closely to leave adequate space. So,
he slows to the cyclist's speed or close to it and waits until the
left-lane platoon is past. Even if the lead motorist manages to cut
over, this occurs well enough in advance, with some hesitation, braking
or signalling, giving warning to the following vehicles such that no
sudden braking or overtaking collision occurs with the next vehicle.
This sudden cutover without any warning into the other lane at the last
possible moment before otherwise rear-ending the cyclist is something
that occurs perhaps with drunk or reckless drivers or is something you
imagine happening.

The argument that the cyclist is holding up traffic doesn't hold over
the section of road in question. At 20-30mph, I usually catch up to the
platoon at the next light, especially during rush hour.

I agree that Alma is not bicycle friendly. It could be made more so by
widening the right-hand lanes or by removing one travel lane in either
or both directions. This would have the side-benefit of calming speeds,
since enforcement of the existing speed limits seems not to occur on
this street.

--
Bill Bushnell
http://pobox.com/~bushnell/

 

[Dave Larrington]

[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

> You are not envisioning the circumstances. You and traffic in your
> lane is flowing freely at 35+MPH, there being no cross streets due to
> the adjacent RR and no hint of a sudden hazards. The car in front of
> you encounters a bicyclist ahead at a relative standstill so rather
> than stop, he sees an opening in the left lane and moves over. You
> are suddenly confronted with the bicycle without having space to move
> to the left. A distraction such as a glance in the rearview mirror at
> this moment could miss the opportunity to apply brakes soon enough to
> avoid a collision.

I am given to uderstand that KSI accidents in which cyclists are struck from
the rear are among the less common methods by which the Thoughtless Motorist
will seek to reduce the cycling population (though a friend of mine was
killed under these circumstances a couple of years ago); however the
scenario you describe - a numpty in charge of two tonnes of ironmongery
driving with his thumb up his bum and his mind in neutral - could take place
on just about /any/ road on which cyclists are permitted. Ones with
corners, for example. The risk that someone driving like a **** might wipe
me out is one I'm willing to take rather than allow myself to be railroaded
into a Bicycle Bantustan.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Three blind mice, see how they run. Is this /really/ the best way to
test shampoo?

 

[[email protected]]

Dave Larrington writes:

>> You are not envisioning the circumstances. You and traffic in your
>> lane is flowing freely at 35+MPH, there being no cross streets due
>> to the adjacent RR and no hint of a sudden hazards. The car in
>> front of you encounters a bicyclist ahead at a relative standstill
>> so rather than stop, he sees an opening in the left lane and moves
>> over. You are suddenly confronted with the bicycle without having
>> space to move to the left. A distraction such as a glance in the
>> rearview mirror at this moment could miss the opportunity to apply
>> brakes soon enough to avoid a collision.

> I am given to understand that KSI accidents in which cyclists are
> struck from the rear are among the less common methods by which the
> Thoughtless Motorist will seek to reduce the cycling population
> (though a friend of mine was killed under these circumstances a
> couple of years ago); however the scenario you describe - a numpty
> in charge of two tonnes of ironmongery driving with his thumb up his
> bum and his mind in neutral - could take place on just about /any/
> road on which cyclists are permitted. Ones with corners, for
> example. The risk that someone driving like a **** might wipe me
> out is one I'm willing to take rather than allow myself to be
> railroaded into a Bicycle Bantustan.

That may sound reasonable but a few years ago four bicyclists in
single file were killed by a pickup truck near Gilroy (CA), rear-
ended. Eric Allen, a great bicyclist and racer was run down from
behind by a pickup truck. More recently a school teacher on local
Woodside Road was killed by a rear-end:

http://tinyurl.com/9cp7x

Rear-end collisions occur.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

jobst brandt wrote:

> Dave Larrington writes:
>
>> I am given to understand that KSI accidents in which cyclists are
>> struck from the rear are among the less common methods by which the
>> Thoughtless Motorist will seek to reduce the cycling population
>> (though a friend of mine was killed under these circumstances a
>> couple of years ago); however the scenario you describe - a numpty
>> in charge of two tonnes of ironmongery driving with his thumb up his
>> bum and his mind in neutral - could take place on just about /any/
>> road on which cyclists are permitted. Ones with corners, for
>> example. The risk that someone driving like a **** might wipe me
>> out is one I'm willing to take rather than allow myself to be
>> railroaded into a Bicycle Bantustan.
>
> That may sound reasonable but a few years ago four bicyclists in
> single file were killed by a pickup truck near Gilroy (CA), rear-
> ended. Eric Allen, a great bicyclist and racer was run down from
> behind by a pickup truck. More recently a school teacher on local
> Woodside Road was killed by a rear-end:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9cp7x
>
> Rear-end collisions occur.

Has anyone suggested that this is not the case? I don't see how what you
say contradicts what Dave wrote, or makes it not "reasonable". The
question is not whether any such accidents occur or not, but the frequency
with which they do so, and whether they could have been prevented by
adequate driving skills.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly