Jeff Steinwedel's death
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <5kanes$q...@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
Bruce Hildenbrand <bhi...@stelvio.eng.sun.com> wrote:
>>
>>You're victim blaming.
>
>I see you conveniently left of my discalimer where I said that I did
>not blame Jeff Steinwedel for what happened to him. I guess that was
>not pertinent to your rebuttal.
No Bruce is _wasn't_ pertinent. No one expects you to be blaming
Jeff for being run over. But you are making a generic blame for
all bicyclists.
It wasn't Jeff's fault that the truck driver passed him in that
spot. It wouldn't be yours either. It wasn't Jeff's fault that
the truck driver passed unsafely. It wouldn't be yours either.
It wasn't Jeff's fault that the truck driver was too stupid to
look into his rear view mirror before pulling back into his
lane and killing a harmless bicyclist.
But when you complain about how OTHER BICYCLISTS ride you are
blaming ALL BICYCLISTS for Jeff's death. It ain't so.
That's what's going on here. It doesn't make one fig's worth of
difference if 200,000,000 bicyclists run 200,000,000 stop signs.
That truck driver murdered Jeff just as surely as if he took a
gun and shot it wildly about until some innocent bystander was
shot. It wouldn't matter how many bystanders had insulted him would
it?
And if the fucking SYSTEM won't prosecute his murderer then it is
the SYSTEM that is wrong and not some Joe Doke blowing a stop
sign in Keokuk, Iowa.
Bruce Hildenbrand
Tom, I am sorry but, you just don't get it.
The "system" *can* prosecute the truck driver, but the problem is that
because of the anti-cyclist sentiment, the system would lose the case
unless they had very, very strong evidence that the truck driver was
either grossly negligent or showed intent to kill. In Jeff S.'s case,
they did not have this evidence.
As I have said, time and time again, it is not about *right* and *wrong*,
it is about *winning* and *losing*!
One of the big reasons that there is anti-cyclist sentiment is that
the public views, on a daily basis, cyclists breaking all sorts of
traffic laws. I have personally been involved in a number of car/bike
incidents and lawyers, District Attorneys and Police personnel have told
me this is the case. I believe them. They are the professionals.
To be honest with you, this scares me a great deal. It means that
cyclists are fair game out on the roadways and I don't like it. But,
as I said before, I have been told by lawyers, DA's and Police personnel
that we cyclists help cause the anti-cyclist sentiment and having seen
it first-hand, I believe it.
Bruce Hildenbrand
Wayne Pein
Jeez, Thomas gave a better rebuttal to Bruce's rebuttal to me than
I did. Thanks.
Wayne
Wayne Pein
Bruce Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> The "system" *can* prosecute the truck driver, but the problem is that
> because of the anti-cyclist sentiment, the system would lose the case
> unless they had very, very strong evidence that the truck driver was
> either grossly negligent or showed intent to kill. In Jeff S.'s case,
> they did not have this evidence.
>
Passing a bicyclist without due caution resulting in death
is grossly negligent.
Wayne
Tom Ace
Bruce Hildenbrand wrote:
>As I have said, time and time again, it is not about *right* and *wrong*,
>it is about *winning* and *losing*!
Dropping the case sends a bad message. Bringing the case to trial--even
if the driver were acquitted--would send a better message. At the very
least, the driver and/or the trucking company would endure the trouble,
bad publicity, and expense of defending the case in court--which might
give people a reason to drive more safely in the future.
I don't think winning and losing is the only issue here.
Tom Ace
cr...@best.com
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <5karrq$r...@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
Bruce Hildenbrand <bhi...@stelvio.eng.sun.com> wrote:
>The "system" *can* prosecute the truck driver, but the problem is that
>because of the anti-cyclist sentiment, the system would lose the case
>unless they had very, very strong evidence that the truck driver was
>either grossly negligent or showed intent to kill. In Jeff S.'s case,
>they did not have this evidence.
>
>As I have said, time and time again, it is not about *right* and *wrong*,
>it is about *winning* and *losing*!
That still doesn't make it Bruce. If you don't even try to get justice
you cannot cry that you've been done an injustice.
No! It isn't about winning and losing. To a damned attorney it is
about winning and losing. To us it's about justice. Jeff was
killed. Whether through carelessness on the part of the truck driver or
perhaps even homocidal intent (highly unlikely, granted, but possible)
should be proven in a criminal court and the Margo Smith and the
DA's office deserve extreme criticism for not even attempting
to bring about a little justice.
The very least a case like this would do is to provide a little
relief to the millions of bicyclists that are threatened every year
by motor vehicles.
Greg Schaem
I have ridden the route Jeff died on many times and been passed by the quarry
trucks. I would slow down, keep my bike as far to the right as possible, make
sure I kept a ggod line, and scream so I heard my noise and not the truck as it
passed me. I always felt the danger. A bad moment and anyone could get killed
in that situation. Now I know why sundays were so pleasant.
I haven't ridden much lately, but I never rode according to traffic rules. I have
two rules. 1. Never do anything to slow down a motorized vehicle. 2. Treat red
lights, stop signs and yield signs as if they were all yield signs. I ride fast
carefully and safely!
You can follow every traffic rule until you turn blue and the world will remain
unchanged. I believe that those who stay at the red light when they could clearly
safely leave have one of two motives. They are unquestioning law-abiding
citizens or more likely they don't want to upset the car drivers. I have never
had a problem with jealous drivers, and I think the fact that by the time they
reach me I am pedaling fast am am at the far right on the shoulder of the road
helps. I respect teh law-abiding citizens and will be one myself until I get
back into shape and no longer have time to care about the feelings on the
frustrated motorists.
Greg
Bruce Hildenbrand
In article <33690CDC...@best.comX> Tom Ace <cr...@best.comX> writes:
>Bruce Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>>As I have said, time and time again, it is not about *right* and *wrong*,
>>it is about *winning* and *losing*!
>
>Dropping the case sends a bad message. Bringing the case to trial--even
>if the driver were acquitted--would send a better message. At the very
>least, the driver and/or the trucking company would endure the trouble,
>bad publicity, and expense of defending the case in court--which might
>give people a reason to drive more safely in the future.
I agree. The prespective I am trying to present here is that of the
District Attorney's office. People on this newsgroup seem incredulous
that such a case was not prosecuted and I am trying to help explain why.
I ride by the spot where Jeff S. was killed, every week, and there is
no way a truck could legally pass Jeff! But, proof is necessary to win
in court.
>I don't think winning and losing is the only issue here.
Agreed again, but we do not work at the Santa Clara County District
Attorney's office. And in their minds, winning and losing are the
only things that count.
Bruce Hildenbrand
Philip Aaronson
>the public views, on a daily basis, cyclists breaking all sorts of
>traffic laws. I have personally been involved in a number of car/bike
>incidents and lawyers, District Attorneys and Police personnel have told
>me this is the case. I believe them. They are the professionals.
And this is a symptom of a different root cause. After
all, the public views on a daily basis drivers breaking
all sorts of traffic laws without declaring open season.
The root cause is simply this. The vast, vast majority of the
driving public cannot even begin to relate to cyclists
and the problems they face when dealing with cars. Conversly
drivers completely understand, and even sympathise with
the problems that other drivers face when dealing with
bikes.
So when you have a situation where a jury, entirely made
up of drivers has to convict another driver who's only
defense is "I didn't see that cyclist." The jurists all think
back to that incredibly close call they themselves had with
a cyclist. Perhaps one or two even had an accident with a cyclist.
In any case, what you're asking them to do in a sense is
convict themselves, and that my friends they are not ready
to do.
Personally, I can't wait until gas is $5 a litre because then
you're going to see some juries who know what it means to
ride a bike ...
Lata,
Phil
Tom Holub
In article <5kb6jd$s...@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
Bruce Hildenbrand <bhi...@stelvio.eng.sun.com> wrote:
)
)I ride by the spot where Jeff S. was killed, every week, and there is
)no way a truck could legally pass Jeff!
A cloud of brown dust stretched as far as the eye could
see along old route 126. From my vantage point behind an old
barn, I watched the grim parade. For the third time in less
than a minute, a huge gravel truck rumbled past, spewing
acrid, black smoke and kicking up more of the brown mud-dust
and spreading it all over everything.
Including me. I'm Spike Bike. I hate cars.
...
My first opportunity to take out one of my primary
targets came a few minutes later, when I spotted a gravel
truck a quarter mile behind me. It was big and ugly and
loaded with dirt -- a fat hog to be butchered. I loaded a
rocket into the nose and flipped the firing mechanism over
so I could launch the round out of the back of the bike. I
waited until he got closer, almost too close. I heard him
downshift to get more power as he headed straight for me. I
let him have it. The missile struck the radiator just above
the bumper. The entire cab exploded and blew off the
undercarriage. With the steering box destroyed, the truck
promptly and violently jackknifed, turning over in the ditch
and spilling its entire cargo of dirt, rocks, and debris off
to the side of the road. It lay a smoking ruin as I pedaled
on.
[Excerpt from "Spike Bike", (c) 1989 Robert Fishell, reprinted without
permission]
Ken Kifer
Brad Anders made some good points.
We have the expression, "believe what you want to believe" and,
unfortunately, that's what we (truckers, motorists, cyclists, DA's, and
lawyers tend to do). Just as us cyclists clearly see it one way, a
group of truckers would see it another way, and so on. I am not saying
that these points of view are all equally valid, but I will say that it
is very hard to convince someone that you're right.
After the murders (any objections?) at Kent State in 1968, the students
who went home were outraged to find their parents against them. They
tried to explain what happened saying, "I was there" and parents would
answer, without listening, "If you were there, they should have shot you
too." Many people were absolutely convinced because "they saw it on TV"
(there were no cameras at Kent State that day; footage was shown from a
football riot at another school).
I don't think our public image is as bad as some people say it is, but I
also don't think a jury is going to be automatically sympathetic
either. If I were in court as a cyclist, and I could choose between the
judge and a jury trial, I would choose the judge.
Doug Reding
Bruce Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> In article <33690CDC...@best.comX> Tom Ace <cr...@best.comX> writes:
> >Bruce Hildenbrand wrote:
> >
> >>As I have said, time and time again, it is not about *right* and *wrong*,
> >>it is about *winning* and *losing*!
> >
> >Dropping the case sends a bad message. Bringing the case to trial--even
> >if the driver were acquitted--would send a better message. At the very
> >least, the driver and/or the trucking company would endure the trouble,
> >bad publicity, and expense of defending the case in court--which might
> >give people a reason to drive more safely in the future.
>
> I agree. The prespective I am trying to present here is that of the
> District Attorney's office. People on this newsgroup seem incredulous
> that such a case was not prosecuted and I am trying to help explain why.
>
> in court.
Wouldn't a video tape showing a cyclist being followed by a truck around
that exact spot be proof? If a jury could see a cyclist riding the same
stretch of road with a truck following behind and see *clearly* that it
would be unsafe and illegal to pass that should be pretty strong proof.
Doug
Doug Reding
Brad Anders wrote:
>
> As Roger Marquis about our experience with a driver that tried repeatedly
> to kill him when we were descending one day. Despite multiple witnesses
> and a clear description of the driver, car, and license plate, the DA
> refused to prosecute. Short of a dead body and a video tape of the
> incident, there was little to convince the DA that any crime had taken
> place.
Here is what you do in that situation: you have a license plate and a
description of the driver. Therefore, you have the means to find the
person who tried to *MURDER* you. Then you come up with a plan to get
rid of the person with very little chance of being caught. If you want
real revenge, throw immense pain into the equation. Let them think long
and hard about it before you end their suffering.
I harbor no ill will towards anyone. But if someone tries to *KILL* me
for something as simple as enjoying myself bicycling, they better hope
to god they succeed, because if they don't, fuck the law: they will be
wearing concrete boots at the bottom of a very, very deep
lake............
Doug
Bruce Hildenbrand
In article <3368FE...@unc.edu> Wayne Pein <wayne...@unc.edu> writes:
>Bruce Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>
>> The "system" *can* prosecute the truck driver, but the problem is that
>> because of the anti-cyclist sentiment, the system would lose the case
>> unless they had very, very strong evidence that the truck driver was
>> either grossly negligent or showed intent to kill. In Jeff S.'s case,
>> they did not have this evidence.
>>
>
>is grossly negligent.
You still do not get it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have to *prove* it was grossly negligent. And the more unsympathetic
a jury is, the more proof you need. The DA is not going to prosecute a
case that he/she cannot win. If they do not feel that they have enough
proof to convince a jury, they will not try the case.
And for the umpteenth time: it is not about *right* or *wrong* it
is about *winning* or *losing*.
Bruce Hildenbrand
Bruce Hildenbrand
As always!
Stuff Deleted ......
>I don't think our public image is as bad as some people say it is, but I
>also don't think a jury is going to be automatically sympathetic
>either. If I were in court as a cyclist, and I could choose between the
>judge and a jury trial, I would choose the judge.
Which is exactly the same thing that lawyers who handle a lot of cyclists
as clients in car/bike accidents cases say. Juries are unsympathetic to
cyclists. You want a judge who is out putzing around on his bike because
of instructions from his doctor after suffering a heart attack!
Bruce Hildenbrand
Bruce Hildenbrand
Not necessarily. If you have a video tape of the accident, then yes,
you are in business. However, lawyers tell me that without eyewitness
accounts of what happened, re-enactments aren't any good.
Bruce Hildenbrand
Rodney Hutton
Wayne Pein (wayne...@unc.edu) wrote:
: Passing a bicyclist without due caution resulting in death
: is grossly negligent.
This seems to me to be exactly the point. "Intent" aside, the issue of
negligence is crucial. Let's say Jeff had been in a car. The truck
passes him, pulls in too soon because he misjudges the distance, and runs
Jeff's car off the road. IF this would not be considered negligence in
California, then the actual situation cannot be considered negligence. IF
however it CAN be considered negligence in California, then how is it
different from the actual case? How is "negligence" defined in California
law? Can drivers really drive so obviously irresponsibly and claim "I
didn't know" or "I didn't see" to avoid a charge of negligence? The issue
is not intent and has nothing necessarily to do with intent. I'd like to
hear a CA lawyer give us a definition of "negligence" acc. to the CA
vehicle code.
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Rod Hutton || Disclaimer, Datclaimer!
Columbus, Ohio || What's all dis about a
<rhu...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> || Claimer?
Ken Kifer
> Brad Anders wrote:
> As Roger Marquis about our experience with a driver that tried repeatedly
> to kill him when we were descending one day. Despite multiple witnesses
> and a clear description of the driver, car, and license plate, the DA
> refused to prosecute. Short of a dead body and a video tape of the
> incident, there was little to convince the DA that any crime had taken
> place.
Doug Reding replied:
> Here is what you do in that situation: you have a license plate and a
> description of the driver. . . . Then you come up with a plan to get
> rid of the person with very little chance of being caught. If you want
> real revenge, throw immense pain into the equation. Let them think long
> and hard about it before you end their suffering.
> I harbor no ill will towards anyone. But if someone tries to *KILL* me
> for something as simple as enjoying myself bicycling, they better hope
> to god they succeed, because if they don't, fuck the law: they will be
> wearing concrete boots at the bottom of a very, very deep lake............
"Jeaan" (Adriana) wrote:
>Enough preaching. Hardly a day goes by, without me having to brake
>because some car is turning in front of me, while I have the right
>of way. So instead of getting all mad and aggressive about those
>kind of things, I run stop signs when there's nobody in sight.
Ken Kifer replies:
And another cyclist fantasizes about blowing up trucks with rockets.
And another cyclist is glad that Mike Ryoko is dead because the
columnist had expressed similar (but not so strong) sentiments (I
started typing sediments; maybe that wasn't a misspelling) towards
cyclists.
I have always been amazed that most Blacks could separate the crime from
the criminal and not want to destroy the whole White race. Evidently,
many of the writers here can't do the same thing.
You're not talking here about justice. You're talking about revenge and
class warfare.
I have had people deliberately try to kill me. And, while I wouldn't be
able to trust myself immediately after the event, I would stop and help
the same people if they had trouble on the road later.
In fact, I have stopped to help people who had just deliberately
violated my rights. They knew what they had done, and they expected
insults, and they got help. Don't you think I changed their future
behavior more than if I had yelled and screamed at them?
I have had motorists try to run me off the road, and I have stopped and
talked calmly to them, and they never bothered me (and I doubt anyone
else) again. I have had dogs viciously attack me (and yes, the owners
had taught them to do that), and I have faced the owners calmly and
without anger, and the problem disappeared.
Please, people, if you're going to ride a bicycle, chose a humble
master, such as Jesus, Martin Luther King, Thoreau, or Gandhi to
follow. Otherwise, ride a bus.
I didn't know Jeff Steinwedel, I haven't ridden on that road, and I
don't know anything about the events of that day, so I have been trying
to stay out of this. But ya'll want to be the DA, the judge, the jury,
and now the executioners. And you don't want to obey any laws
yourselves to boot.
Many wonderful people have had their lives destroyed by tyrants because
they were too successful at improving the world around them. Are you
riding your bike to make a world a little bit better place, or are you
riding because you hate everyone else?
It's no wonder a separate thread is running on the topic, "We're all
cyclists, aren't we?"
Jack Dingler
Maybe they do believe it (lawyers, DA's and Police personnel). I
believe that the sentiment is a direct result of cyclists interfering
with motorist's perceived rights to get to their destination as fast and
unsafely as possible. When a cyclist in a speed zone of 35 mph forces a
motorist to slow to 45mph, it just pisses them off and produces that
anti-cycling sentiment. Been there, caused it, experienced it. Many
motorist's don't like to be reminded that they have responsibilities to
others on the road. If your going to share the road with them, you
should be in a padded safety shell like them, so that when they run into
you, they don't have to feel guilty about your eminent death.
Bruce Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> To be honest with you, this scares me a great deal. It means that
> cyclists are fair game out on the roadways and I don't like it. But,
> as I said before, I have been told by lawyers, DA's and Police personnel
> that we cyclists help cause the anti-cyclist sentiment and having seen
> it first-hand, I believe it.
>
> Bruce Hildenbrand
--
* Jack Dingler * Bill Clinton, has never, does not,
* jdin...@onramp.net * and will never, have any knowledge
* Probably not * of any WhiteHouse activities.
* your opinion * Isn't it obvious?
Neil Cherry
On 1 May 1997 19:44:58 GMT, Bruce Hildenbrand <bhi...@stelvio.eng.sun.com> wrote:
>In article <tomkE9I...@netcom.com> to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>>
>>And if the fucking SYSTEM won't prosecute his murderer then it is
>>the SYSTEM that is wrong and not some Joe Doke blowing a stop
>>sign in Keokuk, Iowa.
>
>Tom, I am sorry but, you just don't get it.
>
>The "system" *can* prosecute the truck driver, but the problem is that
>because of the anti-cyclist sentiment, the system would lose the case
>unless they had very, very strong evidence that the truck driver was
>either grossly negligent or showed intent to kill. In Jeff S.'s case,
>they did not have this evidence.
>
>As I have said, time and time again, it is not about *right* and *wrong*,
>it is about *winning* and *losing*!
I agree with Brian, when I'm out driving or cycling I see far too many
people who ride their bike as if no law applies to them. They ride on
this side of the road then that side, hang U turns without really
looking etc... Most of these people are kids (largest group), adults
joy riding or adults who have lost their license. But their is one
group who should know better and disregards the law anyway. They are
club riders in a pace line! Maybe not all pace lines behave this way
but I have one specific example. A group who rides in Northern NJ early
on sunday mornings in the area around the George Washington Bridge.
Seems this group rides as one and when the light turns red they keep
going. Now I know why they do it, but that doesn't make it legal.
I watch one day as some kid flew through a red and was missed by less
than 5 ft. The driver of the van pulled over and cried on his steering
wheel. As far as I'm concerned and my guess the general public too,
all cyclists ignore the rules of the road! Now having said that, I
regularly cycle 30 miles to work in morning rush hour traffic. The
only way I can do this is to obey the rules of the road. Because
cyclist who always obey the rules of the road are few and far between
the motorist public doesn't believe they exist.
--
Neil Cherry
If you need to contact me via email please use this email address to
respond: ncherry worldnet att net
(replace spaces with '@' '.' & '.' ) Blame this one on firms like ro...@cyberpromo.com webm...@cyberpromo.com ro...@ispam.net gi...@plasube.com subs...@cyberpromo.com
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <336962...@nti.net>, Ken Kifer <kenk...@nti.net> wrote:
>Brad Anders made some good points.
>
>unfortunately, that's what we (truckers, motorists, cyclists, DA's, and
>lawyers tend to do). Just as us cyclists clearly see it one way, a
>group of truckers would see it another way, and so on.
OK Ken, but in our voew it ain't no sin to delay traffic for a couple
of seconds and in their view they ought to get away with murder.
>I don't think our public image is as bad as some people say it is, but I
>also don't think a jury is going to be automatically sympathetic
>either. If I were in court as a cyclist, and I could choose between the
>judge and a jury trial, I would choose the judge.
Any DA that refuses to prosecute a negligent homocide because he (or
she) isn't sure that they could win is guilty of misfeasance of office.
In fact NO CASE is sewn up. I've watched as some kill was railroaded
for "assisting in an exibition of speed". Supposedly he flagged off a
drag race. The "authorities" didn't have a witness, they didn't have
any other person chanrged -- they didn't even have a flag! The kids parents
were in Europe for six weeks and the judge (who shouldn't even have
been hearing a case of a juvenile) ordered the kid jailed until his
parents came back. I know I would really move to San Bernadino really
fast. Wouldn't you?
The point is that ANY case is win-able. Bruce says these "win and lose"
statements like that's all that's important. WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS
THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE!!!!!
I know that this is just some foolish idealism on my part to believe
the principles behind this country. A more realistic approach is the
business approach suggested by Margo Smith -- murder is OK in her book
if it's difficult to prove.
Economics, the new foundation of law.
Neil Cherry
On 1 May 1997 22:45:03 GMT, Greg Schaem <sch...@velo.asd.sgi.com> wrote:
>I haven't ridden much lately, but I never rode according to traffic rules.
>I have
>two rules. 1. Never do anything to slow down a motorized vehicle.
>2. Treat red
>lights, stop signs and yield signs as if they were all yield signs.
>I ride fast
>carefully and safely!
>
>You can follow every traffic rule until you turn blue and the world will
>remain
>unchanged. I believe that those who stay at the red light when they could
>clearly
>safely leave have one of two motives. They are unquestioning law-abiding
>citizens or more likely they don't want to upset the car drivers.
>I have never
>had a problem with jealous drivers, and I think the fact that by the time they
>reach me I am pedaling fast am am at the far right on the shoulder of the
>road
>helps. I respect teh law-abiding citizens and will be one myself until I get
>back into shape and no longer have time to care about the feelings on the
>frustrated motorists.
>
YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
The routes I ride to commute or to relax are the roadways the same
people use every day. Most people are people of habit, they tend to do
the same thing, in the same pattern, at the same time according to a
schedule. When people like you take the liberties that you do people
remember that incident. And when the next cyclist comes along they
will react to what they last remembered about a similar incident. I
deal with enough idiots on the road without have you work on their
perceptions. And please don't tell me that your one little infraction
couldn't have any effect on what happens to me. When you multiply a
single person like you by the many idiots like you in many states that
are seen by 20 - 30 drivers you can then understand why I get so ticked.
Thomas H. Kunich
>Agreed again, but we do not work at the Santa Clara County District
>Attorney's office. And in their minds, winning and losing are the
>only things that count.
So it behooves us ALL to send letters to the DA's office and the
Santa Clara DA's web site contains their mailing addess and their
email addresses.
http://claraweb.co.santa-clara.ca.us/da/index.htm
or
George Kennedy, District Attorney
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Telephone: (408) 299-7500
Facsimile: (408) 286-5437
Maybe it's time we posted to this site instead of rec.bicycles.
Thomas H. Kunich
>You're not talking here about justice. You're talking about revenge and
>class warfare.
"We" are doing nothing of the kind. We are righteously indignant that
Margo Smith will not prosecute a truck driver guilty, at the very
least, of negligent homocide. Manslaughter if you will.
There may be some children here who are fantasizing rediculous things.
So what? We see the same thing in the threads about bicycle fenders.
>I have had people deliberately try to kill me. And, while I wouldn't be
>able to trust myself immediately after the event, I would stop and help
>the same people if they had trouble on the road later.
You, then, (pardon me) are a fool.
>Please, people, if you're going to ride a bicycle, chose a humble
>master, such as Jesus, Martin Luther King, Thoreau, or Gandhi to
>follow. Otherwise, ride a bus.
Ur, so you want people fanticizing about killing people on a bus?
Do you see something wrong here Ken? People typically fantacize about
taking the law into their own hands when the law won't act on their
behalf.
>But ya'll want to be the DA, the judge, the jury,
>and now the executioners. And you don't want to obey any laws
>yourselves to boot.
Sorry, we ALL want justice and would prefer that the DA's office
provided it.
>Are you
>riding your bike to make a world a little bit better place, or are you
>riding because you hate everyone else?
I don't know about you, but I'm riding a bike because it's fun. I
don't want to improve any part of the world except the ME part. I
also find that it's a whole lot easier to like other people if I
don't get shoved into a bus with them.
Why do some people who ride bikes think that it has to have some
ulterior motive? I'm not interested in lessing smog -- my car makes
less than most. I'm not interested in using less gas -- gas will
be used up eventually in any case, so what's wrong with me using
my share now? I'm not interested in taking one more car off of the
road.
I like to bicycle. I don't need any other excuse. And if that means that
some bastard is going to kill me in order to save two seconds then it
is YOU who have to live in the same world with him. You turn the
other cheek, I won't.
I WANT JUSTICE AND MARGO SMITH WANTS A POSITIVE OUTCOME TO A STINKING
TRIAL!
Ken Kifer
Thomas H. Kunich quoted me:
> >We have the expression, "believe what you want to believe" and,
> >unfortunately, that's what we (truckers, motorists, cyclists, DA's, and
> >lawyers tend to do). Just as us cyclists clearly see it one way, a
> >group of truckers would see it another way, and so on.
> OK Ken, but in our view it ain't no sin to delay traffic for a couple
> of seconds and in their view they ought to get away with murder.
My reply:
I didn't say they were right; I didn't say we were right; I was
reporting what was happening.
Thomas H. Kunich quoted me:
> >I don't think our public image is as bad as some people say it is, but I
> >also don't think a jury is going to be automatically sympathetic
> >either. If I were in court as a cyclist, and I could choose between the
> >judge and a jury trial, I would choose the judge.
Thomas H. Kunich replied:
> Any DA that refuses to prosecute a negligent homicide because he (or
> she) isn't sure that they could win is guilty of misfeasance of office.
> The point is that ANY case is win-able. Bruce says these "win and lose"
> statements like that's all that's important. WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS
> THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE!!!!!
My reply:
I think Bruce is just explaining some of her motives. I don't think
Bruce believes she was right, just pragmatic. I don't agree with the
DA, and I sympathize with your anger. But you have to be a little more
pragmatic yourselves; venting hostility will not make the situation any
better. Think of something useful you can do.
Thomas H. Kunich said:
> I know that this is just some foolish idealism on my part to believe
> the principles behind this country. A more realistic approach is the
> business approach suggested by Margo Smith -- murder is OK in her book
> if it's difficult to prove.
The idealist people who brought real freedom to this country -- I'm
talking about people like William Penn, not people like Patrick Henry --
suffered a great deal of persecution themselves. Because they did not
give in to hate, they gave our country a code of ethics that made us the
admiration of the world (even though many other Americans have never
shared those ethics and have fought against them). The battle for
freedom and equality has not ended and never will. This battle is not
always fought in the courtroom; in fact, it is more often fought in the
streets. It is not a foolish idealism; we are winning, bit by bit and
inch by inch.
Do you know how we lose? We lose when we despair of our virtues and
become like our enemies. Then we start saying that murder is OK for us
and wrong for them. We say that they must always obey the traffic laws,
but we can do what we damned well please. Then we go out and destroy
the life of some Reginald Denny.
I don't want cyclists to quit fighting for their rights, but I do want
them to fight in legal, civilized fashion. If we take the high ground,
no one can defeat us; if we take the low ground, I'll quit riding a
bicycle myself. I can always walk.
Jack Dingler
I've already sent an E-Mail to them. Flame me if you disagree, but at
least E-Mail them if you have an opinion.
Here it is...
Myself and many others have been following closely the events
surrounding the death of cyclist Jeff Steinwedel. The entire tragedy of
the situation has led me to some questions. I hope that your office may
be able to answer them.
My main source of information pertaining to the outcome of the possible
criminal case is from a newspaper article that was posted on the cycling
newsgroups. I have included this article as exhibit 1. Some of the
statements attributed to Margo Smith do not agree with previous articles
posted.
1. Margo Smith alleges that Jeff Steinwedel predicted in E-Mail that
'"someone will be smashed" on that road'. Was it actually an E-Mail
(assumed privacy)? Or was it instead a public newsgroup posting?
1a. If it was a private E-Mail that was released by the recipient, may
we know the recipient's E-Mail address?
1b. If it was not E-Mail, then why was it referred to by Margo Smith
as E-Mail?
1c. If it was a newsgroup posting, then a review of posts made by Jeff
Steinwedel does not verify Margo Smith's claim as to Jeff Steinwedel's
statement. I have included some posts made by Jeff Steinwedel (Exhibit
2). One appears to be the source of Margo Smith's assertion. The
remark she attributed to Jeff Steinwedel was actually written by Tom
Proett (pro...@bayarea.net). From this evidence, it would appear that
Margo Smith is incompetent in her abilites to use the interent as a
resource. If she is making such serious mistakes in gathering and
interpreting such simple facts from the internet, how can we trust her
ability to work with information from any other source? Why should we
trust her judgement when she has already made such simple and obvious
mistakes?
2. If a road is dangerous, does this mean that it's acceptable to kill
cyclists on it?
3. When Margo Smith alleges that Jeff Steinwedel said that "someone will
be smashed", does she infer that he was asking for it, much like when a
women is raped, she is asking for it? Are all cyclists riding on
dangerous roads, (all roads where motorized traffic is allowed) asking
for it?
4. Would the case had been easier to prove, if the driver had been drunk
at the time?
5. Margo Smith's statements infer that because this was a hit and run
case, that it's hard to prosecute, so charges will not be brought. Does
your office often drop cases because they are difficult? Are hit and
run cases not worth the bother?
6. What kind of message do you think this sends to Motorized Vehicle
operators in general? At at least know now, that hit and run incidents
are acceptable on dangerous roads in your jurisdiction. As long as the
victim dies.
Thanks again for your time.
*******************************
Exhibit 1. News Article...
Charges will not be filed in the case involving the death of Cupertino
cyclist Jeffrey Steinwedel. He was struck and killed by a double
trailer gravel truck passing him on Stevens Canyon Road in December.
Margo Smith of the District Attorney's office made the decision. She
refused to discuss the facts of the case, citing privacy rights of
both Jeff's family and the truck driver. She insists that we must
trust her judgment that there is insufficient evidence to prove to a
jury beyond a reasonable doubt either exactly what happened or what
truck and driver was involved. She claims that Jeff himself had
predicted on email that "someone will be smashed" on that road, and
referred to the accident as "the death of a person who recognized the
road was dangerous."
A truck matching the description given by two witnesses, including the
driver of the car that was following it, was impounded by sheriff's
deputies later the day of the accident when it returned to the quarry.
(A third witness gave a different description.)
The truck driver claimed no memory of problems passing a cyclist on
his earlier trip at about the time of the accident, but damage to the
rear trailer indicated it had struck a bicycle.
Deputies have indicated they have every reason to believe that Jeff
was riding in a straight line at the far right side of the road,
exactly as required by law--but no witness can corroborate that.
(Unless the truck was passing Jeff at a safe distance, the trailer
itself would presumably have prevented the driver of the car following
it from seeing Jeff before the impact.)
As Jeff's widow Adrian and their children David (17) and Carolyn (13)
struggle to accept their enormous loss, they now also chafe at the
implication that the truck driver is innocent since no charges will be
filed.
Jim Collins, the Steinwedel's lawyer, has filed a wrongful death suit
against "those responsible for operation of the truck (Yuba Trucking,
which uses the quarry address) and the owners of Voss Quarry (on
Stevens Canyon Road at Montebello) for failure to ensure that drivers
coming to and from the quarry are competent and willing to share the
road."
The Jeff Steinwedel Foundation trust fund to benefit Jeff's two
children has been established at Cupertino National Bank, 20230
Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino 95014. Contributions can be made at
the bank or by mail, by specifying the account name and number
101019882.
**************************************************
Exhibit 2.
Subject: Re: reckless trucks
From: jef...@netcom.com (Jeff Steinwedel)
Date: 1996/11/14
Message-Id: <jeff6xeE...@netcom.com>
Newsgroups: ba.bicycles
[More Headers]
Tom Proett (pro...@bayarea.net) wrote:
: I was riding my bike on Stevens Canyon Road yesterday afternoon and
: had a bad experience with a truck passing me. It was a granite
: truck with the name "Granite Brothers" on it. He passed me with no
: room to spare at all. There was no accident so I don't think the
: cops would be interested but I wanted to send the company a letter
: and encourage them to get more bike aware. There are a lot of bike
: riders on Stevens Canyon Road and if the truck drivers try to ignore
: us, sooner or later someone is going to get smashed.
This surprises me, because I ride SCR probably twice a week and have
always been impressed with the professionalism of the quarry drivers.
Yes, they have large trucks (often tandems), and they do make an
impression when they pass. Often I wave at oncoming trucks and get a
wave back -- these guys don't seem to be unfriendly to cyclists like
some of the other "mountain people." I've chatted with one or two at
the hot dog stand at the reservoir, too.
When you hear a truck approaching your rear, just hold your line and
don't do anything unpredictable. I've never had less than a couple of
feet of clearance, but even that seemed like a matter of inches the
first few times.
I've read that Kaiser Cement (I think they run the quarry, too) is
under a lot of restrictions from Cupertino. It's not clear from your
posting whether the driver was at fault in this incident or if he just
moved into your comfort zone. If you do write a letter, it would
probably get a better response to convey your concern than to assign
blame.
Jeff Steinwedel
---------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bicyclists as a force of good
From: jef...@netcom.com (Jeff Steinwedel)
Date: 1996/01/29
Message-Id: <jeff6xeD...@netcom.com>
Newsgroups: ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.soc
[More Headers]
neil j.cherry (nch...@cbnews.cb.att.com) wrote:
: Along my route to work, I find that the long haul rigs are the ones
: who give me the most respect out of any other road user. But watch
: out for that tail wind it can toss you about if you're not prepared.
One of my regular rides is through a park area in the hills with a
quarry nearby. I ride there frequently on weekdays when large tandem
trucks are servicing the quarry. Never a problem with a close
approach, although the trucks sure get my attention with all the noise
and wind! However, on the weekends the park attracts casual truckers
in their mini pickups and sport utility vehicles. Look out! These
small trucks really have trouble making space for a bicycle. I guess
it's not surprising that the pros really know how to drive and the
amateurs find it a challenge.
Jeff Steinwedel
----------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Police blame cyclist
From: jef...@netcom.com (Jeff Steinwedel)
Date: 1996/09/12
Message-Id: <jeff6xeD...@netcom.com>
Newsgroups: ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc
[More Headers]
Jim Harkins (jhar...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <jeff6xeD...@netcom.com>, Jeff Steinwedel
: <jef...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >This sad incident says a lot about police attitudes toward
: >cyclists and culpability when a tragedy occurs.
: This sad post says a lot about the attitudes of a lot of people.
: Yes the truck ran the red light, but the cyclist is dead. Is it
: really that difficult to look both ways when entering an
: intersection? I'm not just singling out cyclists. I've seen
: motorists who focus on the green light, when it comes on they floor
: it. I really love pedestrians who focus on the walk light, when it
: comes on they enter the street with nary a look around.
The article also said that the truck driver was speeding through the
intersection and had looked away from the street to check his
clipboard for directions.
********My problem was with the police attitude that cycling is just
dangerous, coupled with the implication that the driver was just in an
accident, rather than the main cause of the cyclist's death.
I certainly agree with Jim that you should always check out an
intersection before blowing through a green light, but I'm sure there
would be many times I wouldn't be able to avoid a car or truck that
was speeding through a red light. Not all intersections give you the
kind of visibility you need before you get there, and I don't think
it's reasonable to treat green lights like stop signs "just in case."
Just to be clear, this is different than the "light just changed" case
that Jim cites. When you're already stopped and waiting for the light
to change it's a lot easier to check for cross traffic.
Jeff Steinwedel
------------------------------------------------------
...
Riding on the street is preferable to me and would be ideal if there
weren't a very small probability of running into a Neanderthal behind
the wheel. I think this is possible to achieve, from what I hear
about auto/bike coexistence in other places, such as Europe.
***********************
Thank you for your time, Jack Dingler
Wayne Pein
Bruce Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> You still do not get it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Yes I do get your point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have all
along!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There, I used more !
than you.
> You have to *prove* it was grossly negligent. And the more unsympathetic
> a jury is, the more proof you need. The DA is not going to prosecute a
> case that he/she cannot win. If they do not feel that they have enough
> proof to convince a jury, they will not try the case.
>
> And for the umpteenth time: it is not about *right* or *wrong* it
> is about *winning* or *losing*.
>
Proving negligence in such as case is not difficult for an
attorney who has the wherewithall and committment.
It's been done before.
"Bicycle Accident Reconstruction and Litigation" provides
examples.
Wayne
Jack Dingler
Thomas H. Kunich wrote:
>
<snip>
> Any DA that refuses to prosecute a negligent homocide because he (or
> she) isn't sure that they could win is guilty of misfeasance of office.
> for "assisting in an exibition of speed". Supposedly he flagged off a
> drag race. The "authorities" didn't have a witness, they didn't have
> any other person chanrged -- they didn't even have a flag! The kids parents
> were in Europe for six weeks and the judge (who shouldn't even have
> been hearing a case of a juvenile) ordered the kid jailed until his
> parents came back. I know I would really move to San Bernadino really
> fast. Wouldn't you?
>
> statements like that's all that's important. WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS
> THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE!!!!!
>
> the principles behind this country. A more realistic approach is the
> business approach suggested by Margo Smith -- murder is OK in her book
> if it's difficult to prove.
>
I don't believe the example stated in your post applies in this
situation. In your example, a juvenile was involved who's court costs,
fines and attorney's fees would be paid by his parents. They would
likely try to settle this as cheaply as possible. Therefore an easy
case. In the case of the truck driver, he is representing the trucking
company on company time. The trucking company would have good reason to
insure that the trucker got off. They would employ attorneys that would
make the case expensive for the courts in order to reduce their
liabilities.
Your point about economics is correct, IMHO.
Matt O'Toole
Bruce Hildenbrand <bhi...@stelvio.eng.sun.com> wrote in article
<5kb4dd$s...@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>...
> In article <3368FE...@unc.edu> Wayne Pein <wayne...@unc.edu>
writes:
> >Passing a bicyclist without due caution resulting in death
> >is grossly negligent.
>
> You still do not get it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> You have to *prove* it was grossly negligent. And the more unsympathetic
> a jury is, the more proof you need. The DA is not going to prosecute a
> case that he/she cannot win. If they do not feel that they have enough
> proof to convince a jury, they will not try the case.
>
> And for the umpteenth time: it is not about *right* or *wrong* it
> is about *winning* or *losing*.
Why are you so eager to give the DA the benefit of the doubt? We'd all
like to think that everyone is a good person acting in earnest all the
time, or a that they are a competent professional with the correct opinion.
Unfortunately, people are fallible, they do make mistakes, and they also
are prone to shy away from challenges if they can. There's a grain of
truth in those streotypes of bureaucrats, no?
Matt O.
Adriana C. Bruggeman
In article <336A11...@xtraonline.com>,
Jack Dingler <ja...@xtraonline.com> wrote:
>I've already sent an E-Mail to them. Flame me if you disagree, but at
>least E-Mail them if you have an opinion.
[Letter to the DA]
I thought it was nice. Made me even more sad.
I will send them an e-mail too.
Jeaan
--
`\------,(__) __o
* | (oo) Freedom of speech is better than sex. _`\<,_
* ||w--||(..)~*~* - Madonna (_)/ (_)
pete smith
Ken Kifer <kenk...@nti.net> wrote:
>I don't want cyclists to quit fighting for their rights, but I do want
>them to fight in legal, civilized fashion. If we take the high ground,
>no one can defeat us; if we take the low ground, I'll quit riding a
>bicycle myself. I can always walk.
Unfortunately, we have to survive in order to do as Ken suggests.
Jeff will not be given the opportunity to fight in "legal, civilized"
fashion, or in any fashion.
The whole affair is so clear-cut that I, personally, cannot understand
all this debate. A man was legally riding his bicycle on a public
road. Another man came along and killed him. His weapon of choice
was a truck, and whether or not it was intentional, the result was one
dead human.
You people can play word games all you want. If the law is truly
about "winning and losing" instead of about justice, then we have lost
sight of the intent of our Constitution, which, the last time I
looked, promised "Justice for all".
And Ken, walking won't save your a**. ANYTHING that delays Suzy
Homemaker or Eddie Executive is an annoyance and therefore a target.
Pete/Atlanta
pete smith
to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) wrote:
>I WANT JUSTICE AND MARGO SMITH WANTS A POSITIVE OUTCOME TO A STINKING
>TRIAL!
Margo Smith wants a positive outcome to a stinking election...
Pete/Atlanta
Jason Meggs
In article <5kc3e6$3...@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
Bruce Hildenbrand <bhi...@stelvio.eng.sun.com> wrote:
>>
>>Wouldn't a video tape showing a cyclist being followed by a truck around
>>that exact spot be proof? If a jury could see a cyclist riding the same
>>stretch of road with a truck following behind and see *clearly* that it
>>would be unsafe and illegal to pass that should be pretty strong proof.
>
>Not necessarily. If you have a video tape of the accident, then yes,
>you are in business. However, lawyers tell me that without eyewitness
>accounts of what happened, re-enactments aren't any good.
>
>Bruce Hildenbrand
I agree that showing the conditions would be strong proof.
I also point out that video tape of the accident still requires the
eyewitness who shot the video.
Adriana C. Bruggeman
>"Jeaan" (Adriana) wrote:
>>Enough preaching. Hardly a day goes by, without me having to brake
>>because some car is turning in front of me, while I have the right
>>of way. So instead of getting all mad and aggressive about those
>>kind of things, I run stop signs when there's nobody in sight.
[..]
>I have had people deliberately try to kill me. And, while I wouldn't be
>able to trust myself immediately after the event, I would stop and help
>the same people if they had trouble on the road later.
>
>In fact, I have stopped to help people who had just deliberately
>violated my rights. They knew what they had done, and they expected
>insults, and they got help. Don't you think I changed their future
>behavior more than if I had yelled and screamed at them?
>
>I have had motorists try to run me off the road, and I have stopped and
>talked calmly to them, and they never bothered me (and I doubt anyone
>else) again. I have had dogs viciously attack me (and yes, the owners
>had taught them to do that), and I have faced the owners calmly and
>without anger, and the problem disappeared.
Now, that's great. One time I got almost run off the road, I gave
the car driver a finger (intuitive reaction, I stopped doing that),
guy pulls over ready to beat me up. I could barely talk myself out
of it.
The night before yesterday, I got run off the road, I had to walk
to my office, waisted a couple of fancy glueless patches, destroyed
my tube... Basically I had a hard time fixing the thing. Oh well,
that's what comes with it. Better a flat tire than a flat Jeaan.
That car driver didn't make me angry, it's zealots like you that
make me angry.
>Please, people, if you're going to ride a bicycle, chose a humble
>master, such as Jesus, Martin Luther King, Thoreau, or Gandhi to
>follow. Otherwise, ride a bus.
I am a cyclist, I am not a role model.
Adriana C. Bruggeman
In article <3369FC...@nti.net>, Ken Kifer <kenk...@nti.net> wrote:
>The idealist people who brought real freedom to this country -- I'm
>talking about people like William Penn, not people like Patrick Henry --
>suffered a great deal of persecution themselves. Because they did not
>give in to hate, they gave our country a code of ethics that made us the
>admiration of the world [..]
Hmmmmmm.
Philip Aaronson
In article <bandersE...@netcom.com>,
Brad Anders <ban...@netcom.com> wrote:
>I'm not talking about the typical auto lunatic we encounter from time to
>time who acts aggressively towards a cyclist, I'm talking about your
>average person who has had a "close encounter" with a cyclist. They think
>cyclists who ride in urban areas are insane. They would never consider
>convicting someone of murder of a person "insane" enough to ride the roads
>they drive on.
Exactly. Again, most people simply cannot relate to cyclists
at all. Of the few that do, most of them relate through their
kids. And we all know mommy and daddy have told you more than
once not to ride on the busy streets.
I've seen this behavior so often its comical. How many times
have you been lectured by some mom in a subaru station-wagon?
It kills me.
Lata,
Phil
Bruce Hildenbrand
In article <5kdnup$7...@camel7.mindspring.com> smit...@atl.mindspring.com writes:
>
>Ken Kifer <kenk...@nti.net> wrote:
>
>>I don't want cyclists to quit fighting for their rights, but I do want
>>them to fight in legal, civilized fashion. If we take the high ground,
>>no one can defeat us; if we take the low ground, I'll quit riding a
>>bicycle myself. I can always walk.
>
>Unfortunately, we have to survive in order to do as Ken suggests.
>Jeff will not be given the opportunity to fight in "legal, civilized"
>fashion, or in any fashion.
>
>The whole affair is so clear-cut that I, personally, cannot understand
>all this debate. A man was legally riding his bicycle on a public
>road. Another man came along and killed him. His weapon of choice
>was a truck, and whether or not it was intentional, the result was one
>dead human.
>
>You people can play word games all you want. If the law is truly
>about "winning and losing" instead of about justice, then we have lost
>sight of the intent of our Constitution, which, the last time I
>looked, promised "Justice for all".
Do you remember this little trial we had a couple of years ago,
"The People vs. OJ Simpson"? The prosecution had tons of evidence,
they presented it and the jury said OJ was "not guilty". Clearly,
justice was served in that incident, wasn't it?
Bruce Hildenbrand
Aarron Canino
There are two sides to the argument. First is the obvious side that even
if there isn't a good chance of winning the trial, the publicity
surrounding it would be good to increase public awareness. But then there
is the other side. What do you think Billy Bob Buckostein is thinking when
this big publicity is made about this cyclist getting run down and then the
truck driver gets off scot free??? Bet it would be something along the
lines of "HA! Teach those two wheel lyvra wearing freaks whose boss on my
highway!" The publicity of losing this battle can be very detrimental to
the war.
Aarron
Richard Brunner
On Fri, 02 May 1997 11:09:08 -0500, Jack Dingler <ja...@xtraonline.com>
wrote:
<Snip of long, excellent message to the DA>
>Thank you for your time, Jack Dingler
Let us know if you get any response. I sent the DA, George Kennedy, two
emails on 4/29/97 and have not yet received an acknowledgement. I think
I'll keep resending them until I do.
Richard Brunner
San Jose, CA
Timothy J. Lee
If word were spread around the county that the incumbent DA's office
refused to prosecute a homicide case with lots of evidence, and the
voting public took it to mean that the incumbent DA was "soft on
crime", how would that help the incumbent DA's re-election chances?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee timlee@
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Matt O'Toole
Jack Dingler <ja...@xtraonline.com> wrote in article
<336A0F...@xtraonline.com>...
> In the case of the truck driver, he is representing the trucking
> company on company time. The trucking company would have good reason to
> insure that the trucker got off. They would employ attorneys that would
> make the case expensive for the courts in order to reduce their
> liabilities.
Actually, it seems to me that the trucking company would be better off to
allow the driver to be prosecuted and found guilty of negligence in
criminal court. That way, it would be the driver's fault, not theirs, or
their insurance company's. Of course, this wouldn't make the Teamsters
very happy.
Matt O.
Matt O'Toole
Bruce Hildenbrand <bhi...@stelvio.eng.sun.com> wrote in article
<5kds3q$c...@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>...
> Do you remember this little trial we had a couple of years ago,
> "The People vs. OJ Simpson"? The prosecution had tons of evidence,
> they presented it and the jury said OJ was "not guilty". Clearly,
> justice was served in that incident, wasn't it?
I don't believe it was, but at least the DA gave it a try, though outmanned
and outgunned.
Matt O.
Pete Hickey
In article <bandersE...@netcom.com>,
Brad Anders <ban...@netcom.com> wrote:
>I'm not talking about the typical auto lunatic we encounter from time to
>time who acts aggressively towards a cyclist, I'm talking about your
>average person who has had a "close encounter" with a cyclist. They think
>cyclists who ride in urban areas are insane. They would never consider
>convicting someone of murder of a person "insane" enough to ride the roads
>they drive on.
We had a good example of this attitude in the city of Hull Québec
a couple of winters ago. A politition tried to outlaw winter cycling.
He said, "Its hard enough to control a car in the snow as it is
without having to worry about bicycles on the road too." The number
of people agreeing with him was unbeleivable.
-Pete
--
The following address is not valid: junk...@mudhead.uottawa.ca
It is there as an experiment to see if email spammers scan content
as well as headers.
--
Pete Hickey | | VEIWIT
Communication Services | Pe...@mudhead.uottawa.CA | Makers of transparent
University of Ottawa | | mirrors for
Ottawa,Ont. Canada K1N 6N5| (613) 562-5800x1008 | dyslexics.
Pete Hickey
In article <336982...@ix.netcom.com>,
Doug Reding <d.re...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Here is what you do in that situation: you have a license plate and a
>description of the driver. Therefore, you have the means to find the
>person who tried to *MURDER* you. Then you come up with a plan to get
>rid of the person with very little chance of being caught. If you want
That is easy. Use a car or truck as the murder weapon. Then, even
if you are caught, nothing will happen. Simply say, "I didn't see
him." Works like a charm.
fisherman
pete smith <smit...@atl.mindspring.com> wrote in article
<5kdnup$7...@camel7.mindspring.com>...
> The whole affair is so clear-cut that I, personally, cannot understand
> all this debate. A man was legally riding his bicycle on a public
> road. Another man came along and killed him. His weapon of choice
> was a truck, and whether or not it was intentional, the result was one
> dead human.
> You people can play word games all you want. If the law is truly
> about "winning and losing" instead of about justice, then we have lost
> sight of the intent of our Constitution, which, the last time I
> looked, promised "Justice for all".
Woops, we've confused the law with the courtroom here. Two different
things. Like asking if frame design is the same thing as technical
execution of a bicycle, or something.
I presume he's never witnessed a court proceeding, or the lies told by an
attorney to a jury (are litigators sworn in?), or the money that's been
known to pass hands - even in grand jury hearings. The entire course is all
about winning, or losing, twelve subjective jurors.
However, and here is the reason there are so many lawyers, the better thing
is to protect yourself with the justice of the law before the incident.
That is, make sure your contracts are clean and clear before that
'misunderstanding' arises.
I think this is the brunt of Bruce Hildebrand's argument: However, there is
no contract for every motorist to sign with every cyclist, so the best
preparation is in the polite behavior of all cyclists - on the road or
trail - a subjective jury won't favor who they perceive as a dickhead.
The Constitution promises Justice for All, by which our laws are made. But
if you want to change or make new law, go to the legislature. Although
often found, justice is not guaranteed in a courtroom, or by the court
system.
Dave Blake
In article <5kdnup$7...@camel7.mindspring.com>, smit...@atl.mindspring.com
says...
>The whole affair is so clear-cut that I, personally, cannot understand
>all this debate. A man was legally riding his bicycle on a public
>road. Another man came along and killed him. His weapon of choice
>was a truck, and whether or not it was intentional, the result was one
>dead human.
>
US Legal Code 18:1112
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice...
Whoever is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, shall be imprisoned not more
than ten years;
Whoever is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, shall be fined not
more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more that three years, or both.
--
Dave Blake
dbl...@phy.ucsf.edu
http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~dblake/
Ken Kifer
Pete Smith quote me:
> >I don't want cyclists to quit fighting for their rights, but I do want
> >them to fight in legal, civilized fashion. If we take the high ground,
> >no one can defeat us; if we take the low ground, I'll quit riding a
> >bicycle myself. I can always walk.
Pete Smith replied:
> Unfortunately, we have to survive in order to do as Ken suggests.
> Jeff will not be given the opportunity to fight in "legal, civilized"
> fashion, or in any fashion.
> The whole affair is so clear-cut that I, personally, cannot understand
> all this debate. A man was legally riding his bicycle on a public
> road. Another man came along and killed him. His weapon of choice
> was a truck, and whether or not it was intentional, the result was one
> dead human.
> You people can play word games all you want. If the law is truly
> about "winning and losing" instead of about justice, then we have lost
> sight of the intent of our Constitution, which, the last time I
> looked, promised "Justice for all".
>
> And Ken, walking won't save your a**. ANYTHING that delays Suzy
> Homemaker or Eddie Executive is an annoyance and therefore a target.
Ken Kifer replies:
I can understand your anger, but you need to channel it into something
constructive. Write letters to the local papers, to the company that
owned the truck, and to the DA and other public officials. Don't fester
in your own angry feelings. There are many legal ways of fighting; ways
that will help all cyclists and motorists alike.
But I am asking you, I am begging you to take the high ground. I see
cyclists saying they don't have to obey the law, just the motorists. I
see others who have become judge and jury. How much respect or sympathy
is that kind of attitude going to gain you?
In regard to Susie Homemaker and Eddie Executive, I have been sharing
the road with them for over 30 years without many problems; I consider
them friends even though I don't like their method of travel. They
sometimes ride bikes themselves. I said recently that 99.99% of the
drivers are safe; on reflection, that figure is probably an
understatement. My statement about walking was in reference to cyclists
who want to make their own rules and engage in class warfare, not in
reference to the motorists.
Kirk Leach
Ken Kifer <kenk...@nti.net> wrote:
> I said recently that 99.99% of the
>drivers are safe; on reflection, that figure is probably an
>understatement.
I take it you don't live in New York City or Boston.
Kirk
Bill Zaumen
In article L...@netcom.com, nob...@not.for.email (Timothy J. Lee) writes:
> smit...@atl.mindspring.com writes:
> |to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) wrote:
> |
> |>I WANT JUSTICE AND MARGO SMITH WANTS A POSITIVE OUTCOME TO A STINKING
> |>TRIAL!
> |
> |Margo Smith wants a positive outcome to a stinking election...
>
> If word were spread around the county that the incumbent DA's office
> refused to prosecute a homicide case with lots of evidence, and the
> voting public took it to mean that the incumbent DA was "soft on
> crime", how would that help the incumbent DA's re-election chances?
>
I've also had problems with Margo Smith! About 6 years ago, some clown
made 3 attempts to run me off the road or worse. He was ahead of me,
would try to close the gap, and then slam on the brakes. I barely avoided
a collision each time. We both called the police---his complaint was that
I was riding on the road. In the police report, he said that he thought
I was only 10 feet behind him so he slammed on the brakes too hard, and
admitted to three separate incidents.
Not only did Margo Smith refuse to prosecute him, but her office lied to
me repeatedly when I called to ask about the status of the case. All I asked
for was a simple yes or no answer as to whether they would presecute him.
First they told me that they could not look up anything based on the police
report number, but needed the drivers name. I made enough of a nuisance of
myself that they finally gave me his name. Then I called a month later,
providing the name, and they said, "we can't look up anything based on a
name; we need the police report number".
This treatment is absolutely inexecusable.
Bill
Bruce Hildenbrand
Just about everything you read about the OJ Simpson case points to the
gross imcompetence of the LA District Attorney's office. I certainly
would not hold Marsha Clarke or Chris Darden up as an example for other
DA's.
Bruce Hildenbrand
Darin Parish
When people like you take the liberties that you do people
> remember that incident. I
> deal with enough idiots on the road without have you work on their
> perceptions. When you multiply a
> single person like you by the many idiots like you in many states that
> are seen by 20 - 30 drivers you can then understand why I get so ticked.
o plz give me a break i ride downtown san antonio all the time and even the
bike cops don't stop at a red light (truly...in fact i've raced a few
through a couple of them ;>)...next time you run one i hope you feel like
the liar you must be...what possible effect could a cyclist running a red
light have on motorists other than alerting them to the fact that we
like/need/yearn/desire to run red lights? are they going to speed up just
to make a point/smear on the pavement? just because i see a
woman/man/cyclist driving/cycling like an idiot doesn't mean every time i
see a woman/man/cyclist driver/cyclist i'll try and kill her/him... maybe
if it was my ex...;> but hopefully there are still folks who recognize the
value momentum has left us at an intersection even if they are stuck in a
car btw i drive a car myself and wouldn't speed up to hit a cyclist even an
obviously lying self rightous one like yourself ;>...giftig aka Miles don't
forget to feel bad the next time you break a traffic law! ps i suppose u
stop at 4 way stops 2?!!! (no disrespect meant for Mr. Steinwedel who died
obeying all traffic laws just goes to show...)
Tim McNamara
>
> The whole affair is so clear-cut that I, personally, cannot understand
> all this debate. A man was legally riding his bicycle on a public
> road. Another man came along and killed him. His weapon of choice
> was a truck, and whether or not it was intentional, the result was one
> dead human.
>
> And Ken, walking won't save your a**. ANYTHING that delays Suzy
> Homemaker or Eddie Executive is an annoyance and therefore a target.
I'd just like to mention your choice of words (not just yours but also
those of many people posting to this thread): "killed him," "weapon,"
"target." All terms that are highly charged and powerful, capable of
affecting perception and feelings.
The media does its level best to provoke these feelings in Americans- just
watch the way your local news presents the events of the day to you,
whether in the newspapers, on TV or on the radio. We refer to it as
sensationalism, as the tendency to exaggerate the emotional impact of a
story to grab your attention. But there is a tendency to promote a set of
assumptions imbedded within that presentation, which is also happening in
this thread. There seems to be an undertone that Jeff S. was deliberately
murdered by a truck driver, using his big powerful truck as a weapon
against a helpless, harmless and defenseless bicyclist. And a second
subtext that the legal system is in cahoots against bicyclists, conspiring
with the automobile and truck drivers to condone their efforts at wiping
us out.
There is an inherent paranoia and taking the role of victim in these
statements. Subscribing to this kind of thinking just makes the world
seem *more* hostile than it really is. Do you really believe that the
whole world of drivers is out to kill you, to murder you, simply because
you're in their way? If you do, how on earth do you manage to leave the
house without full body armor and a gun?
Tim
--
Ripple in still water
when there is no pebble tossed
or wind to blow.
-Robert Hunter
Timothy J. Lee
Yes (though I stop at all of them). All-way stop signs are the most
important ones to stop at, since not stopping at them (whether on
bicycle or in car) creates confusion (regarding whose turn to go it is)
among other road users who are present.
A lot of non-all-way stop signs are safe to merely yield at, but they
are probably stop signs instead of yield signs because many people
completely ignore yield signs, while treating stop signs as yield signs
(even then, they often don't yield as they should).
The whole idea of making the rules too strict (e.g. stop signs when only
yielding is necessary for safely, or speed limits set too low with the
expectation that drivers will speed) and enforcing them only sporadically
only creates disrespect for the law, and makes it harder to improve road
safety (e.g. if stopping is really necessary for safety at a particular
intersection, how can that be communicated to drivers who are used to
viewing a stop sign as a yield sign?).
Alan Boucek
I lived in New York City for quite a while. The streets there are safer
for cyclists than in many other places - Berkeley for one.
--
| alan boucek ---- berkeley california
pete smith
Ken Kifer <kenk...@nti.net> wrote:
>Ken Kifer replies:
>But I am asking you, I am begging you to take the high ground. I see
>cyclists saying they don't have to obey the law, just the motorists. I
>see others who have become judge and jury. How much respect or sympathy
>is that kind of attitude going to gain you?
I concur, and I am the most law-abiding cyclist I know, a real
one-foot-on-the-ground-at-stopsigns kind of guy. I would NEVER
advocate breaking the law, for just the reasons you have stated.
>In regard to Susie Homemaker and Eddie Executive, I have been sharing
>the road with them for over 30 years without many problems; I consider
>them friends even though I don't like their method of travel. They
>sometimes ride bikes themselves. I said recently that 99.99% of the
>drivers are safe; on reflection, that figure is probably an
>understatement. My statement about walking was in reference to cyclists
>who want to make their own rules and engage in class warfare, not in
>reference to the motorists.
Again, I agree, and if I made it sound like class warfare, my choice
of "names" was unfortunate. And yes, most drivers are safe; certainly
there is much more consideration for cyclists than there was ten or
twelve years ago, at least in this part of the country.
BUT, the remaining .01% still constitutes one car in 10,000, and that
is the one that will nail you. (How many cars pass you in the course
of a 50 or 100 mile road ride?)
Nothing is served by letting the unsafe, the overly aggressive, or the
overtly homicidal persist in their behavior. Actions like those of
Margo Smith send the wrong message to that small percentage.
I have paid taxes since 1966. If I am squashed on the highway, the
State had better spend some of that money prosecuting the offender, or
there will be hell to pay in the hereafter!!
Pete/Atlanta
pete smith
tim...@minn.net (Tim McNamara) wrote:
>I'd just like to mention your choice of words (not just yours but also
>those of many people posting to this thread): "killed him," "weapon,"
>"target." All terms that are highly charged and powerful, capable of
>affecting perception and feelings.
Which of these terms offends you?
"Killed him"? Is he not dead?
"Weapon"? Perhaps defined as a tool to harm or kill?
"Target"? Perhaps defined as the object of one wielding a weapon?
The taking of human life IS a highly-charged situation. My intent in
using these terms IS to affect perceptions and feelings, as a force
for change.
There seems to be an undertone that Jeff S. was deliberately
>murdered by a truck driver, using his big powerful truck as a weapon
>against a helpless, harmless and defenseless bicyclist. And a second
>subtext that the legal system is in cahoots against bicyclists, conspiring
>with the automobile and truck drivers to condone their efforts at wiping
>us out.
Jeff was killed, deliberately or not. Do we excuse his killer because
the burden of the consciousness of his own actions was just too much
for him?
>There is an inherent paranoia and taking the role of victim in these
>statements. Subscribing to this kind of thinking just makes the world
>seem *more* hostile than it really is. Do you really believe that the
>whole world of drivers is out to kill you, to murder you, simply because
>you're in their way? If you do, how on earth do you manage to leave the
>house without full body armor and a gun?
"Highly charged and powerful words". Good to see you using some.
Some portions of the world ARE hostile, and to ignore that fact is to
succumb to the myth that the world "should be safe". Life is not
safe, and sometimes you have to fight. The smart and the fortunate
find a balance. Mine falls somewhat short of body armor and live
ammo. Your best weapon is on top of your neck.
Pete/Atlanta
Roger Marquis
In ba.bicycles Alan Boucek <al...@tippett.com> wrote:
>I lived in New York City for quite a while. The streets there are safer
>for cyclists than in many other places - Berkeley for one.
That depends on where in Berkeley you ride. If you frequent arterials
(Shattuck, Telegraph, MLK, Ashby, University, etc.) it's only a matter
of time... Fortunately there is an extensive network of low traffic
side streets (Milvia, Walnut, Woolsey, Colby, Shafter, etc.) that are
safe, quiet, and a great way to get around town.
Roger Marquis
Jym Dyer
> One of the big reasons that there is anti-cyclist sentiment is
> that the public views, on a daily basis, cyclists breaking all
> sorts of traffic laws.
=o= The public views, on a daily basis, motorists breaking many
more traffic laws, much more consistently, and with a much, much,
much greater negative impact.
> I have personally been involved in a number of car/bike
> incidents and lawyers, District Attorneys and Police personnel
> have told me this is the case. I believe them. They are the
> professionals.
=o= See my thread about SFPD #1378. He, too, is a professional.
A professional who sat on his butt (along with several other
fellow professionals) while a violent driver made a turn and a
lane change without signalling, who tailgated me, who blew his
horn at me illegally, all within the space of a few seconds
and all directly in the view of a number of professionals.
A professional who threatened to write me up for "impeding"
because I was tailgated, who threatened to write me up for
"instigating" for being honked at.
=o= As far as I can tell, this "professional" cannot possibly
be counted on to make an accurate statement about this car/bike
incident. I have no reason to believe that the "professionals"
whose expertise you defer to are any more reliable.
<_Jym_>
Jack Dingler
Whoa, Whoa, Tim!
You mention emotionally charged words here. Death is normally an
emotionally charged issue. If you don't think it is, wait until the
funeral of a close family member comes up. I assume you have close
family.
13 years ago, my younger brother (he was seventeen at the time), took
one of my father's handguns to a party. I wasn't there and the
circumstances for me (in a legal sense) are just hearsay. I've been
told there was drinking and drugs involved, etc... The handgun was
passed around and another teenager shot my brother in the head.
While he lay in a coma, it was an emotionally charged time for many of
us. When we voted to pull the plug it was also an emotionally charged
time. Even the funeral was emotionally charged. I understand the court
trial for involuntary manslaughter against the boy was emotionally
charged.
I'm certain that my brother's death was an accident, just as Jeff
Steinwedel's death was an (allegedly) accident. I feel sure that the
teen who shot my brother and subsequently went to prison didn't do it
out of malice, just as the driver that killed Jeff might have lacked
malice.
Still if you accidently kill someone with a gun, the police will pursue
you. If you kill someone with a car, then they'll let you off. These
are both deadly tools. They can both be handled carelessly and kill
people. I don't see that the sense of responsibility should be any
different. If you're going to handle a tool that could easily kill
people, then you should be responsible enough to use it and be held
responsible for misusing it.
My brother is dead. Jeff is dead. Is Jeff less dead than my brother
because he was run over by a truck? They were both accidents involving
deadly tools. In my brother's case, the teen that killed him went to
prison. In Jeff's case, the trial might be difficult, so their going to
let the driver off without trying.
Involuntary Manslaughter would apply in both cases. Intent is not
necessary to send someone to prison.
Tim McNamara wrote:
>
<Snip>
> I'd just like to mention your choice of words (not just yours but also
> those of many people posting to this thread): "killed him," "weapon,"
> "target." All terms that are highly charged and powerful, capable of
> affecting perception and feelings.
>
> The media does its level best to provoke these feelings in Americans- just
> watch the way your local news presents the events of the day to you,
> whether in the newspapers, on TV or on the radio. We refer to it as
> sensationalism, as the tendency to exaggerate the emotional impact of a
> story to grab your attention. But there is a tendency to promote a set of
> assumptions imbedded within that presentation, which is also happening in
> this thread. There seems to be an undertone that Jeff S. was deliberately
> murdered by a truck driver, using his big powerful truck as a weapon
> against a helpless, harmless and defenseless bicyclist. And a second
> subtext that the legal system is in cahoots against bicyclists, conspiring
> with the automobile and truck drivers to condone their efforts at wiping
> us out.
>
> There is an inherent paranoia and taking the role of victim in these
> statements. Subscribing to this kind of thinking just makes the world
> seem *more* hostile than it really is. Do you really believe that the
> whole world of drivers is out to kill you, to murder you, simply because
> you're in their way? If you do, how on earth do you manage to leave the
> house without full body armor and a gun?
>
> Tim
>
> --
> Ripple in still water
> when there is no pebble tossed
> or wind to blow.
>
> -Robert Hunter
--
* Jack Dingler * Bill Clinton, has never, does not,
* jdin...@onramp.net * and will never, have any knowledge
* Probably not * of any WhiteHouse activities.
* your opinion * Isn't it obvious?
Jack Dingler
Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>
<Snip>
> If word were spread around the county that the incumbent DA's office
> refused to prosecute a homicide case with lots of evidence, and the
> voting public took it to mean that the incumbent DA was "soft on
> crime", how would that help the incumbent DA's re-election chances?
You mean soft on motorists. This would be a manslaughter case, not
homicide.
Jack Dingler
When I was a young boy, I knew a truck driver that used to preach that
the government oughta give them rewards for running dope smoking hippies
jogging and riding bicyles off the roads. I remember him saying that he
was afraid to hit one because the cylist might come through his
windshield and cause him to have an accident.
He also said there oughta be a law that would let truck drivers run cars
off the road if they didn't drive right. The highways were for trucks
because they paid the taxes. He preached that the highways were unsafe
for cars because they got in the way of his schedule.
His truck driving friends would holler, "Amen!" and down another shot.
I admit this is a small sampling. I've known other truck drivers that
were a lot more responsible. I hope that the Billy Bob Buckostein
version is a very small minority. But I do know it only takes one
accident to kill you.
And to tell you the truth, I don't give a d*mn what Billy Bob Buckostein
thinks of me. Nothing I can do will improve his outlook on life anyway.
Bring on the publicity.
--
Neil Cherry
On Sun, 04 May 1997 02:37:17 -0700, Darin Parish <gif...@msn.com> wrote:
>...next time you run one i hope you feel like the liar you must be
What gives you the impression that I run reds? Is it possible that your
view of life is just too narrow? Do you have a beleif that everyone
behaves like you do or worse?
>...what possible effect could a cyclist running a red
>light have on motorists other than alerting them to the fact that we
>like/need/yearn/desire to run red lights?
Most people who drive autos forget themselves when the drive. When
behind the wheel of an auto they get a sudden surge of power and they
are protected by the cage. They'll even perform feats of stupidity
because they feel protected. The IQ of a motorist is inversely
proportional to the square of the engines HP.
When someone slows a motorist down that motorist tends to get mad. Add
to that an infraction of the law and they get indignant. Because most
motorists are not cyclists, they assume all cyclist behave that way.
Another motorist (B) could make the same infraction and the motorist
(A) viewing the same events would assume it is just another idiot
since I (motorist A) would never perform such a stupid thing.
Meanwhile 15 minutes later motorist A performs the exact same move.
What does this all add up to? When you run the red the motoring public
sees this. If they've had a bad day they may perform some stupidity
such as driving too close or drift over and try to force you off the
road or some other stupid maneuver (ha! I showed that cyclist). But
more likely they'll take it out on someone else who raises their
ire, most likely another cyclist because all cyclist behave that
way (in their view).
>...but hopefully there are still folks who recognize the value
>momentum has left us at an intersection even if they are stuck in a
>car btw i drive a car myself and wouldn't speed up to hit a cyclist
>even an obviously lying self rightous one like yourself
Why do you think I'm lying? Is it that you feel that you are more
morally correct than I am? That would make you the self righteous one
wouldn't it? The only thing I have on my side is the law and I don't
trust that it will do me a lot of good when a person in a 2 ton
vehicle decides to make some point with the vehicle. So far your
reasons haven't been too stellar.
About momentum, many motorist wonder the same question every time they
get held up by a cyclist. I also would prefer that at the bottom of
every hill there was not a stop sign or that a light would wait just a
few more seconds so that I could keep going. But it doesn't that
doesn't mean that momentum gives you the right to blow off stops.
>...giftig aka Miles don't forget to feel bad the next time you
>break a traffic law! ps i suppose u stop at 4 way stops 2?!!! (no
>disrespect meant for Mr. Steinwedel who died obeying all traffic
>laws just goes to show...)
I stop for 4 ways, if I didn't I'd end up dead. What happened to Jeff
can happen to you just as easy (no that's not a threat or even a
wish). When a person runs a stop and gets clobber thats something that
could have been avoided! I hope that at least you are intelligent
enough to slow down at the stops and check both ways.
--
Neil Cherry
If you need to contact me via email please use this email address to
respond: ncherry worldnet att net
(replace spaces with '@' '.' & '.' ) Blame this one on firms like ro...@cyberpromo.com webm...@cyberpromo.com ro...@ispam.net gi...@plasube.com subs...@cyberpromo.com
Thomas H. Kunich
Email to the DA doesn't seem to be having any effect.
Does someone know the local newspapers to Santa Clara County? It's time
we start writing letters to editors.
I think that comparing Bill's experience with Margo Smith to Jeff's
family's experience would make a very good letter to the editor and
perhaps the newspapers might get curious about what's happening in
their legal system under Kennedy and MArgo Smith.
Someone got the snail mail addresses and names of the newspapers?
Is the San Jose Mercury the only paper in that area?
Terra Cholfin
In article <01bc586e$9e744c80$52302299@default>, "Darin Parish"
<gif...@msn.com> wrote:
> o plz give me a break i ride downtown san antonio all the time and even the
> bike cops don't stop at a red light (truly...in fact i've raced a few
> through a couple of them ;>)...next time you run one i hope you feel like
> the liar you must be...what possible effect could a cyclist running a red
> light have on motorists [..........]
I wish I could write off you and people like you as probable near-future
victims of "evolution in action", but you're a danger not only to yourselves
but also to others. What if you blow off a red light without noticing another
cyclist crossing on the green, or a pedestrian stepping off the curb? We
might not be as big or as fast as cars, but we can still do some damage.
It's important that everyone who uses the roads behaves predictably according
to an agreed-upon set of standards, i.e., the traffic laws. Otherwise, we'd
all be living in a Mad Max movie. Or Boston.
Just keep on riding down there in San Antonio, pard. We've got enough
traffic anarchists up here as it is!
P.S. No, I do not run red lights. Ever.
--
Theresa M. "Terra" Cholfin
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
MIT Room 8-109, Cambridge, MA 02139
te...@mit.edu
http://web.mit.edu/terra/www/
Tom Holub
In article <5kjp1m$bi$1...@alba.roble.com>,
Roger Marquis <mar...@roble.com> wrote:
)In ba.bicycles Alan Boucek <al...@tippett.com> wrote:
)>I lived in New York City for quite a while. The streets there are safer
)>for cyclists than in many other places - Berkeley for one.
)
)That depends on where in Berkeley you ride. If you frequent arterials
)(Shattuck, Telegraph, MLK, Ashby, University, etc.) it's only a matter
)of time... Fortunately there is an extensive network of low traffic
)side streets (Milvia, Walnut, Woolsey, Colby, Shafter, etc.) that are
)safe, quiet, and a great way to get around town.
Speaking as someone who rides Telegraph every day, and who can point to
a number of extremely dangerous intersections on the streets Roger mentions,
I have to say that he has no idea what he's talking about.
-Tom
Peter Koopman
Op Mon, 05 May 1997 09:39:16 -0400 schreef te...@mit.edu (Terra
Cholfin):
>In article <01bc586e$9e744c80$52302299@default>, "Darin Parish"
><gif...@msn.com> wrote:
(snip)
>>what possible effect could a cyclist running a red
>> light have on motorists [..........]
>It's important that everyone who uses the roads behaves predictably according
>to an agreed-upon set of standards, i.e., the traffic laws.
*I* run red lights... all the time... it's not (or not only) sticking
to the rules that makes traffic safe... it's common sens that does.
Where I live (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) cyclists that stop for red
lights are crazy. No single traffic participant (motorists,
pedestrians, whatever) takes into consideration that a cyclist stops
for traffic lights. Cyclists stop for traffic, not for traffic lights.
Go ahead and run red lights, just don't run them recklessly.
Peter
--
Peter Koopman
A.u.b. geen reacties per e-mail */*\* Please, no e-mail replies
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <5kkv9o$4...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
Tom Holub <do...@shell3.ba.best.com> wrote:
>Speaking as someone who rides Telegraph every day, and who can point to
>a number of extremely dangerous intersections on the streets Roger mentions,
>I have to say that he has no idea what he's talking about.
Roger rode Berkeley as much as you Tom. It's just that Roger has
a much higher threshhold for intolerance than you or I.
Since I've ridden in Berkeley quite a bit I have to agree
with you more than Roger.
Matt Boersma
Adriana C. Bruggeman <je...@vtaix.cc.vt.edu> wrote:
> >Please, people, if you're going to ride a bicycle, chose a humble
> >master, such as Jesus, Martin Luther King, Thoreau, or Gandhi to
> >follow. Otherwise, ride a bus.
>
> I am a cyclist, I am not a role model.
That's a cute quote, but I think you and other respondents to Ken Kifer's
post missed the point. Everyone has their own reasons for biking. Me, I
like keeping my crappy Honda Prelude off the road as much as possible, I
love the exercise, and I find it mentally relaxing, especially compared to
the commute on 101. Your reasons may be none of those, which is fine.
But whenever someone passes me too closely or yells out a window, instead
of extending my middle finger, I try to shrug it off. If I have an
opportunity to scold the driver, I don't hesitate to do so, but I try to
keep it civil. I don't always succeed, but if I become irate, two things
happen: 1) I am unlikely to impress upon the driver how he or she erred,
and 2) I forget about why I'm biking and how it helps me relax.
I think it's a crime that the DA's office refuses to prosecute Steinwedel's
murderer. But I also believe all this talk of revenge is misguided.
Eric and/or Beth Zuckerman
On Sun, 4 May 1997 18:42:58 GMT, nob...@not.for.email (Timothy J. Lee)
wrote:
>"Darin Parish" <gif...@msn.com> writes:
>| ps i suppose u
>|stop at 4 way stops 2?!!!
>
>Yes (though I stop at all of them). All-way stop signs are the most
>important ones to stop at, since not stopping at them (whether on
>bicycle or in car) creates confusion (regarding whose turn to go it is)
>among other road users who are present.
>
I'm also careful to be a "good boy" about obeying traffic
laws. (Although 10-11 years ago, I was riding around the Borough of
Queens like I wanted to die.) One factoid Darin might not be aware
of, being from San Antonio (I believe his post said) is that
violations of the California Vehicle Code apply to your record no
matter what vehicle you are operating at the moment. That means that
if you get a ticket for running a stop sign, points go on your
driver's license, and your auto insurance will also go up!
It's annoying, but I choose to play it safe. It also affects
which routes I take: going through Berkeley, I usually ride down
Sacramento St., instead of California St., because while the latter
does have a bike lane, it also has stop signs literally every one to
two blocks. I make *much* better time going down Sacto.
EZ
Tim McNamara
> Whoa, Whoa, Tim!
>
> You mention emotionally charged words here. Death is normally an
> emotionally charged issue. If you don't think it is, wait until the
> funeral of a close family member comes up. I assume you have close
> family.
My father died last August. My brother died many years ago. One of my
best friends was killed when he tried to beat a train at a level crossing
on his bike. Another good friend was killed when he fell off a cliff. I
nearly died when *I* fell off a cliff. Been there, done that. Wish I
wouldn't have to ever again, but life's not like that.
Life includes death. All the time.
<snipped horrible story of the death of your brother; my condolences on
what must have been a ghastly time)
>
> I'm certain that my brother's death was an accident, just as Jeff
> Steinwedel's death was an (allegedly) accident. I feel sure that the
> teen who shot my brother and subsequently went to prison didn't do it
> out of malice, just as the driver that killed Jeff might have lacked
> malice.
>
> Still if you accidently kill someone with a gun, the police will pursue
> you. If you kill someone with a car, then they'll let you off. These
> are both deadly tools. They can both be handled carelessly and kill
> people. I don't see that the sense of responsibility should be any
> different. If you're going to handle a tool that could easily kill
> people, then you should be responsible enough to use it and be held
> responsible for misusing it.
Agreed, absolutely. The difference is that a gun *is* a weapon, that is
its only purpose. A motor vehicle can be *used as* a weapon, but has
other uses. You're just as dead either way. But I think the difference
somehow affects the perception of events, resulting in a differing
response. Many people have identified guns as a problem in society; few
have identified cars as a problem. Guns are not seen by most people as a
necessity (although many people value their guns highly and would sooner
give up their cars), whereas cars generaly *are* seen as a necessity.
Does that make us more likely to excuse death by car compared to death by
gunshot? As a culture (in the U.S.) we seem to be willing to consider
road deaths as a normal, acceptable risk inherent in the glory of
automated transportation; OTOH, we don't seem to be willing to countenance
accidental gunshot deaths as a normal, acceptable risk for the right to
bear arms.
> Involuntary Manslaughter would apply in both cases. Intent is not
> necessary to send someone to prison.
True enough. I was attempting to point out, however, that the truck
driver seems to have been already tried and found guilty of murder by some
members of the thread, and that charged language seemed to be being used
excessively. The truck driver that killed Jeff S- whether totally
unknowingly or intently- is not a proxy for our collective anger at
stupid, unskilled, impatient and/or dangerous drivers everywhere. He was
one party in what appears to be an accident which resulted in the death of
the other party. But we cannot assume that he is guilty just because he
was driving a truck.
BTW, I'm still wondering what the eyewitnesses had to say about what
happened? I also like the idea of posting the name and address of the
Attorney General (or whomever) to send letters to requesting a more
detailed investigation into the incident. Could it be posted again?
Tim
--
Tell me all that you know- I'll show you
snow and rain.
-Robert Hunter
Bruce Hildenbrand
In article <Jym.yc7iv...@igc.org> Jym Dyer <j...@igc.org> writes:
>> One of the big reasons that there is anti-cyclist sentiment is
>> that the public views, on a daily basis, cyclists breaking all
>> sorts of traffic laws.
>
>=o= The public views, on a daily basis, motorists breaking many
>more traffic laws, much more consistently, and with a much, much,
>much greater negative impact.
>
>> I have personally been involved in a number of car/bike
>> incidents and lawyers, District Attorneys and Police personnel
>> have told me this is the case. I believe them. They are the
>> professionals.
>
>=o= See my thread about SFPD #1378. He, too, is a professional.
>A professional who sat on his butt (along with several other
>fellow professionals) while a violent driver made a turn and a
>lane change without signalling, who tailgated me, who blew his
>horn at me illegally, all within the space of a few seconds
>and all directly in the view of a number of professionals.
>A professional who threatened to write me up for "impeding"
>because I was tailgated, who threatened to write me up for
>"instigating" for being honked at.
Oh, brother! Pelase tell me what laws this "violent driver"
broke? I don't believe using your horn is illegal.
>=o= As far as I can tell, this "professional" cannot possibly
>be counted on to make an accurate statement about this car/bike
>incident. I have no reason to believe that the "professionals"
>whose expertise you defer to are any more reliable.
Well, on the basis on the description of your "incident", if
I was a police officer, I would not have cited the "violent
driver" in this situation, either.
If it was me, I would cite a much more credible indication of
the fallability of the "professionals" to make my point. You,
have made a very, very weak point here, in fact I guess I don't
see your point, the "professional" did his/her job since no laws
were broken.
Bruce Hildenbrand
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <timmcn-0505...@dialup-293.minn.net>,
Tim McNamara <tim...@minn.net> wrote:
>Agreed, absolutely. The difference is that a gun *is* a weapon, that is
>its only purpose.
Excuse me -- a gun can be used for hunting, target practice or even
protection. Using language that misrepresents the use of a gun is as
bad as misrepresenting the misuse of a vehicle.
Jack is correct: if you are drunk and get into an accident you are
assumed to be responsible. If you are sober you are assumed to NOT
be responsible. So using a vehicle for murder is becoming progressively
less dangerous to the perpetrator.
>I was attempting to point out, however, that the truck
>driver seems to have been already tried and found guilty of murder by some
>members of the thread, and that charged language seemed to be being used
>excessively. The truck driver that killed Jeff S- whether totally
>unknowingly or intently- is not a proxy for our collective anger at
>stupid, unskilled, impatient and/or dangerous drivers everywhere. He was
>one party in what appears to be an accident which resulted in the death of
>the other party. But we cannot assume that he is guilty just because he
>was driving a truck.
Excuse me but you're full of it! The truck driver was identified
and there is evidence that his vehicle killed Jeff S. WE DON'T
NEED TO TRY HIM -- HE IS GUILTY. The legal system needs to try him
but Margo SMith has decided that the death of a single bicyclist isn't
important enough.
Moreover, as we've read, she doesn't seem to think that the lethal
threat to other bicyclists is very important. I'm beginning to think
that she should not be in public service of any sort.
Timothy J. Lee
ja...@xtraonline.com writes:
|
|Timothy J. Lee wrote:
|>
|> If word were spread around the county that the incumbent DA's office
|> refused to prosecute a homicide case with lots of evidence, and the
|> voting public took it to mean that the incumbent DA was "soft on
|> crime", how would that help the incumbent DA's re-election chances?
|
|You mean soft on motorists. This would be a manslaughter case, not
|homicide.
Manslaughter is a form of illegal homicide, although it is distinct
from murder. In California, you can look up the homicide laws on the
web at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html -- find Penal Code 187-199.
Matt Boersma
Peter Koopman <pkoo...@euronet.nl> wrote in article
> lights are crazy. No single traffic participant (motorists,
> pedestrians, whatever) takes into consideration that a cyclist stops
> for traffic lights. Cyclists stop for traffic, not for traffic lights.
That may well be. The expectations are much different in U.S. urban areas,
however, just as the prevailing rules of the road are much different in
Beijing. Cycling is also much less popular overall in America than in
Holland or China, so individual cyclists are more visible when the break
the law, and motorists are less sympathetic and less accustomed to sharing
the road.
> Go ahead and run red lights, just don't run them recklessly.
Now that's the stupidest advice I've ever heard, no matter where you live.
Timothy J. Lee
to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
|Someone got the snail mail addresses and names of the newspapers?
|Is the San Jose Mercury the only paper in that area?
The San Jose Mercury News is probably the largest Santa
Clara County newspaper. Letters to the editor may be sent
by email to let...@sjmercury.com . There is a web page
(http://www.sjmercury.com), some of which is freely
accessible, some of which one has to subscribe to (separate
from a regular newspaper subscription).
Tom Ace
zuck...@slip.net (Eric Zuckerman) wrote:
> I'm also careful to be a "good boy" about obeying traffic
>laws. (Although 10-11 years ago, I was riding around the Borough of
>Queens like I wanted to die.) One factoid Darin might not be aware
>of, being from San Antonio (I believe his post said) is that
>violations of the California Vehicle Code apply to your record no
>matter what vehicle you are operating at the moment. That means that
>if you get a ticket for running a stop sign, points go on your
>driver's license, and your auto insurance will also go up!
How appropriate that you call it a 'factoid'.
Bicycle violations are not required to be reported to the DMV.
See California Vehicle Code, section 1803(b)(6).
You can peruse the CVC at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html .
Tom Ace
cr...@best.com
Mark F. Flynn
Rich Swent <rlswent...@leland.stanford.edu> writes:
>In article <tomkE9...@netcom.com>,
>Thomas H. Kunich <to...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Email to the DA doesn't seem to be having any effect.
>>
>>Does someone know the local newspapers to Santa Clara County? It's time
>>we start writing letters to editors.
>>
>>I think that comparing Bill's experience with Margo Smith to Jeff's
>>family's experience would make a very good letter to the editor and
>>perhaps the newspapers might get curious about what's happening in
>>their legal system under Kennedy and MArgo Smith.
>>
>>Someone got the snail mail addresses and names of the newspapers?
>>Is the San Jose Mercury the only paper in that area?
>>
>Here are some relevant addresses:
>Write the Mercury News
> or Mercury Center at:
> 750 Ridder Park Drive
> San Jose CA 95190
Also: for letters to the editor:
For letters to the editor or comments on the newspaper's editorial
pages. If you are submitting a letter for possible publication, please
include your daytime telephone number and street address (for
confirmation purposes).
Mark Flynn
Matt O'Toole
Thomas H. Kunich <to...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<tomkE9...@netcom.com>...
> Email to the DA doesn't seem to be having any effect.
Did you think it would?
I think real paper is better, especially if you can use some genuine VIP
letterhead. A political figure might take notice if his or her critic
looks like a resourceful person who may influence others who matter.
> Does someone know the local newspapers to Santa Clara County? It's time
> we start writing letters to editors.
I will. I hope some others here will also take time off from this den of
mental masturbation, and do something constructive.
> perhaps the newspapers might get curious about what's happening in
> their legal system under Kennedy and MArgo Smith.
That would be the plan.
Matt O.
David Casseres
So, already the discussion of the death of Jeff Steinwedel has turned into
a vehicle for folks to put each other down and show us all how morally
superior they are!
In article <terra-05059...@twelve-oaks.mit.edu>, te...@mit.edu
(Terra Cholfin) wrote:
> In article <01bc586e$9e744c80$52302299@default>, "Darin Parish"
> <gif...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > o plz give me a break i ride downtown san antonio all the time and even the
> > bike cops don't stop at a red light (truly...in fact i've raced a few
> > through a couple of them ;>)...next time you run one i hope you feel like
> > the liar you must be...what possible effect could a cyclist running a red
> > light have on motorists [..........]
>
> I wish I could write off you and people like you as probable near-future
> victims of "evolution in action", but you're a danger not only to yourselves
> but also to others. What if you blow off a red light without noticing another
> cyclist crossing on the green, or a pedestrian stepping off the curb? We
> might not be as big or as fast as cars, but we can still do some damage.
> It's important that everyone who uses the roads behaves predictably according
> to an agreed-upon set of standards, i.e., the traffic laws. Otherwise, we'd
> all be living in a Mad Max movie. Or Boston.
>
> Just keep on riding down there in San Antonio, pard. We've got enough
> traffic anarchists up here as it is!
>
> P.S. No, I do not run red lights. Ever.
--
Cheers,
David
John Foltz
Daniel Connelly wrote:
>If there are clearly no other road users with right of way, what is
>the point of waiting?
A motorist in a hurry could use the same argument, with just as much
validity.
>With cars, the driver has less perception of what is happening (line
>of site, sensitivity to sound). Plus, the cost of an error, both in
>ability to correct the mistake (there is no steering out of danger in
>a car) and the consequences of a mistake (likely crippling or fatal
>injury to someone, with a car) are both substantially different than
>those of a cyclist for car drivers.
I'll agree with the bit about sensitivity to sound, to a point, but the
rest of your argument is hogwash! A motorist generally has better vision
that a cyclist, who is usually hunched over the front wheel with head
down except when he/she wants to check for cross traffic.
Too many people confuse a cycle's ability to snake through a tight spot
(usually at low speed) with maneuverability. A car can pull .4G or more
in a turn and can stop much faster than a bike at any given speed; and
can do both at the same time. Maneuverability of a cycle at cruising
speed sucks. Try to pull .4G on a bike and you'll end up in the trees;
simultaneously hit the brakes and the bike will pop itself out of the
turn. And, if you manage to go into a sideways skid, you likely will
leave a large red stripe pointing the way you came. The cost of error
is in the motorist's favor every time--they've got 1 to 2 tons of armor
plating, which the insurance company will replace if damaged.
Regardless of how you feel about the safety of blowing stops, one thing
is certain; most motorists who see such behavior get PISSED OFF, and
the tendancy is to take it out on the next cyclist they see. If you're
going to misbehave on your bike, please make sure you're the only
cyclist in a 30 mile radius. I don't want to be the next cyclist they
see.
John Foltz
Daniel Connelly
In article <336E61...@lsd.k12.mi.us>,
John Foltz <mfo...@lsd.k12.mi.us> wrote:
>Daniel Connelly wrote:
>
>>If there are clearly no other road users with right of way, what is
>>the point of waiting?
>
>A motorist in a hurry could use the same argument, with just as much
>validity.
Clearly this is absurd, as I point out later; cars and bikes
are different.
--------------
>>With cars, the driver has less perception of what is happening (line
>>of site, sensitivity to sound). Plus, the cost of an error, both in
>>ability to correct the mistake (there is no steering out of danger in
>>a car) and the consequences of a mistake (likely crippling or fatal
>>injury to someone, with a car) are both substantially different than
>>those of a cyclist for car drivers.
>
>I'll agree with the bit about sensitivity to sound, to a point, but the
>rest of your argument is hogwash! A motorist generally has better vision
>that a cyclist, who is usually hunched over the front wheel with head
>down except when he/she wants to check for cross traffic.
So don't ride with your head down. This is silly.
------------------
>Too many people confuse a cycle's ability to snake through a tight spot
>(usually at low speed) with maneuverability. A car can pull .4G or more
>in a turn and can stop much faster than a bike at any given speed; and
>can do both at the same time. Maneuverability of a cycle at cruising
>speed sucks. Try to pull .4G on a bike and you'll end up in the trees;
You need to laterally displace a car 10 feet or more to avoid
collision. With a bike, 2 feet will do. Since acceleration is
proportional to distance for a given time available to avoid
collision, the cyclist thus would need only 0.08g. But the cyclist
doesn't have a huge hood in front of his eyes, and thus has more
distance to react. Needed acceleration is inversely proportional to
the square of the time to avoid collision, so if this is a factor of
two (two hood lengths, for example, for the cyclist) then the cyclist
now needs only 0.02g.
No problem.
Just consider: I give you two scenerios from which to choose:
1. a bicyclist is approaching you from 20 feet away.
2. a BMW driver is approaching you from 20 feet away.
Apparently you are more concerned about (1).
Dan
Rich Swent
In article <tomkE9...@netcom.com>,
Thomas H. Kunich <to...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Email to the DA doesn't seem to be having any effect.
>
>Does someone know the local newspapers to Santa Clara County? It's time
>we start writing letters to editors.
>
>I think that comparing Bill's experience with Margo Smith to Jeff's
>family's experience would make a very good letter to the editor and
>perhaps the newspapers might get curious about what's happening in
>their legal system under Kennedy and MArgo Smith.
>
>Someone got the snail mail addresses and names of the newspapers?
>Is the San Jose Mercury the only paper in that area?
>
Here are some relevant addresses:
Write the Mercury News
or Mercury Center at:
750 Ridder Park Drive
San Jose CA 95190
Clerk of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Phyllis Perez-Sorensen
70 W. Hedding St.
10th Floor, East Wing
San Jose, CA 95110
Phone: (408) 299-4321
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
can be reached at the following address:
Office of the Board of Supervisors
County Government Center, East Wing
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
The supervisors are:
District One: Donald F. Gage
District Two: Blanca Alvarado
District Three: Peter A. McHugh
District Four: James T. Beall, Jr.
District Five: S. Joseph Simitian
Happy writing,
Richard Swent
Jym Dyer
> Oh, brother! Pelase tell me what laws this "violent driver"
> broke? I don't believe using your horn is illegal.
=o= Every action I listed is illegal, including the use of
the horn. How could you not know that and presume to be
talking intelligently about the motor vehicle code?
> Well, on the basis on the description of your "incident", if
> I was a police officer, I would not have cited the "violent
> driver" in this situation, either.
=o= You have an excuse: you are ignorant of the law. The
officers have no such excuse.
<_Jym_>
Mark Nockleby
pkoo...@euronet.nl (Peter Koopman) writes:
>*I* run red lights... all the time... it's not (or not only) sticking
>to the rules that makes traffic safe... it's common sens that does.
>Where I live (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) cyclists that stop for red
>lights are crazy. No single traffic participant (motorists,
>pedestrians, whatever) takes into consideration that a cyclist stops
>for traffic lights. Cyclists stop for traffic, not for traffic lights.
Perhaps common sense and practise in Amsterdam is different than the
rest of the world?
--
For PGP key, http://physics.ucsc.edu/users/noc/plan
My mail address is disguised to avoid automated
advertisments. Please remove no-spam from the address in order to reply.
Daniel Connelly
In article <5klanr$l...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>,
Mark Nockleby <n...@physics.ucsc.no-spam.edu> wrote:
>pkoo...@euronet.nl (Peter Koopman) writes:
>
>>*I* run red lights... all the time... it's not (or not only) sticking
>>to the rules that makes traffic safe... it's common sens that does.
>
>>Where I live (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) cyclists that stop for red
>>lights are crazy. No single traffic participant (motorists,
>>pedestrians, whatever) takes into consideration that a cyclist stops
>>for traffic lights. Cyclists stop for traffic, not for traffic lights.
>
>Perhaps common sense and practise in Amsterdam is different than the
>rest of the world?
If there are clearly no other road users with right of way, what is
the point of waiting?
With cars, the driver has less perception of what is happening (line
of site, sensitivity to sound). Plus, the cost of an error, both in
ability to correct the mistake (there is no steering out of danger in
a car) and the consequences of a mistake (likely crippling or fatal
injury to someone, with a car) are both substantially different than
those of a cyclist for car drivers.
I think Peter makes excellent sense. It is those who are addicted to
rules that have a problem. Perhaps their willingness to follow them
makes them feel superior. Or perhaps it brings back warm memories of
being called a "good boy" during early childhood.
Dan
Timothy J. Lee
bhi...@stelvio.eng.sun.com (Bruce Hildenbrand) writes:
|In article <Jym.yc7iv...@igc.org> Jym Dyer <j...@igc.org> writes:
|>=o= See my thread about SFPD #1378. He, too, is a professional.
|>A professional who sat on his butt (along with several other
|>fellow professionals) while a violent driver made a turn and a
|>lane change without signalling, who tailgated me, who blew his
|>horn at me illegally, all within the space of a few seconds
|>and all directly in the view of a number of professionals.
|
|Oh, brother! Pelase tell me what laws this "violent driver"
|broke?
Do any of the following sections of the California Vehicle Code
apply, if we accept the story as accurate?
21703. The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another
vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due
regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the
condition of, the roadway.
22107. No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move
right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with
reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate
signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other
vehicle may be affected by the movement.
22108. Any signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given
continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before
turning.
| I don't believe using your horn is illegal.
27001. (a) The driver of a motor vehicle when reasonably necessary
to insure safe operation shall give audible warning with his horn.
(b) The horn shall not otherwise be used, except as a theft alarm
system which operates as specified in Article 13 (commencing with
Section 28085) of this chapter.
|Well, on the basis on the description of your "incident", if
|I was a police officer, I would not have cited the "violent
|driver" in this situation, either.
Please explain why the above referenced sections of the California
Vehicle Code (findable at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov) do not apply,
if one accepts the description of the incident.
John Serafin
bhi...@stelvio.eng.sun.com (Bruce Hildenbrand) writes:
> I don't believe using your horn is illegal.
This is a minor point, but it is a matter of fact.
I'm not sure what you mean by illegal or what your belief has to do with
it, but it is quite common for motorists to violate CVC 27001(b).
>Well, on the basis on the description of your "incident", if
>I was a police officer, I would not have cited the "violent
>driver" in this situation, either.
But would you have felt compelled to come over and harass, threaten,
and blow smoke in the face of the bicyclist?
>If it was me, I would cite a much more credible indication of
>the fallability of the "professionals" to make my point. You,
>have made a very, very weak point here, in fact I guess I don't
>see your point, the "professional" did his/her job since no laws
>were broken.
Since no laws were broken, what is the justification for harassing
and threatening the bicyclist.
(rec.bicycles.rides and .tech trimmed)
--
John P. Serafin | Operating a bicycle is more like driving than riding.
j...@netcom.com | Operating an automobile is more like riding than driving.
Timothy J. Lee
pkoo...@euronet.nl (Peter Koopman) writes:
|*I* run red lights... all the time... it's not (or not only) sticking
|to the rules that makes traffic safe... it's common sens that does.
Around here, red lights tend to be placed where either (a) the cross
street is busy and rather dangerous to cross in violation of the red
light, or (b) where the cross street is not busy (i.e. you are on a
busy street), and the light will change very soon (so you wouldn't
gain much by running it). Most detectors that I have encountered will
detect a metal bicycle with metal wheels, but some require laying the
bike down over the detector. Still, that's safer and easier (not to
mention legal) than trying to find a gap in thick, fast traffic. It is
legal around here to treat a non-working light as a stop sign, but
calling the road maintenance agency usually induces them to fix it so
it will be safer the next time around.
Eric and/or Beth Zuckerman
On Mon, 05 May 1997 11:44:46 -0700, Tom Ace <cr...@best.comX> wrote:
>Bicycle violations are not required to be reported to the DMV.
>See California Vehicle Code, section 1803(b)(6).
>
Well, my traffic school instructor (who was apparently
licensed by the state) was quite vocal about saying that bicycle
violations could cause your insurance to go up, etc. etc. Guess he
was wrong. However, the class was pretty motorist-oriented, all in
all -- he may have been passing on some urban-legend hearsay (which I
in turn promulgated... sorry.). <shrug>
>You can peruse the CVC at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html .
>
And a lot of other California codes, too -- handy page to have
bookmarked... thanks.
'Course, all that having been said, I'm still going to be
stopping for red lights and stop signs and all that other vilified (in
this and other threads on the newsgroup) wuss behavior, out of
self-interest.
EZ
Daniel Connelly
In article <timleeE9...@netcom.com>,
Timothy J. Lee <see-signature-for-email-address---ads-not-welcome> wrote:
>pkoo...@euronet.nl (Peter Koopman) writes:
>|*I* run red lights... all the time... it's not (or not only) sticking
>|to the rules that makes traffic safe... it's common sens that does.
>
>Around here, red lights tend to be placed where either (a) the cross
>street is busy and rather dangerous to cross in violation of the red
>light, or (b) where the cross street is not busy (i.e. you are on a
>busy street), and the light will change very soon (so you wouldn't
>gain much by running it). Most detectors that I have encountered will
>detect a metal bicycle with metal wheels, but some require laying the
>bike down over the detector. Still, that's safer and easier (not to
>mention legal) than trying to find a gap in thick, fast traffic. It is
>legal around here to treat a non-working light as a stop sign, but
>calling the road maintenance agency usually induces them to fix it so
>it will be safer the next time around.
I think the above two posters are not at all in disagreement. The
question is whether on 6am on Sunday morning with clear visibility
and not a car in sight, do you wait or go? To go is illegal,
but clearly not unsafe. I don't think anyone advocates darting
through questionable gaps in heavy traffic.
Dan
Kirk R. Darling
That's very poor advice, Peter. I suspect that Amsterdam motorists don't
have an American attitude about cyclists; they may also be better and more
attentive drivers. The best avenue for a bicyclist in the US is to take
control of the entire lane at intersections and behave like an automobile.
That means staying in line, stopping, and accerating on through.
Otherwise, the cyclist doesn't even show up on the driver's "scope."
--
KRD
"Leap boldly. You can't cross a chasm in two easy steps."
Peter Koopman <pkoo...@euronet.nl> wrote in article
<33730aa7...@NEWS.EURONET.NL>...
>
> *I* run red lights... all the time... it's not (or not only) sticking
> to the rules that makes traffic safe... it's common sens that does.
>
> Where I live (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) cyclists that stop for red
> lights are crazy. No single traffic participant (motorists,
> pedestrians, whatever) takes into consideration that a cyclist stops
> for traffic lights. Cyclists stop for traffic, not for traffic lights.
>
> Go ahead and run red lights, just don't run them recklessly.
>
>
R R M Tweek
Eric and/or Beth Zuckerman <zuck...@slip.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 05 May 1997 11:44:46 -0700, Tom Ace <cr...@best.comX> wrote:
>>Bicycle violations are not required to be reported to the DMV.
>>See California Vehicle Code, section 1803(b)(6).
>>
> You don't say. (I did check, and you're right.)
>
> Well, my traffic school instructor (who was apparently
>licensed by the state) was quite vocal about saying that bicycle
>violations could cause your insurance to go up, etc. etc. Guess he
>was wrong.
He "could" have been right.
There is a difference between "are not _required_ to be reported" and "are
not to be reported." The scope of 1803 deals with what the court
clerk _must_ report to the DMV. Subdivision (b)6 only says that the court,
under this section, is not _required_ to report pedestrian or bicycle
convictions. It does not state that the clerk must not report those
convictions, nor does it state that the DMV will not accept those reports.
--
tw...@netcom.com tw...@io.com | "Well, you and I would differ on
DoD #MCMLX tw...@ccnet.com | what's ignorance and educated."
sig...@tweekco.ness.com | - Senator Ernest Hollings
Timothy J. Lee
djco...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Daniel Connelly) writes:
|Timothy J. Lee <see-signature-for-email-address---ads-not-welcome> wrote:
|>pkoo...@euronet.nl (Peter Koopman) writes:
|>|to the rules that makes traffic safe... it's common sens that does.
|>
|>street is busy and rather dangerous to cross in violation of the red
|>light, or (b) where the cross street is not busy (i.e. you are on a
|>busy street), and the light will change very soon (so you wouldn't
|>gain much by running it). Most detectors that I have encountered will
|>detect a metal bicycle with metal wheels, but some require laying the
|>bike down over the detector. Still, that's safer and easier (not to
|>mention legal) than trying to find a gap in thick, fast traffic. It is
|>legal around here to treat a non-working light as a stop sign, but
|>calling the road maintenance agency usually induces them to fix it so
|>it will be safer the next time around.
|
|I think the above two posters are not at all in disagreement. The
|question is whether on 6am on Sunday morning with clear visibility
At such low traffic times, the traffic lights are usually set to
on-demand changing. Assuming you are not on the road where the default
is green, then you'll stop on the sensor in order to look around to see
if it is safe to go. By that time, the light starts to change, so
there really isn't any point in running it.
|and not a car in sight, do you wait or go?
^^^
I certainly hope you are looking for other bicyclists when you are
cycling. I have had a near miss where a cyclist (at a stop sign)
looked directly at me (cycling on a road with no stop sign or traffic
light), saw that there was no car, and then proceeded to enter the
intersection and nearly cause a crash.
Tim McNamara
In article <tomkE9q...@netcom.com>, to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
wrote:
> In article <timmcn-0505...@dialup-293.minn.net>,
> Tim McNamara <tim...@minn.net> wrote:
>
> >Agreed, absolutely. The difference is that a gun *is* a weapon, that is
> >its only purpose.
>
> Excuse me -- a gun can be used for hunting, target practice or even
> protection. Using language that misrepresents the use of a gun is as
> bad as misrepresenting the misuse of a vehicle.
Your point? The gun is still being used as a weapon in those
circumstances. A gun *is* a weapon. There is no other practical use for
it unless you intend to use it exclusively as wall art or as a
paperweight. It's a lousy hammer, a worse wrench and you can't scramble
eggs with it. You can't drive a gun to the store to get a week's worth of
groceries. A gun is *always* a weapon, whether it is being used
responsibly or not.
> >I was attempting to point out, however, that the truck
> >driver seems to have been already tried and found guilty of murder by some
> >members of the thread, and that charged language seemed to be being used
> >excessively. The truck driver that killed Jeff S- whether totally
> >unknowingly or intently- is not a proxy for our collective anger at
> >stupid, unskilled, impatient and/or dangerous drivers everywhere. He was
> >one party in what appears to be an accident which resulted in the death of
> >the other party. But we cannot assume that he is guilty just because he
> >was driving a truck.
>
> Excuse me but you're full of it! The truck driver was identified
> and there is evidence that his vehicle killed Jeff S. WE DON'T
> NEED TO TRY HIM -- HE IS GUILTY. The legal system needs to try him
> but Margo SMith has decided that the death of a single bicyclist isn't
> important enough.
Guilty of what? And whatever happened to due process under the
Constitution? Or are Constitutional rights something only to be enforced
when it fits *your* prejudices? "We don't need to try him-- he is
guilty?" Get the rope!
Better get that knee looked at by a professional.
> Moreover, as we've read, she doesn't seem to think that the lethal
> threat to other bicyclists is very important. I'm beginning to think
> that she should not be in public service of any sort.
I haven't read anything that indicates that she believes this. Where are
your sources?
Tim
--
Don't cry now, don't you cry, dry your eyes
on the wind.
-Robert Hunter
Daniel Connelly
In article <timleeE9...@netcom.com>,
Timothy J. Lee <see-signature-for-email-address---ads-not-welcome> wrote:
>|I think the above two posters are not at all in disagreement. The
>|question is whether on 6am on Sunday morning with clear visibility
>
>At such low traffic times, the traffic lights are usually set to
>on-demand changing.
1. In much of the US, traffic sensors are not installed.
2. traffic sensors are often placed well back from the intersection,
making overshooting them easy to do. Backing up to trip
them is inconvenient.
3. Sensors are often in the middle of the lane, making it
easy to miss from the rightmost portion of the lane.
Moving laterally to trip them is inconvenient once
the location is discovered.
4. With racing bikes, it often takes special effort, such as
leaning the bike over, to trip many sensors. This is a problem
when carrying a big load, pulling a trailer, or just interested
in not wasting time.
>|and not a car in sight, do you wait or go?
> ^^^
>I certainly hope you are looking for other bicyclists when you are
>cycling.
It was a mistype. I am the product of a car-dominated society,
where "car" is almost a synonym for "road user".
Dan
Matt Boersma
Daniel Connelly <djco...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> I think Peter makes excellent sense. It is those who are addicted to
> rules that have a problem. Perhaps their willingness to follow them
> makes them feel superior. Or perhaps it brings back warm memories of
> being called a "good boy" during early childhood.
"Hello, my name is Matt and I am a ruleaholic." Yep, can't get enough of
those rules and regulations. Gives a warm fuzzy feeling every time I put a
foot down and look both ways at a stop sign in the middle of nowhere. And
even better, I can look down my nose at those greasy outlaws who run
lights.
Give me a break.
I stop at all lights because: 1) It's the law, 2) It's not worth risking my
butt, 3) I expect to be treated as a vehicle, and 4) I'm not a hypocrite.
I'm sure traffic patterns are different where Peter lives, but where you
and I live, Dan, running lights gives cyclists a bad name and gets them
killed.
Hal Duncan
<>pkoo...@euronet.nl (Peter Koopman) writes:
<>
<>>*I* run red lights... all the time... it's not (or not only) sticking
<>>to the rules that makes traffic safe... it's common sens that does.
<>
<>>lights are crazy. No single traffic participant (motorists,
<>>pedestrians, whatever) takes into consideration that a cyclist stops
<>>for traffic lights. Cyclists stop for traffic, not for traffic lights.
<>
<>rest of the world?
<
<If there are clearly no other road users with right of way, what is
<the point of waiting?
Which intersection are you referring to?
Oh, _all_ of them, you say?
No, maybe _not_ all of them -- just the ones where you can clearly see
there are no other road users with right of way, you say. Oh, those.
Hey, I want to do this, too. Now tell me, how many feet do I need to
be able to see in both directions to determine if I can run each red
light? Fifty feet? One hundred feet? What do you mean, it's
different for each intersection?
What if there's a curve in the intersecting road, reducing my view?
What if my path is uphill and I need to allow more time to cross?
What if my judgement of the speed of approaching traffic isn't as
good as yours?
Darn, this is getting difficult. What we _really_ need is a good,
generalized, non-subjective way of determining when it is safe to
cross an intersection, so we can all get wherever we are going that
much faster (and _safer_!).
Oh, that's right. We already have it -- it's called a traffic light.
Hal
--
Hal Duncan - 1996 BMW R1100RT, 1986 Honda CB700SC Nighthawk (wanna buy it?)
and Grace - 1997 BMW F650
and Colin - ain't riding nothin' yet, although we're considering the XR70R
and Aretha - likes to pretend to ride the R1100RT (or just claw the saddle)
Ken Ferschweiler
Daniel Connelly (djco...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: In article <timleeE9...@netcom.com>,
: Timothy J. Lee <see-signature-for-email-address---ads-not-welcome> wrote:
: >|I think the above two posters are not at all in disagreement. The
: >|question is whether on 6am on Sunday morning with clear visibility
: >
: >At such low traffic times, the traffic lights are usually set to
: >on-demand changing.
: 1. In much of the US, traffic sensors are not installed.
: 2. traffic sensors are often placed well back from the intersection,
: making overshooting them easy to do.
They're usually placed just short of the stop line, so if
you've stopped legally, you haven't overshot them (by much).
: 3. Sensors are often in the middle of the lane, making it
: easy to miss from the rightmost portion of the lane.
At 6AM on Sunday morning, you don't really have to hug the curb.
Traffic sensor location is generally pretty obvious to anyone
with a modicum of cycling experience.
: 4. With racing bikes, it often takes special effort, such as
: leaning the bike over, to trip many sensors.
Leaning the bike is an old myth, and is less effective than
simply stopping with the wheels directly atop the most sensitive
part of the sensor (which varies with sensor shape - experienced
cyclists generally know where it is).
========================
Ken Ferschweiler Internet: ken...@cs.orst.edu
Department of Computer Science
Oregon State University
David Casseres
In article <timmcn-0605...@dialup-303.minn.net>, tim...@minn.net
(Tim McNamara) wrote:
> In article <tomkE9q...@netcom.com>, to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
> wrote:
And now these two morons are conducting the ultimate in meaningless Net
debates -- namely a gun debate -- under Jeff Steinwedel's name. Get a
clue, boys, and change the subject line to something "Stupid Irrelevant
Gun Ranting" instead of "Jeff Steinwedel's Death."
--
Cheers,
David
Bill
Matt Boersma <do...@email.me> wrote in article
<01bc5978$4e7fd7c0$99249ecd@pinhead>...
> I think it's a crime that the DA's office refuses to prosecute
Steinwedel's
> murderer. But I also believe all this talk of revenge is misguided.
I don't know if this magazine is all over the place, but in this months
Competitor Magazine ... the editor just about suggests a vigilante group to
deal with un-prosecuted drivers.... even leaves his telephone number and
extension for that purpose. The amount of crap car drivers get away with
(I'm talking serious injuries and death) is way out of line. But I'm not
sure about going after drivers illegally....maybe a legal fund for the
prusuit of civil damages.
I don't know if this would work ... but I do know that just a simple
cleated shoe scrape can result in about $500 of damage to a new car. I
recently had a Rolls Royce do a "open the door on the cyclist" to me ...
even after I had politely "tooted" my horn to make my presence known. I
showed admirable restraint by NOT kicking in the multiple $1000 cost
grill... I'm just a sucker for good workmanship.
Bill
--
If you want to email me, be sure to remove the XX at the end
of my email address. I use this to stop the SPAMMERS.
Thanks.