Jeff Steinwedel's death
Jobst Brandt
From ba.bicycles:
Subject: Charges Dropped in Steinwedel death. [ba.bicycles #7162]
Following is an article by Anne Ng regarding the dropping of charges
in the death of bicyclist Jeffrey Steinwedel. Note, Somehow the DA
got the e-mail confused. Her response indicates she was quoting
e-mail from Tom Proett instead of Jeffrey.
***************************
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
dga...@popmail.lmu.edu
jbr...@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt) wrote:
> (snip)
> 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."
>
Regardless of the e-mail attribution mixup, Smith's opinion reveals a
disturbing proposition:
A statement that a road is dangerous is taken as an admission that the
victim was doing something he shouldn't. I hate to think that if I
mention that my cross-town bike commute is dangerous because of the state
of the roads and the drivers upon it, that I will be unable to seek
compensation from a driver's negligence (for you future attorneys: this
is a hypothetical by me).
If I say that I will probably get killed by some drunk teenager, and then
it happens, would my family be unable to sue because I acknowledged its
possibility?
I'm sure there's a lot more to this, but Smith seems very wrong on this
particular point.
D.Garza
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
David Earls
Jobst Brandt wrote:
>
<snip>
> 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.
>
Unless they rewrote it, the US Constitution says all citizens ARE
innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The truck driver
does not have to prove he's innocent of the allegation any more than
anyone reading this message has to prove his/her innocence in this
matter. Nor does the trucking company. It is the responsibility of the
state to prove guilt. That's the law. You can look it up.
Move on. A tragedy occurs and the Constitution still applies...
David Earls
ste...@ix.netcom.com
Warren Block
dga...@popmail.lmu.edu wrote:
:
: Regardless of the e-mail attribution mixup, Smith's opinion reveals a
: disturbing proposition:
:
: A statement that a road is dangerous is taken as an admission that the
: victim was doing something he shouldn't.
Funny how "she was asking for it" is met with outrage in a rape trial, but
is considered valid when it involves the death of a cyclist, isn't it?
The encouraging part is that public opinion has been (mostly) turned
around in the former situation, which shows that it may be possible to do
the same thing in the latter.
--
-Warren R. Block * Rapid City SD USA
Eric Topp
In article <336034DD...@ix.netcom.com> David Earls,
ste...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>Jobst Brandt wrote:
>>
><snip>
>> 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.
>>
>The above is a quote from an article reproduced by Mr. Brandt.
>
>Unless they rewrote it, the US Constitution says all citizens ARE
>innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The truck driver
>does not have to prove he's innocent of the allegation any more than
>anyone reading this message has to prove his/her innocence in this
>matter. Nor does the trucking company. It is the responsibility of the
>state to prove guilt. That's the law. You can look it up.
There is no doubt about who was driving the truck that stuck Jeff
Steinwedel. There are words to describe a driver who can't pass
a competent cyclist without killing him, but innocent is not
one of them.
>Move on. A tragedy occurs and the Constitution still applies...
The tragedy is compounded when a DA can't muster the nerve
to punish the driver for his carelessness.
Garry Lee
Unfortunately, the law, and in many cases your Constitution, and in many
cases our Constitution is an ass.
If a truck driver kills a cyclist in daylight, in the circumstances
described, he has to have been doing something wrong. Most probably, not
paying attention.
There are no doubt circumstances where drivers just don't spot cyclists or
pedestrians due to physiological factors, such as camouflage effect of
particular clothing, but that hypothesis is easily dealt with.
I've seen a cyclist hit by a motorist in Ireland. He just was not spotted
on this road which had dark green bushes at the side. He was wearing a
black helmet, 7-11 jersey (green black and white), black shoes socks and
tights and was on a black bike. The perfectly respectable middle-aged lady
who struck him from behind (she was stone cold sober) said "he just came
out of nowhere". This phenomenon, which cannot be dismissed, is explained
by how things register in our brain when we look in scanning rather than
focussed mode, analogous to, but opposite to the fact that some animals
don't see you if you don't move.
However, to postulate this you would have to know all the facts.
Otherwise it's negligence.
As I repeat, the law is an ass.
Law is the only profession to have been completely untouched by any effort
at testing its accuracy. If medicine were practiced as law, hospitals would
be charnel houses.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <336034DD...@ix.netcom.com>,
David Earls <ste...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Unless they rewrote it, the US Constitution says all citizens ARE
>innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The truck driver
>does not have to prove he's innocent of the allegation any more than
>anyone reading this message has to prove his/her innocence in this
>matter. Nor does the trucking company. It is the responsibility of the
>state to prove guilt. That's the law. You can look it up.
Jeff Steinwedel was run over by a truck and killed. The truck driver
was responsible for the death and his negligence was murder. Don't
give me that "innocent until proven guilty" crap -- that only works
in a criminal court and is meant to address another problem altogether.
David Earls
And what problem would that be?
Given the vehemence of this post, this writer must have been an
eyewitness to the event. A shame, then, that he foreswore his civic duty
and failed to come forward, to assist the DA in the rightful (and
righteous) prosecution of the truck driver. Obviously ALL of us, this
writer included, would have preferred that course.
Either that or he's speculating about what occurred. Presumably the DA
had access to facts in the case, and came to different conclusion about
prosecution.
The Constitution has something to do with the law, but more to the
point, everything to do with how its framers envisioned a country in
which all men [sic] would be created equal, and all be innocent until
proven guilty. In fact, one might observe that the Constitution was
intended to protect the people from those such as yourself. Those who
convict on the basis of hearsay. Believe it or not, this aspect of the
Constitution PROTECTS YOU TOO.
But perhaps you are this vehement on all forms of injustice. Then, I
say, Bravo for you.
If not, why not?
David Earls
ste...@ix.netcom.com
Jim Harkins
In article <tomkE97...@netcom.com>,
Thomas H. Kunich <to...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Don't
>give me that "innocent until proven guilty" crap -- that only works
>in a criminal court and is meant to address another problem altogether.
Wow. Must be nice to go through life with everything so crystal clear. What
boarding school do I send my kids to so they can have such nifty blinders?
jim
--
"You're full of crap!"
--- A cleansed version of something my girlfriend told me tonight
Jim Harkins jhar...@netcom.com
San Diego, CA.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <3360FDB5...@ix.netcom.com>,
David Earls <ste...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Given the vehemence of this post, this writer must have been an
>eyewitness to the event.
I've got news for you. Anytime a person is killed criminal charges
should be filed unless there is overwhelming evidence that it was
NOT the fault of the person doing the killing.
Eyewitnesses to the event claimed that the conditions were good.
What more do you need to know? If the truck driver turned his
attention from the road for a split second and accidently killed
Jeff, Jeff's family is still without him.
>Either that or he's speculating about what occurred. Presumably the DA
>had access to facts in the case, and came to different conclusion about
>prosecution.
Prosecutors are SUPPOSED to take an oath to protect and defend the
law and also to not prosecute the blameless. My experience with
DA's tells me that their definition of guilty is anyone they can
convict of a crime.
The truck driver was an overtaking vehicle. He was required to
stay clear of the bicyclist OR NOT TO PASS. Jeff Steinwedel is
now dead because that driver CHOSE to not follow that law.
>The Constitution has something to do with the law, but more to the
>point, everything to do with how its framers envisioned a country in
>which all men [sic] would be created equal, and all be innocent until
>proven guilty.
Answer me this: if all men are innocent until proven guilty how is
anyone ever charged in a court of law? Obviously someone in this
system needs to make a personal determination that the charged party
is guilty of something.
The framers of the Constitution didn't write a document that was
purely idealistic, they knew very well that the law must assume
that someone is guilty. It is the _Judge_and_Jury_ that must assume
that the man is innocent until proven guilty. It is the prosecutors
business to ASSUME the guilt of the accused and to prove it in open
court.
But Steinwedel is being denied this postumous right. Hell, why not?
It's just another human body right?
Matt O'Toole
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in article
<5jnumf$6...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com>...
> Margo Smith of the District Attorney's office made the decision.
Remember the name, when she tries to run for DA.
> 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
Why should she be free from scrutiny?
> 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.
I think her moral obligation to pursue justice overrides the risk of losing
a case.
> 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."
This is outrageous. While all roads have danger present in varying
degress, this isn't the issue. It is the truck driver's responsibilty to
remain alert for and avoid hitting whoever else is on the road, be it
another truck, a car, or a bicyclist.
If the truck driver had hit someone's cow while driving in Mexico, he'd
still be in jail.
Matt O.
Ken Ferschweiler
David Earls (ste...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Unless they rewrote it, the US Constitution says all citizens ARE
: innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Let's not confuse "is presumed innocent" with "is innocent". The
perpetrator is guilty as soon as he commits the crime, regardless
of what the court presumes.
========================
Ken Ferschweiler Internet: ken...@cs.orst.edu
Department of Computer Science
Oregon State University
Jobst Brandt
David Earls writes:
> Given the vehemence of this post, this writer must have been an
> eyewitness to the event. A shame, then, that he foreswore his civic duty
> and failed to come forward, to assist the DA in the rightful (and
> righteous) prosecution of the truck driver. Obviously ALL of us, this
> writer included, would have preferred that course.
I don't know where Tom got his opinion on this, it may be from the
same place I got mine. I have been attacked by truck drivers that I
successfully avoided because I knew the plan was to run the second
trailer over me and say "I didn't see him". I caught up with such
drivers, who then substantiated that they tried to "get" me and then
called me all the derogatory names that come to macho truckers minds.
> Either that or he's speculating about what occurred. Presumably the DA
> had access to facts in the case, and came to different conclusion about
> prosecution.
I doubt it. The events were discussed here on the net at great
length, and about 100 riders turned out for a memorial ride to the
scene of the crime. At this place in the road, a bicycle and truck of
that kind would easily be traveling at about the same speed, a
condition that makes the "I didn't see him" defense an obvious lie.
The wide road also indicates a willfulness in the incident.
That Jeff's prior mentioning the danger of truckers, as being a strike
against him, is what brings up the question of guilt. I have always
stated that rude drivers anywhere are a hazard to life and described
their tactics in detail. Therefore, if you run me down fatally, you
are in the clear because, I knew I was putting my life at risk, in the
words of the DA. That is the problem with this case, the presumption
that the bicyclist was at fault for having ridden a bicycle.
> But perhaps you are this vehement on all forms of injustice. Then, I
> say, Bravo for you.
The many bicycle riders who share the opinion, that all bicycling is
dangerous and you deserve what happens, is appalling. They voiced
their opinions here at the time of Jeff's death. They talked about
more helmet instruction, hand signals, brightly colored vests, rear
view mirrors, and a slew of other things a rider should do to unburden
motor traffic of having to watch for bicyclists.
This is truly the epitome of "Bicycling in America", as is state in my
article of that name.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Jack Dingler
Before everyone gets too hot about this topic, let's not forget that the
truck driver was not drunk. Only a drunk driver is considered
responsible for his actions. A sober driver is not responisible for his
behaviour, and so, would not be convicted of any crime involving a motor
vehicle.
In the eyes of the law, we can choose whether we drink and drive, but we
can't choose to drive safely when sober.
--
* 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?
wayn...@mhv.net
Thomas H. Kunich wrote:
>
> In article <336034DD...@ix.netcom.com>,
> David Earls <ste...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Unless they rewrote it, the US Constitution says all citizens ARE
> >innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The truck driver
> >does not have to prove he's innocent of the allegation any more than
> >anyone reading this message has to prove his/her innocence in this
> >matter. Nor does the trucking company. It is the responsibility of the
> >state to prove guilt. That's the law. You can look it up.
>
> Jeff Steinwedel was run over by a truck and killed. The truck driver
> was responsible for the death and his negligence was murder. Don't
> give me that "innocent until proven guilty" crap -- that only works
> in a criminal court and is meant to address another problem altogether.
Well, I believe in biking and biker's rights and I believe in the constitution. I
believe in driving and in driver's rights and responsibilities. I believe in the
"innocent until proven guilty" "crap" Mr. Kunich refers to. I believe in the right to
sue for redress in civil court when one is injured.
"Innocent until proven guilty" has worked (though with some regrettable failures,) for a
good number of years. "Guilty, because Thomas H. Kunich, in his infinite wisdom, has
declared you a murderer" has not yet caught on in the U.S. or most other judicial
systems of which I'm aware. Trial by newsgroup? Trial by a "partial" jury of your
victims peers in a special interest newsgroup? Scary thought, no?
I know little of the actual circumstances this accident and would probably be a good
candidate for juror in a case if one was ever brought. Having had family members
involved on both ends of the fatal accident scene, as defendant and "the estate of" as
plaintiff, I feel qualified to say that accusing one of murder should be taken as a
serious responsibility.
I had a childhood friend who accidentally killed a neighbor child in a playground
tragedy. I had a brother run over by a drunk driver. I had a sister involved in an
accident in which a child was killed in the other car. I had a friend killed after
riding a bicycle into the path of an oncoming car. Who of them should I call a murderer?
Who am I to judge? I hope Mr. Kunich doesn't have similar situations occur in his life.
I hope he never accidentally hurts another. It makes it hard to be militant. It makes it
hard to judge. It makes it hard to condemn. Why should he even want to? It makes it so
sad and confusing.
Wayne
redmist
Another example of our F'd up legal system. Makes me sick.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in article
<5jnumf$6...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com>...
James Bernthal
Thomas H. Kunich <to...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<tomkE97...@netcom.com>...
> I've got news for you. Anytime a person is killed criminal charges
> should be filed unless there is overwhelming evidence that it was
> NOT the fault of the person doing the killing.
In an accident I initially investigated several years ago, a woman was
driving with her infant in a car seat in the front passenger seat. A spider
began to descend a web from the visor of the car down towards the baby's
head. The mother saw it and reached over to grab the spider to keep it from
her baby. Unfortunately in doing so she also pulled the steering wheel to
the left causing her car to go into the oncoming lane. She quickly tried to
correct but was not fast enough and ended up striking a motorcyclist head
on. The motorcyclist was killed. I don't think anyone would argue that this
was a not tragic situation or that the accident wasn't the mother's fault.
However filing criminal charges would have accomplished nothing. Would it
give the motorcyclist's family comfort knowing that a good mother and wife
was doing time? I doubt it. I understand your outrage but there is often
more to fatal accidents than your statement implies.
This really has nothing to do with Jeff's death as the circumstances there
appear quite different. There may be more to the story than any of us here
realize but I believe the Prosecutor's Office is doing a disservice by
hiding the reasons for not at least filing hit and run charges.
--
James Bernthal - Everett, WA
bern...@earthlink.net
Peter J. Laszcz
> However filing criminal charges would have accomplished nothing.
Filing criminal charges against the mother would accomplish a lot
Filing criminal charges would send a signal to all mothers that they should
stop their car safely before they risk peoples lives. If you arrest enough
criminal drivers like this mother and have them do time, then maybe others
will think twice before they divert their attention from driving.
She is not a good mother...She valued having her baby be spared having a
spider land on her over someones life.
This was not an accident, like her tire blew out or something. She made a
conscious decision to distract herself while driving a car and because of
it, some one is dead...No more of an accident than a drunk driver-
James Bernthal <bern...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<01bc51d8$59404020$9f842299@micron>...
>. A spider
> began to descend a web from the visor of the car down towards the baby's
> head. The mother saw it and reached over to grab the spider to keep it
from
> her baby. Unfortunately in doing so she also pulled the steering wheel to
> the left causing her car to go into the oncoming lane. She quickly tried
to
> correct but was not fast enough and ended up striking a motorcyclist head
> on. The motorcyclist was killed. I don't think anyone would argue that
this
> was a not tragic situation or that the accident wasn't the mother's
fault.
> However filing criminal charges would have accomplished nothing. Would it
> give the motorcyclist's family comfort knowing that a good mother and
wife
> was doing time? I doubt it. I understand your outrage but there is often
> more to fatal accidents than your statement implies.
Garry Lee
From what Jobst Brandt has written on this, this is an appalling case.
Why don't all you American cyclists get T shirts made with some insult to
this DA printed on it?
The one thing all public figures cannot stand is adverse publicity.
Ken Kifer
Jobst Brandt wrote:
> The many bicycle riders who share the opinion, that all bicycling is
> dangerous and you deserve what happens, is appalling. They voiced
> their opinions here at the time of Jeff's death. They talked about
> more helmet instruction, hand signals, brightly colored vests, rear
> view mirrors, and a slew of other things a rider should do to unburden
> motor traffic of having to watch for bicyclists.
> This is truly the epitome of "Bicycling in America", as is state in my
> article of that name.
I told a Black friend of mine one time that I understood prejudice
because I ride a bicycle. I said, "You probably have not had anyone try
to kill you, just because you were Black, but I have had people try to
kill me, just because I was riding a bicycle." He replied, "At least
you can get off the bicycle any time you want to."
The hidden reason why some people say the roads are unsafe, and we need
separate bike paths may be because they can't bear being treated as
second class citizens or it may be because they share those beliefs
themselves.
I moved to Alabama while the hate and violence against Blacks was still
strong; I watched it intensify and finally die. In some ways,
segregation is worse today than thirty years ago, but the hate is dead,
and the lost of opportunities is greatly diminished.
Cyclists have also had to fight for equal status. I really believed
that we would have the same kind of success, and in many ways we have.
However, during the 80's, I saw a great shift. The magazines and
organizations changed their safety message. The new bike riders no
longer believed in our principles or our goals. I am afraid, as a
result, that everything we have won will be lost.
Some of the people who reacted may have had another idea. I have stated
fairly strongly that it takes two people to have an accident, and that
99% of accidents are avoidable. But I have also said that you don't
blame the victim. Safety suggestions are good ideas, but they were
entirely inappropriate there.
You know the way a lot of people see it, if the cyclist hadn't been
there, the "accident" wouldn't have happened; therefore, it was the
cyclist's fault. They tend to sympathize with the motorist the same way
men often identify with the rapist.
The recourse, when the law won't act, is to file a lawsuit.
I would like to read your article.
David Earls
Jobst Brandt wrote:
>
> David Earls writes:
>
> > Given the vehemence of this post, this writer must have been an
> > eyewitness to the event. A shame, then, that he foreswore his civic duty
> > and failed to come forward, to assist the DA in the rightful (and
> > righteous) prosecution of the truck driver. Obviously ALL of us, this
> > writer included, would have preferred that course.
>
> I don't know where Tom got his opinion on this, it may be from the
> same place I got mine. I have been attacked by truck drivers that I
> successfully avoided because I knew the plan was to run the second
> trailer over me and say "I didn't see him". I caught up with such
> drivers, who then substantiated that they tried to "get" me and then
> called me all the derogatory names that come to macho truckers minds.
Now if someone reported a factual conclusion about the superiority of
tubulars(clinchers) over clinchers(tubulars) based on similar anecdotal
evidence, my guess is your reaction would be different.
The court system is bound by rules, much like the insights Mr Brandt has
shared so freely with readers of this group over the years that are
based on scientific fact.
>
> > Either that or he's speculating about what occurred. Presumably the DA
> > had access to facts in the case, and came to different conclusion about
> > prosecution.
>
> I doubt it. The events were discussed here on the net at great
> length, and about 100 riders turned out for a memorial ride to the
> scene of the crime. At this place in the road, a bicycle and truck of
> that kind would easily be traveling at about the same speed, a
> condition that makes the "I didn't see him" defense an obvious lie.
> The wide road also indicates a willfulness in the incident.
>
Mr. Brandt has also repeatedly reminded us that simply because an idea
is repeated often on this or any other newsgroup DOES NOT MAKE IT FACT.
> That Jeff's prior mentioning the danger of truckers, as being a strike
> against him, is what brings up the question of guilt. I have always
> stated that rude drivers anywhere are a hazard to life and described
> their tactics in detail. Therefore, if you run me down fatally, you
> are in the clear because, I knew I was putting my life at risk, in the
> words of the DA. That is the problem with this case, the presumption
> that the bicyclist was at fault for having ridden a bicycle.
>
> > But perhaps you are this vehement on all forms of injustice. Then, I
> > say, Bravo for you.
>
> The many bicycle riders who share the opinion, that all bicycling is
> dangerous and you deserve what happens, is appalling. They voiced
> their opinions here at the time of Jeff's death. They talked about
> more helmet instruction, hand signals, brightly colored vests, rear
> view mirrors, and a slew of other things a rider should do to unburden
> motor traffic of having to watch for bicyclists.
>
I do not subscribe to the idea that _you get what you deserve_. I do
believe cycling is dangerous. It doesn't stop me from riding my bicycle.
I'm not trying to be obtuse about this. I am simply pointing out the
flaw in the basic premise of the argument, i.e., that the DA decided not
to try the case because the injured party was a cyclist. The DA is an
officer of the court, charged to prove guilt. The DA is not permitted to
be judge and jury.
I have been a cyclist since the age of five, and done about 99% of all
my riding on city streets. I have learned to respect the automobile,
though it occasionally enrages me just as much as it enrages everyone
else involved in this thread. I've been rousted, honked at, run off the
road, yelled at, had (it seems) everything that can fit through a car
window thrown at me. It's not pretty out there. No argument on that one
from me.
However, I disagree with the premise that the DA "tried" and truck
driver and found him not guilty. That simply isn't the way the court
system works.
David Earls
ste...@ix.netcom.com
Henrik Münster
James Bernthal <bern...@earthlink.net> skrev:
> In an accident I initially investigated several years ago, a woman was
> driving with her infant in a car seat in the front passenger seat. A spider
> began to descend a web from the visor of the car down towards the baby's
> head. The mother saw it and reached over to grab the spider to keep it from
> her baby. Unfortunately in doing so she also pulled the steering wheel to
> the left causing her car to go into the oncoming lane. She quickly tried to
> correct but was not fast enough and ended up striking a motorcyclist head
> on. The motorcyclist was killed. I don't think anyone would argue that this
> was a not tragic situation or that the accident wasn't the mother's fault.
> However filing criminal charges would have accomplished nothing.
Would you feel the same way, if the accident had been caused by
a big beer-drinking guy in a pick-up truck trying to turn up the car
radio to hear the football results? You probably would, but you
shouldn't. Miss Justitia is blind, you know.
Being a mother and having a small child to take care of is
hardly an excuse to keep you out of jail after killing someone. Nor is
it an excuse for taking your eyes of the road and going over in the
opposite lane. Had it been a rattle-snake approaching the child, it
would have been a different matter, but a spider is not a dangerous
animal. All people men or women, parents or not, ought to stay alert and
look at the road while driving.
> Would it give the motorcyclist's family comfort knowing that a good mother
> and wife was doing time? I doubt it. I understand your outrage but there
> is often more to fatal accidents than your statement implies.
Why is it different just because she is a woman with a child?
Men have children too, but perhaps you think, that they do not deserve
to be punished either?
When convicts do time, it never brings back the person they
killed, but it keeps them of the streets and gives them time to think.
(And it is some kind of revenge). I know prison isn't a good solution,
but is there any better? I don't like death sentences.
Henrik Münster
Tim McNamara
The problem for the DA is that she cna only proceed to court in cases
where the evidence is likely to be able to produce a conviction. She no
doubt feels that the evidence in this case is not strong enough to secure
a conviction for the truck driver; she would have to be able to prove
either malicious intent or criminal negligence. The DA must not feel she
ha adequate objective evidence to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.
Such a decision by the DA *does not* carry the implication of innocence
(or guilt)- it is only a comment on the strength of the available
evidence.
Some of the previous posters seem to be of the opinion that the trucker
deliberately ran Jeff down and killed him. There is no proof of this, but
that truck driver has to live with the fact that he caused the death of a
bicyclist, husband and father. Seems to me that this is already a
significant punishment.
Tim
--
Reach out your hand if your cup is empty;
if your cup is full, may it be again.
-Robert Hunter
beta
This DA seems to be confusing tort law with motor vehicle/criminal law.
She seems to be invoking a comparative negligence argument to support the
drivers actions as reasonable under the circumstances. She should be
enforcing the criminal or motor vehicle statute. It definitely looks like
victim blaming.
Guy Jeffress
Warren Block <wbl...@rapidnet.com> wrote in article
<5jp995$c...@lacy.zippo.com>...
Rex van der Riet
kudos to tim mcnamara's reasoned post. I think that someone should post
the facts: that is was it hit-and-run? , or negligence? , or what? ....I
am not sure who would have this info - perhaps the DA's synopsis and the
police department accident report would be reliable in a factual
sense....
--rex
Tom James
On Sat, 26 Apr 1997, David Earls wrote:
> I do not subscribe to the idea that _you get what you deserve_. I do
> believe cycling is dangerous. It doesn't stop me from riding my bicycle.
But why is cycling dangerous? Short of the risk of flying over a
precipice on a mountain descent (rare, as it happens), then by far the
greatest danger faced by cyclists is being hit by a motor vehicle. Were
there no motor vehicles, cycling would not be a dangerous activity, that
is, it is not an inherently dangerous mode of transport in itself. That
said, the onus on reducing cycling fatalities should lie very largely
with teaching motorists how to drive and - preferably - cutting the
number of motor vehicles on the road. Yet always the trend is "wear a
helmet/ wear refelective clothing/ don't cycle on main roads/ build more
cycle tracks". That is, the answer always seems to be for cyclists to go
further and further out of their ways to accomodate motorists, rather
than for motorists to take more responsibility for their actions. Hell, I
don't want a 42 million pound cycle track the length and breadth of
Britain, I just want to be able to take my rightful place on the roads in
safety.
Tom
(Note I'm speaking in general terms, and don't want to comment on the
specifics of this case)
Jobst Brandt
Garry Lee writes:
> Unfortunately, the law, and in many cases your Constitution, and in many
> cases our Constitution is an ass.
The expression is "the Constitution is A ass" in the classic quote.
> If a truck driver kills a cyclist in daylight, in the circumstances
> described, he has to have been doing something wrong. Most probably, not
> paying attention.
I beg your pardon. What is "most probably" here. As I said, the road
was wide, the speed of the bicyclist was about that of the truck (so
he didn't suddenly come upon a bicyclist) and these macho drivers have
often expressed to bicyclists threats of death if they "get in my
way". ...most probably, my ass!
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Jobst Brandt
Eric Topp writes:
> The tragedy is compounded when a DA can't muster the nerve to punish
> the driver for his carelessness.
"carelessness"! What? I don't think you understand the state of
affairs with truckers of this persuasion. You have obviously not
confronted one and heard the exact intent. It's like the "lunch pail"
defense (Dwight Crowder r.i.p.) or the cassette recorder defense (four
riders in Gilroy r.i.p) where the driver admitted approaching the
bicycle(s) and bending down below the dashboard to retrieve the fallen
item. When he came up, he had run over the bicyclist.
Now just put yourself in that position and imagine how you could do
that and use it as a defense. In these incidents it worked.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Jobst Brandt
Ken Kifer writes:
> You know the way a lot of people see it, if the cyclist hadn't been
> there, the "accident" wouldn't have happened; therefore, it was the
> cyclist's fault. They tend to sympathize with the motorist the same
> way men often identify with the rapist.
Please use the word "incident". It was not an accident.
> I would like to read your article.
From the FAQ:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: 6.1 Bicycling in America
From: Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
(or How to survive on a bicycle)
In America (USA), bicycling appears to be an unacceptable activity for
adults. It is viewed as a pastime reserved for children (people who
are not old enough to drive cars). Adults who sense that they are
violating this stricture, excuse their bicycling by representing it as
the pursuit of physical fitness by referring to their bicycling as
training rides. Rarely is a cyclist heard to say "we were bicycling"
but rather "we were on a training ride". Certainly most of these
people never race although one might assume, by implication, that
their other rides are races for which they are training. Some also
refer to themselves as serious cyclists, a term used to describe those
who, typically, keep track of pedaling cadence and other bicycling
statistics, thereby giving proof that they are not engaged in child's
play.
In contrast, Europeans seem able to accept bicycling as a proper
activity for all ages. That is to say, motorists do not treat
bicyclists with apartheid and bicyclists do not feel the need to
justify their pursuit as anything other than bicycling, for whatever
reason. In Europe cadence on speedometers is an un-marketable
function for unexplained reasons, however, one could imagine that for
the average cyclist it is a useless statistic, except for those on
"training rides".
With this perception of bicycling in America, non cyclists and some
occasional cyclists are offended by others who bicycle on public roads
in the midst of automobile traffic. "Get the f#%k off the road!" and
similar epithets are offered by drivers, some of whose cars are
equipped with bike racks. Similar to gay bashing, it expresses public
outrage to demonstrate abhorrence of unacceptable behavior. The same
is true of bicyclists who deride others in public for not wearing a
helmet. Aggressive self righteousness is probably a fitting
description.
Another motive behind such behavior may be a sense of dissatisfaction
with ones life. Anyone who is perceived as having fun, or at least
more fun than oneself, needs to be brought down a notch.
Psychologists who have interviewed youths that go "wilding" have
gotten responses to the effect that "my life is terrible and I can't
stand people who are having fun". So these youths attack others and
beat them bloody. In a manner that may not make sense to others, they
bring their victims down a notch to achieve parity.
There is little doubt that bicycling has its hazards. You can fall by
running into a pothole or an obstacle, by riding into a grating, or
falling on loose gravel or a slick manhole cover. There are enough
hazards without being being made a target by motor vehicles. However,
the sport loses much of its appeal when motorists, who believe that
adult bicycling is offensive, actively engage in making it a deadly
endeavor.
The scenario:
In a typical encounter a driver says to his passenger "You see that
guy on the bicycle? That's a dangerous place to ride." while slicing
within inches of the cyclist. The passenger is truly impressed with
the danger of bicycling, especially in the presence of this driver.
I don't understand how drivers justify such behavior but I think I
know what is going on.
Examples:
o The buzz and swerve routine:
A driver slices dangerously close even though there is no opposing
traffic. Then he drifts to the edge of the pavement to make clear how
far he went out of his way for the cyclist. The implication is that
the desired path was nearer the road shoulder it was than at the
passing point. The buzz and swerve is executed equally well
consciously and subconsciously.
o Center court, extra point:
The car, on a visibly empty stretch of road, travels perfectly
centered between the median and edge stripes, even when this requires
passing within inches of a bicyclist. The driver appears to award
himself points for not flinching when passing cyclists, and extra
points for proximity. In the event of a collision it is, of course,
the cyclist who swerved unexpectedly. The precision with which the
driver executes this maneuver, in spite of the danger, makes the
center court game conspicuous. People generally don't drive exactly
centered in a lane, especially when there is a hazard.
o Honk and slice:
The buzz and swerve or center court routine can be enhanced by honking
a single one second blast. This is usually done at a far greater
distance than a sincere warning toot; about 200 yards works best.
This is a great crutch for the driver who subsequently collides with
the cyclist. "But I warned him!"
o The trajectory intercept:
A car is traveling on a road that crosses the cyclists path at right
angles. The car and bike are equally distant from the intersection
but at greatly different speeds. With skill, the driver of the car
can slow down at a rate that lets him arrive at the intersection at
precisely the same time as the cyclist. The bicyclist who has a stop
sign may now come to a complete stop and wait for the driver who is
only looking out for the cyclist's safety. If the cyclist doesn't
stop, the driver honks and yells something about breaking the law.
Extra points are gained by offering the right of way to the cyclist,
in spite of crossing traffic in the adjacent lanes.
o The contrived hindrance:
A driver refuses to pass a cyclist even though he is outside the edge
strip on the shoulder of the two lane road. Finally when his
passenger asks how much longer they must follow this bicyclist, or
until the following cars begin to honk, regardless of visibility or
oncoming traffic, an inopportune pass is executed. Subsequently,
following drivers make it clear when passing, that the cyclist was
responsible for a near collision.
o The rear-ender:
While riding down a mountain road, the cyclist catches up with a car
that notices his rapid approach. If an oncoming car approaches the
driver slows down, obviously for safety sake, and then suddenly slams
on the brakes when there is no place for the cyclist to go. Bicycles
cannot stop as fast as cars since cars can safely skid the front
wheels but bicycles can't. This game is the more dangerous variation
of speeding up every time the cyclist tries to pass but to drive as
slowly as possible everywhere else.
One explanation for these maneuvers is that the driver recalls that
riding in the mountains was always too hard and riding down hill was
scary. This cyclist can't do what I couldn't do and I'll show him a
thing or two. Thus the driver proves to himself that he did not ride
in the hills for safety's sake, it had nothing to do with physical
ability. It fits into the " I'll teach that smartass a lesson. There
is little risk for the car because in a rear-end collision the vehicle
behind is, with few exceptions, found at fault, and cars generally do
not get damaged by such a bump.
So why does all this go on and on?
It is not as though they are all hostile drivers; some are just
frustrated drivers. They may still be getting even for some bicycle
accident they had in their youth and don't want others to get off any
easier. Some are angry at having to spend the time behind the wheel
while other "irresponsible adults" are playing on their bicycles. I
believe the meanest ones are insecure people who don't feel as though
they are accomplishing what they expect of themselves and don't like
to see others have it any better. Many drivers believe that the only
part of the road to which a bicyclist is entitled is the road
shoulder, unless it occurs to the driver to use that part too.
A bike rack on a car may lead you to believe that the driver has a pro
bicycle attitude. Some people use bike racks to transport family
bicycles to a park where they can be ridden safely without venturing
onto dangerous roads; roads that are meant for cars. Among these
people are some of the strongest opponents of general bicycling. They
take refuge in the belief that, if they should run you down while
playing center court, it would prove that you should bicycle as they
do, and not get in the way of cars.
What to do? Don't fuel the flames. Don't return the rudeness that is
dished out. Take legal action where appropriate (and possible).
Don't posture in traffic drawing attention to some undefined
superiority to people who sit in cars. Don't balance on your bike or
ride in circles in front of cars waiting at a red light. Don't make
moves in traffic that are either discourteous, or at best, awkward but
legal. If you hear loud knobby tires coming, believe it! That guy in
the extra tall pickup truck with the all terrain tires, dual roll bars
and multiple searchlights is not a friend of yours coming close to say
hello. Give him room.
------------------------------
madcycle
Jobst Brandt wrote:
<snip>
> I don't understand how drivers justify such behavior but I think I
> know what is going on.
>
> Examples:
>
Wait, I have a new one:
-Sneak and bite
In this one the driver stops beside you at a stoplight, opens the side
window, and lets his huge dog bark and snap within an inch of your head.
Usually this is done by a male with a female companion in the car.
Happened to me the other day... Can anyone recommend a good pepper
spray?
R R M Tweek
madcycle <"madcycle-please remove this-"@interlog.com> wrote:
>
>In this one the driver stops beside you at a stoplight, opens the side
>window, and lets his huge dog bark and snap within an inch of your head.
>Usually this is done by a male with a female companion in the car.
>
>Happened to me the other day... Can anyone recommend a good pepper
>spray?
How about a high-frequency (ultrasonic) variable oscilator with
some sort of pizo transducer... vary the frequency till the dog
pulls his head back inside the car while still barking... in pain.
--
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
Matt O'Toole
Rex van der Riet <re...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<336272...@sympatico.ca>...
Good idea. I think a picture of the scene would be helpful too. The
difficulty in proving the case may have to do with the road conditions at
the site. It's one situation if the truck was travelling along an open
stretch of straight road with wide shoulders and plenty of clearance all
around, but another if the cyclist was hit as the truck came around a blind
curve on a narrow road, and was driving "normally" at the time. I do
believe the driver is morally and legally at fault in either instance.
However, the DA's reluctance to pursue the case may be less egregious under
certain circmstances.
District attorneys are under pressure to make the best use of public
resources, and prioritize their efforts so the public good is best served.
With limited resources available, they are not inclined to spend too much
time on traffic accidents, no matter how tragic, if the streets are rife
with murderous thugs. On the other hand, it's easy to see how a lawyer's
career could be like a professional boxer's, where it's better to pack
one's resume with certain victories, and the smart player doesn't risk
losing. It is up to us, the public, to make sure our government officials
are doing their job as they should.
So, let's see the evidence ourselves, and try to figure out why this woman
is refusing to fight. Even if this battle is lost, the knowledge gained
may help us in the future, the next time a cyclist is killed by a careless
motorist.
Matt O.
Garry Lee
>
> I beg your pardon. What is "most probably" here.
If you're going to correct my language, Jobst, I'm going to correct yours.
We end questions with question marks.
As I said, the road
> was wide, the speed of the bicyclist was about that of the truck (so
> he didn't suddenly come upon a bicyclist) and these macho drivers have
> often expressed to bicyclists threats of death if they "get in my
> way". ...most probably, my ass!
>
My post, which you feel so free to savage, was written the day before you
mentioned the above details. If you persist in your attitude I'll tell the
internet that your book is a ballocks (bollox, bollicks etc.)!
I can't help it if your truck drivers are deranged. Ours are domesticated.
Peter J. Laszcz
Whether he did it intentionally or not should only be a factor in deciding
whether he gets life in prison (deliberate) or 10-20 "accidental"...
If you start handing out tough sentences for automobile "accidents"..people
will be more careful or the ones that can't won't be driving cars while in
their cells.
I hardly consider having to live with the fact that he caused a death to be
punishment.
People used to treat DWI the same way till recently. It's time to hold
people accountable for their actions.
Lock em up.
Tim McNamara <tim...@minn.net> wrote in article
<timmcn-2604...@dialup-119.minn.net>...
Dion Dock
> 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
> jury beyond a reasonable doubt either exactly what happened or what
> 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."
What kind of district attorney doesn't file charges because a person
knows there is a problem?
"The victim knew the assailant was going to harm him,
therefore he is at fault for not defending himself."
-dion
David Casseres
In article <33622216...@ix.netcom.com>, David Earls
<ste...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I'm not trying to be obtuse about this. I am simply pointing out the
> flaw in the basic premise of the argument, i.e., that the DA decided not
> to try the case because the injured party was a cyclist. The DA is an
> officer of the court, charged to prove guilt. The DA is not permitted to
> be judge and jury.
>
> I have been a cyclist since the age of five, and done about 99% of all
> my riding on city streets. I have learned to respect the automobile,
> though it occasionally enrages me just as much as it enrages everyone
> else involved in this thread. I've been rousted, honked at, run off the
> road, yelled at, had (it seems) everything that can fit through a car
> window thrown at me. It's not pretty out there. No argument on that one
> from me.
>
> However, I disagree with the premise that the DA "tried" and truck
> driver and found him not guilty. That simply isn't the way the court
> system works.
So, how do you think it would have gone if a pedestrian had been run over
and killed by a gravel truck, and the truck driver was found and clearly
identified, and said "I didn't see him"?
--
Cheers,
David
Tim McNamara
In article <3364E5...@mentorg.com>, dion...@mentorg.com wrote:
> What kind of district attorney doesn't file charges because a person
> knows there is a problem?
A District Attorney who doesn't think she has a case, perhaps? A DA who
has to *prove beyond reasonable doubt* that the driver was either
homicidal, dangerous, or criminally negligent according to the definitions
of law? And a DA who doesn't have the *evidence* to prove that the
situation wasn't just an accident, wasn't just pilot error on the part of
the bicyclist, wasn't just wind draft knocking him into the side of the
truck, etc.? *ANY* of those claims would be a likely and plausible
defence- the DA would have to be able to PROVE otherwise in order to be
able to secure a conviction. She has to be able to convince the judge or
jury that Jeff didn't die by accident.
As I said before- and I would like to hear the opinions of readers who
actually are lawyers, I know there are a few in this newgroup on occasion-
the facts as we assume or "know" them to be are not necesarily the same
facts that can be proved in a court of law.
There is a paranoid attitude among some of the posters in this thread that
the "car drivers are out to get us" and that drivers would feel nothing if
they happened to kill us. Bullshit! *Very* few people are as bad as that
(although they are certainly out there), even though many if not most
drivers don't have a clue about how to share the road with bicyclists.
(For that matter, many if not most bicyclists don't seem to have a clue as
to sharing the road with drivers, either).
Like the rest of us, my 5,000+ bicycling miles a year exposes me to more
on-the-road dangers than I like, including yay-hoo drivers, louts and
idiots, loose dogs, road debris... and a few idiots on bikes doing their
level best to bring down everyone they are riding with. I'm angry about
the situation, I wish it was different and sometimes I'd love to take it
out on someone. I'd get a vicarious pleasure from reading that the
trucker driving the truck that killed Jeff S. was tried and convicted of
something- manslaughter, criminal negligence, whatever. Even failure to
yield the right of way. But I also know that no matter what I believe
about the situation, what can be proved in court may not be the heart of
the truth. A lot of people go free from court for lack of adequate proof.
Tim
--
Don't cry now, don't you cry, dry your eyes
on the wind.
-Robert Hunter
Jobst Brandt
Dr. David Martin writes:
> There are two questions here.
> Who was to blame for the accident?
> If the driver then was there any predetermination on his part?
> The DA's lack of progression may be that she cannot show (beyond
> reasonable doubt) that the accident was the fault of the truck
> driver. This requires evidence showing that Jeff did not suddenly
> change direction/fall off etc. in front of the truck wheels and that
> the driver came too close. This is hard to prove in the absence of
> any other witnesses.
There is probably sufficient evidence to show that the trucker pulled
up abreast of the rider and then crowded him with the trailer, the
rear wheels of which ran over him at the edge of the pavement where he
and his bicycle were crushed. The basis for this lack of prosecution
seems to arise from the prevalent concept that drivers are not held
responsible for bicyclists they claim not to have seen, especially if
contact occurs at the side or rear of the vehicle. The "I didn't see
him" defense is well and working.
> The second question determines the difference between manslaughter and
> murder. (the question of intention).
> My gut feeling is that the DA is stuck on the first question. If that
> could be resolved then the prosecution would result in a conviction for
> one or the other crime.
As I said, such truckers have said to my face that next time they
won't miss. Others have said "look victims, lets get 'em" as they
stood around their pickup trucks drinking beer, as we rode by. This is
not something new. High school types who have this same bent, throw
eggs or spit on riders as thy roar by closely. It has a great
similarity with gay bashing and I believe is done for the same reasons.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Jay Allen
On Sun, 27 Apr 1997, R R M Tweek wrote:
> Date: Sun, 27 APR 1997 16:54:31 GMT
> From: R R M Tweek <tw...@netcom.com>
> Newgroups: rec.bicycles.misc, rec.bicycles.rides, rec.bicycles.tech,
> rec.bicycles.racing
> Subject: Re: Jeff Steinwedel's death
>
> madcycle <"madcycle-please remove this-"@interlog.com> wrote:
> >
> >In this one the driver stops beside you at a stoplight, opens the side
> >window, and lets his huge dog bark and snap within an inch of your head.
> >Usually this is done by a male with a female companion in the car.
> >
> >Happened to me the other day... Can anyone recommend a good pepper
> >spray?
>
> How about a high-frequency (ultrasonic) variable oscilator with
> some sort of pizo transducer... vary the frequency till the dog
> pulls his head back inside the car while still barking... in pain.
[.sig .snip]
You missed the point! The pepper spray is for the driver!
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <01bc51d8$59404020$9f842299@micron>,
James Bernthal <bern...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I understand your outrage but there is often
>more to fatal accidents than your statement implies.
The true ugliness of this incident is that there is NOTHING more
to this fatal accident than has been stated. Do you not understand
the problem? Jeff was riding legally down the road. A truck overtook
and passed him and then pulled in too soon and killed him without
even knowing! This same truck was only going a short distance more before
pulling into the quarry if I understand it correctly. To save scant seconds
the truck driver was WILLING to take the chance with someone else's
life.
Is this the type of person you want driving a large dangerous vehicle
around your children?
Outrage? You criticize MY outrage? Where is yours? Have you all
grown so blind and stupid that even murder has no meaning to you?
Have you watched TV so much that life has lost any meanning it may
have had to you?
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <01bc51b1$577e7da0$2eca...@Pmatt.deltanet.com>,
Matt O'Toole <ma...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>I think her moral obligation to pursue justice overrides the risk of losing
>a case.
Amen.
>If the truck driver had hit someone's cow while driving in Mexico, he'd
>still be in jail.
And the common person would be upset. Here a man with a wife and family
is killed by carelessness and people hardly notice.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <timmcn-2804...@dialup-200.minn.net>,
Tim McNamara <tim...@minn.net> wrote:
>A District Attorney who doesn't think she has a case, perhaps? A DA who
>has to *prove beyond reasonable doubt* that the driver was either
>homicidal, dangerous, or criminally negligent according to the definitions
>of law?
You don't know anything about the law at all, do you? The truck was
PASSING Jeff, pulled over and killed him. It is illegal to pass where
there isn't room and criminally negligent to do so.
>And a DA who doesn't have the *evidence* to prove that the
>situation wasn't just an accident, wasn't just pilot error on the part of
>the bicyclist, wasn't just wind draft knocking him into the side of the
>truck, etc.? *ANY* of those claims would be a likely and plausible
>defence- the DA would have to be able to PROVE otherwise in order to be
>able to secure a conviction. She has to be able to convince the judge or
>jury that Jeff didn't die by accident.
In fact NONE of those are a "plausible" defence. Nor are any
acceptable in the eyes of the law in a case like this.
Maybe you didn't notice that there were eye witnesses?
>There is a paranoid attitude among some of the posters in this thread that
>the "car drivers are out to get us" and that drivers would feel nothing if
>they happened to kill us.
A little old lady tried VERY hard to push me off of the road into
parked cars with her Cadillac because bicycles "Belong on the sidewalk!"
I am alive today because another bicyclist, driving past turned in front
of her and stopped, letting me escape. If little old ladies are willing
to kill bicyclists what about angry red-necked jerks with pickup trucks?
What about newspaper columnists who print articles about how good it
would feel to kill a bicyclist in major newspapers?
Paul Kedrosky
to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) wrote:
[Much deleted]
>What about newspaper columnists who print articles about how good it
>would feel to kill a bicyclist in major newspapers?
Not that I don't think it's possible, but can you cite a column? I've
never heard of this happening.
P.
Ken Ferschweiler
Tim McNamara (tim...@minn.net) wrote:
: In article <3364E5...@mentorg.com>, dion...@mentorg.com wrote:
:
: > What kind of district attorney doesn't file charges because a person
: > knows there is a problem?
: A District Attorney who doesn't think she has a case, perhaps? A DA who
: has to *prove beyond reasonable doubt* that the driver was either
: homicidal, dangerous, or criminally negligent according to the definitions
: of law? And a DA who doesn't have the *evidence* to prove that the
: situation wasn't just an accident,
[ snip ]
You mean California doesn't have laws against accidentally killing
people? In a lot of states, that just means it's manslaughter rather
than murder, rather than that charges must be dropped entirely. And
I'm also surprised that California (apparently) doesn't have a law
against leaving the scene of an "accident" (if indeed this was one).
========================
Ken Ferschweiler Internet: ken...@cs.orst.edu
Department of Computer Science
Oregon State University
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <E97zF...@nonexistent.com>, redmist <red...@mjet.com> wrote:
>Another example of our F'd up legal system. Makes me sick.
It isn't the legal system that's at fault. It's Margo Smith.
Alan Boucek
It's happened somewhat regularly. I'm sure that Thomas will find a
recent reference from one of the Bay Area rags, and I've seen stories
from other parts of the country.
People who kill people with motor vehicles should be treated the same
way that people who kill people with guns are.
--
| alan boucek ----- berkeley california
R R M Tweek
Paul Kedrosky <pked...@sms.ivey.uwo.ca> wrote:
>to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) wrote:
>
>>What about newspaper columnists who print articles about how good it
>>would feel to kill a bicyclist in major newspapers?
>
>Not that I don't think it's possible, but can you cite a column? I've
>never heard of this happening.
Not bicyclist... Motorcyclist, but promoting attemted murder all
the same. It was a couple of years ago, in the Contra Costa Times,
and a columnist (Joan something or other, IIRC) wrote about how it
would be sooooo pleasing to open the car door as a motorcycle splits
lanes through stopped traffic.
Jay Wenner
Peter J. Laszcz (pjla...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: It's time to hold
: people accountable for their actions.
Violation: Tabs expired
Excuse: Never received notification in the mail
Result: ~$30 Ticket/Fine
Violation: Fail to stop at a red light
Excuse: Never saw the light change
Result: ~$80 Ticket/Fine (first offense)
Violation: Run over cyclist, killing cyclist
Excuse: Never saw him
Result: Warning "Be more careful next time"
I guess that means that driving with outdated tabs is a more serious
violation than running over a cyclist.
Tragic.
Jay Wenner
Jobst Brandt
Here's something that was not cross posted from ba.bicycles:
After charges were dropped against the truck driver who killed Jeff
Steinwedel while he was riding on Stevens Creek (or Stevens Canyon)
road last year, the DA who fixed the case mentioned Jeff's posts to
this newsgroup. Here are all the relevant messages I can find from
Jeff about Stevens Creek and the truckers who killed him.
Two messages mention riding with trucks; read for yourself below.
After those two I added a few other quotes which refer to safety and
the law, which apparently Jeff kept some faith in right up to his
death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------ End of Forwarded Article
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Matt O'Toole
Thomas H. Kunich <to...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<tomkE9E...@netcom.com>...
> What about newspaper columnists who print articles about how good it
> would feel to kill a bicyclist in major newspapers?
Where and when did you see this?
Matt O.
Greg Danielewicz
Tom, you're missing the point. The system can't be at fault; it needs
repairing.
Thomas H. Kunich <to...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<tomkE9E...@netcom.com>...
John R Mudd
In article <33661f69...@newshost.uwo.ca>,
Paul Kedrosky <pked...@sms.ivey.uwo.ca> wrote:
>>What about newspaper columnists who print articles about how good it
>>would feel to kill a bicyclist in major newspapers?
>
>never heard of this happening.
There was a Mike Royko column a few years back where he expressed his
opinions on where bikes should go, but I can't remember whether he wanted
us dead or not. It made a lasting impression on me, because I never read
another one of his columns after that.
And now, I won't have to!
Larry Schuldt
>to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) wrote:
>
>[Much deleted]
>
>>What about newspaper columnists who print articles about how good it
>>would feel to kill a bicyclist in major newspapers?
>>Not that I don't think it's possible, but can you cite a column? I've
>never heard of this happening.
>
>P.
Mike Royko, Chicago Tribune (and, I assume, any other paper where he's
syndicated). sorry, can't give you the date.
larry
--
Larry Schuldt
Chicago Title & Trust
Christopher T. Smith
An article by Chicago Tribune columnist Mike Royko was reprinted in our
team newsletter about 6 years ago. He ranted on and on about how much he
hated bicyclists and that people riding bikes should be warned that his new
motto was 'splat' and he would not hesitate to run a bicyclist down.
--
Christopher T. Smith
Quality Bicycle Products
ch...@qbp.com
R R M Tweek <tw...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<tweekE9...@netcom.com>...
> Paul Kedrosky <pked...@sms.ivey.uwo.ca> wrote:
> >to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) wrote:
> >
> >>What about newspaper columnists who print articles about how good it
> >>would feel to kill a bicyclist in major newspapers?
> >
> >Not that I don't think it's possible, but can you cite a column? I've
> >never heard of this happening.
>
Jeff Wills
FWIW: Mike Royko died this morning from cancer.
Let us not gloat. There is no "nice" way to die.
Gabor Egressy
David Earls (ste...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: The Constitution has something to do with the law, but more to the
: point, everything to do with how its framers envisioned a country in
: which all men [sic] would be created equal, and all be innocent until
: proven guilty. In fact, one might observe that the Constitution was
Innocent of what?
: intended to protect the people from those such as yourself. Those who
: convict on the basis of hearsay. Believe it or not, this aspect of the
: Constitution PROTECTS YOU TOO.
Do you realize that this newgroup is read all over the world, and not
just in the United States? The constitution you talk about does not
apply to 95% of the world's population!
: But perhaps you are this vehement on all forms of injustice. Then, I
: say, Bravo for you.
: If not, why not?
: David Earls
: ste...@ix.netcom.com
--
Gabor Egressy : ga...@quickweb.com
Typically, I don't use JAVA -- I think that strong typing is
for weak minds (and lazy compiler/interpreter writers).
-- Terry Lambert
Tim McNamara
In article <tomkE9E...@netcom.com>, to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
wrote:
> You don't know anything about the law at all, do you? The truck was
> PASSING Jeff, pulled over and killed him. It is illegal to pass where
> there isn't room and criminally negligent to do so.
I'm not a lawyer and only know enough about the law to keep myself out of
trouble most of the time. Does the conduct you described meet the
California State Code for criminal negligence? *I* wouldn't know, I don't
live there. If it does, then there are other options, including pushing
for prosecution through one's elected representatives, involving the ALCU,
civil suits, public awareness raising, etc.
[I had written]
> >And a DA who doesn't have the *evidence* to prove that the
> >situation wasn't just an accident, wasn't just pilot error on the part of
> >the bicyclist, wasn't just wind draft knocking him into the side of the
> >truck, etc.? *ANY* of those claims would be a likely and plausible
> >defence- the DA would have to be able to PROVE otherwise in order to be
> >able to secure a conviction. She has to be able to convince the judge or
> >jury that Jeff didn't die by accident.
[and Tom K replied]
> In fact NONE of those are a "plausible" defence. Nor are any
> acceptable in the eyes of the law in a case like this.
Do you remember the "Twinkie defense?" ANY defense can be plausible if
properly sold to the jury. Why wouldn't pilot error on the part of the
bicyclist be a plausible defense?
> Maybe you didn't notice that there were eye witnesses?
I did not know this and have not heard anything about what they have
reported. I'd be very interested in hearing more about what the witnesses
have stated.
> A little old lady tried VERY hard to push me off of the road into
> parked cars with her Cadillac because bicycles "Belong on the sidewalk!"
>
> I am alive today because another bicyclist, driving past turned in front
> of her and stopped, letting me escape. If little old ladies are willing
> to kill bicyclists what about angry red-necked jerks with pickup trucks?
> What about newspaper columnists who print articles about how good it
> would feel to kill a bicyclist in major newspapers?
And this has what to do with Jeff S's death?
Tim
--
Ripple in still water
when there is no pebble tossed
or wind to blow.
-Robert Hunter
Jobst Brandt
Matt O'Toole writes:
>> What about newspaper columnists who print articles about how good
>> it would feel to kill a bicyclist in major newspapers?
> Where and when did you see this?
I'm curious why you ask. Is it that you don't believe there is a
xenophobic reaction to bicyclists in the population in general or in
columnists in particular, and put this forth as a smug rhetoric
question; or are you genuinely interested from whom and where such an
article appeared? I have seen enough of them, but I don't save them
or make a morbid list of their occurrence.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Bruce Hildenbrand
In article <timmcn-3004...@dialup-47.minn.net> tim...@minn.net (Tim McNamara) writes:
>In article <tomkE9E...@netcom.com>, to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
>wrote:
>
>> You don't know anything about the law at all, do you? The truck was
>> PASSING Jeff, pulled over and killed him. It is illegal to pass where
>> there isn't room and criminally negligent to do so.
>
>I'm not a lawyer and only know enough about the law to keep myself out of
>trouble most of the time. Does the conduct you described meet the
>California State Code for criminal negligence? *I* wouldn't know, I don't
>live there. If it does, then there are other options, including pushing
>for prosecution through one's elected representatives, involving the ALCU,
>civil suits, public awareness raising, etc.
Look, it is not a qestion of *right* verseus *wrong. It is a question
of *winning* versus *losing*. The DA did not feel that they could win
a case if it was brought to a jury so they decided not to prosecute.
Which brings me to my next point:
Last night, while riding my bike, I observed a rider come up to
an intersection with at least 30 cars waiting and the rider pedals
right through against the red light! After the light turned green,
I caught up with the rider and in a stern voice said, "Every time
you run a red light, it makes it that much harder for us cyclists".
Her response was "thanks for giving me the lecture, now leave me alone."
All I can say is, what a loser. I have had lawyers, DA's and policemen
all tell me that the actions of cyclists affect how the public views
cyclists in general. The fact that many car/bike accidents never go
to trial and the incredibly lenient sentences given to the car drivers
when a conviction is actually handed out, reflect the attitude of
motorists that cyclists do not obey the rules of the road so they
are in effect "accidents looking for a place to happen".
All of you who are screaming for justice here, look to yourselves
and your riding buddies and ask yourselves if you obey the laws when
you are riding your bike. IMHO, the first step to making sure that
accidents like Jeff Steinwedel's do not go unpunished is for we cyclists
to obey the rules of the road. The solution starts with us.
Bruce Hildenbrand
ps - I am not implying in any way the Jeff S. was breaking the law when
he was killed.
pps - sorry for allowing this posting to be crossposted to the racing
newsgroup it really does not belong here.
Doug Reding
Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in article
> <5k8i03$4...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com>...
> enough of it myself, as I have been hit twice purposely. Another time, a
> policeman refused to cite a driver who hit me, though he was clearly at
> fault. He had made an illegal U-turn in front of me, reeked of beer, and
> admitted openly he was "a little tipsy."
I can't believe it's this bad........ I'm a new cyclist and some of what
I'm reading in this thread makes me want to carry a 9mm when I ride! I
couldn't do that though, because if I thought someone actually hit me on
purpose as happened to you, with my temper I'd probably use it!!!
Doug
Doug Reding
Thomas H. Kunich wrote:
>
> Outrage? You criticize MY outrage? Where is yours? Have you all
> grown so blind and stupid that even murder has no meaning to you?
> Have you watched TV so much that life has lost any meanning it may
> have had to you?
I'd like to put a law rocket up the fuckers tailpipe personally.
Doug
Jobst Brandt
Gabor Egressy writes:
> Do you realize that this newgroup is read all over the world, and
> not just in the United States? The constitution you talk about does
> not apply to 95% of the world's population!
Obviously you you realize that the incident was in the USA and that
the discussion is about the US Constitution and the laws of the state
of California. You seem to assume that other readers, unlike you, are
unable to discern these things. Some qualifiers with these statements
are self evident and most readers are able to recognize them in the
context without all variables being fully qualified.
So what is your point? Do you find that assault on bicyclists should
not be prosecuted, as it usually is not in this country (oh yes, this
country the :USA, California, Santa Clara County, Cupertino).
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Bret Wade
Paul Kedrosky (pked...@sms.ivey.uwo.ca) wrote:
: to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) wrote:
: [Much deleted]
: >What about newspaper columnists who print articles about how good it
: >would feel to kill a bicyclist in major newspapers?
: Not that I don't think it's possible, but can you cite a column? I've
: never heard of this happening.
: P.
It happened in the New York Times Magazine several years ago.
Bret Wade
Boulder, CO
Matt O'Toole
> Matt O'Toole writes:
> >> What about newspaper columnists who print articles about how good
> >> it would feel to kill a bicyclist in major newspapers?
> > Where and when did you see this?
> I'm curious why you ask. Is it that you don't believe there is a
> xenophobic reaction to bicyclists in the population in general or in
> columnists in particular, and put this forth as a smug rhetoric
> question; or are you genuinely interested from whom and where such an
> article appeared? I have seen enough of them, but I don't save them
> or make a morbid list of their occurrence.
I do believe there is hostility towards bicyclists. I have experienced it
enough of it myself, as I have been hit twice purposely. Another time, a
policeman refused to cite a driver who hit me, though he was clearly at
fault. He had made an illegal U-turn in front of me, reeked of beer, and
admitted openly he was "a little tipsy."
I did not pose this question to be a smartass. This is a very serious
issue. It is much more important to me, and the cycling community, than
the real truth about spoked wheels or stretched chains. (Now I am being a
smartass.) While I see, hear, and feel hostility towards cyclists every
day, I can't say that I've ever seen an article in a newspaper or magazine
that professes it. If I had, I certainly would have written a letter to
the editor, either to express my outrage at the author's attitude, or
simply to correct his ignorance of the vehicle code. I hope you, and
anyone else reading this, would do the same.
Hostility stems from ignorance. The way to fight this ignorance is to
prevent it from spreading, and to re-educate the perpetrators, and the
public, whenever possible. No article or reportage of the type Mr. Kunich
alludes to should ever go unrebutted.
Matt O.
Kirk Leach
ga...@vinyl.quickweb.com (Gabor Egressy) wrote:
>David Earls (ste...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: The Constitution has something to do with the law, but more to the
>: point, everything to do with how its framers envisioned a country in
>: which all men [sic] would be created equal, and all be innocent until
>: proven guilty. In fact, one might observe that the Constitution was
>Innocent of what?
>: intended to protect the people from those such as yourself. Those who
>: convict on the basis of hearsay. Believe it or not, this aspect of the
>: Constitution PROTECTS YOU TOO.
>Do you realize that this newgroup is read all over the world, and not
>just in the United States? The constitution you talk about does not
>apply to 95% of the world's population!
Yes, but this incident happened in the U.S., so the U.S. Constitution
applies.
pete smith
Doug Reding <d.re...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I'd like to put a law rocket up the fuckers tailpipe personally.
>Doug
Up HIS tailpipe, not his car's...
Pete/Atlanta
Wayne Pein
Bruce Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>
> Look, it is not a qestion of *right* verseus *wrong. It is a question
> of *winning* versus *losing*. The DA did not feel that they could win
> a case if it was brought to a jury so they decided not to prosecute.
>
> Which brings me to my next point:
>
> Last night, while riding my bike, I observed a rider come up to
> an intersection with at least 30 cars waiting and the rider pedals
> right through against the red light! After the light turned green,
> I caught up with the rider and in a stern voice said, "Every time
> you run a red light, it makes it that much harder for us cyclists".
> Her response was "thanks for giving me the lecture, now leave me alone."
>
> All I can say is, what a loser. I have had lawyers, DA's and policemen
> all tell me that the actions of cyclists affect how the public views
> cyclists in general.
Did you take the opportunity to point out to them that at least as
many traffic violations are committed by the motoring public
(speeding, DUI, reckless driving, running the yellow, assault, etc.)
and that these actions kill OTHER people? It's important
to always refute the notion that bicyclists are the only scofflaws.
The fact that many car/bike accidents never go
> to trial and the incredibly lenient sentences given to the car drivers
> when a conviction is actually handed out, reflect the attitude of
> motorists that cyclists do not obey the rules of the road so they
> are in effect "accidents looking for a place to happen".
Yes, of course bicyclists often do as you say. And I'm not condoning
bicyclist irresponsible actions, but really, a bigger problem is
self righteous motorists who don't believe that 35 in a 25 is breaking
the law or is dangerous.
> All of you who are screaming for justice here, look to yourselves
> and your riding buddies and ask yourselves if you obey the laws when
> you are riding your bike. IMHO, the first step to making sure that
> accidents like Jeff Steinwedel's do not go unpunished is for we cyclists
> to obey the rules of the road. The solution starts with us.
>
You're victim blaming.
Wayne
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <8624086...@dejanews.com>, <delc...@ab.edu> wrote:
>Good for you, sweetie. We all know that if someone disagrees with you,
>the best solution is to shut them out completely and/or rejoice at
>their untimely death. No danger of *your* mind opening a crack --
>congratulations!
Let's see...man writes highly descriptive story about how good it
would feel to squash a bicyclist because those stupid bastards
are getting through traffic faster than him. Newspapers publish it
with high relish.
People who think that it's good that this guy is no longer around
to make such pronouncements are considered by you to be close minded.
Uh, yes, I see.
>God, is there no limit to human stupidity and meanness?...
Apparently not, as long as you're alive.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <5k8i03$4...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com>,
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>I'm curious why you ask. Is it that you don't believe there is a
>xenophobic reaction to bicyclists in the population in general or in
>columnists in particular, and put this forth as a smug rhetoric
>question; or are you genuinely interested from whom and where such an
>article appeared? I have seen enough of them, but I don't save them
>or make a morbid list of their occurrence.
Perhaps he doesn't know about or remember that when Greg LeMond
was chosen Athlete of the year by Sports Illustrated in 1989 that
some stupid, fat, jerky "sports" columnist in San Francisco wrote
that they should have chosen a "real" athlete. Anyone, he said,
could ride a bicycle. Strange, after many challenges he failed to
show for a try up one of the San Francisco streets.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <timmcn-3004...@dialup-47.minn.net>,
Tim McNamara <tim...@minn.net> wrote:
>Do you remember the "Twinkie defense?" ANY defense can be plausible if
>properly sold to the jury. Why wouldn't pilot error on the part of the
>bicyclist be a plausible defense?
Easy one -- because the truck driver hasn't claimed that Jeff
pull out in front of him (which wouldn't save him from the
responsibility of passing safely in ANY CASE) but that he
didn't see anything!
He passed Jeff because a BIG POWERFUL TRUCK shouldn't have to
wait for a little bitty bicycle. And he pulled back in too
soon because he couldn't believe that a little bitty bicycle
could go as fast as his BIG POWERFUL TRUCK.
Tim McNamara
In article <tomkE9I...@netcom.com>, to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
wrote:
> In article <timmcn-3004...@dialup-47.minn.net>,
> Tim McNamara <tim...@minn.net> wrote:
>
> >Do you remember the "Twinkie defense?" ANY defense can be plausible if
> >properly sold to the jury. Why wouldn't pilot error on the part of the
> >bicyclist be a plausible defense?
>
> Easy one -- because the truck driver hasn't claimed that Jeff
> pull out in front of him (which wouldn't save him from the
> responsibility of passing safely in ANY CASE) but that he
> didn't see anything!
That only covers pilot error that happened *in front* of the truck. The
truck company's lawyer would easily be smart enough to claim that it is
plausible (and remember, the defense *doesn't* have to prove anything)
that Jeff's "pilot error" occurred when he was alongside the truck and out
of sight of the driver.
> He passed Jeff because a BIG POWERFUL TRUCK shouldn't have to
> wait for a little bitty bicycle. And he pulled back in too
> soon because he couldn't believe that a little bitty bicycle
> could go as fast as his BIG POWERFUL TRUCK.
Yes, he may have miscalculated Jeff's speed; it's easy to do if you think
that bicycles are usually going 10-12 mph (a normal speed for normal
people; Jeff was clearly a more skilled cyclist *and* was going downhill.
You and I know that a bicyclist can descend faster than a car- and
certinly faster than a truck- in many situations, but do most people?).
Does that make him a criminal or just ignorant?
I think you are ascribing homicidal intent where there is no proof that
this is the case. Now, if California vehicular law is poorly enforced,
that is inexcusable and needs to be dealt with (kvetching on the Internet
will have no effect, BTW). That's what you have elected officials for.
Make their lives uncomfortable with phone calls and letters! Get the LAB
lobbyist and the State Bicycling coordinator's office involved! Demand
minimum passing clearances (it's 3 feet here in Minnesota) and demand that
driver's training and license tests include information on bicyclists'
rights to the road (there are two questions on the driver's test related
to bicyclists' rights). Make *that* Jeff's legacy! Not just a thread of
bitter argument on an obscure channel of communication. It dishonors Jeff
and does not rememdy the situation.
I'm sorry, Tom, but I refuse to buy into the victim mentality I see
inherent in this thread. I'd never go for a bike ride again if I believed
there were all these people behind the wheel who want to kill me. Don't
misunderstand me, I think that there are way too many ignorant jerks
driving, who arrogantly assume that I belong on the sidewalk with my toy
and may even try to demonstrate that point to me, but I don't believe they
are actually homicidal. OTOH, I have seen group rides take up the whole
road, refusing to allow cars to pass. I see dozens of bicyclists ride
through stop signs, stop lights, on and off sidewalks, up the wrong way on
streets etc EVERY DAY. I think it's puerile and ignorant to lay the
entire blame at the feet of drivers.
Jean Desrosiers
Jobst,
First, sorry to respond by mail, but our news server does not allows us
to post to newsgroups. If you find my comments relevant, you are
welcome to post them yourself.
I live in Montréal which is considered cycle friendly and very seldom
have I encountered any agressivity from car drivers so I came as a
complete surprise to me when I went cycling in the Houston area last
fall. I could not beleive how many times drivers honked their horns and
shaked their fists. I was even stopped by the police while cycling on a
service road and told to ride on the FREEWAY!!!! (because there was a
"shoulder")
Here a bicycle is considered a vehicule and must obey traffic signs as
well as special considerations for bicycles such as we must ride on the
rightmost portion of the road and not two bicycles side by side etc...
I am not saying I obey all traffic signs, but I try not to irritate
drivers by doing any dangerous manouvres (sp??).
Jean
--------------------------------------------------
Let's procrastinate... tomorrow
--------------------------------------------------
http://newsfeed.sx.nec.com/~ynecjdr/index.html
j-...@bigfoot.com
--------------------------------------------------
Bruce Hildenbrand
In article <33689F...@unc.edu> Wayne Pein <wayne...@unc.edu> writes:
>Bruce Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>>
>> Look, it is not a qestion of *right* verseus *wrong. It is a question
>> of *winning* versus *losing*. The DA did not feel that they could win
>> a case if it was brought to a jury so they decided not to prosecute.
>>
>> Which brings me to my next point:
>>
>> Last night, while riding my bike, I observed a rider come up to
>> an intersection with at least 30 cars waiting and the rider pedals
>> right through against the red light! After the light turned green,
>> I caught up with the rider and in a stern voice said, "Every time
>> you run a red light, it makes it that much harder for us cyclists".
>> Her response was "thanks for giving me the lecture, now leave me alone."
>>
>> All I can say is, what a loser. I have had lawyers, DA's and policemen
>> all tell me that the actions of cyclists affect how the public views
>> cyclists in general.
>
>Did you take the opportunity to point out to them that at least as
>many traffic violations are committed by the motoring public
>(speeding, DUI, reckless driving, running the yellow, assault, etc.)
>and that these actions kill OTHER people? It's important
>to always refute the notion that bicyclists are the only scofflaws.
You missed the point. These people won't prosecute because they can't
win a case because they know the jury will be made up of automobile
drivers who are not sympathetic to cyclists because they see cyclists
breaking the law by behaving badly.
Again, it is not about *right* and *wrong* it is about *winning* and
*losing*.
>The fact that many car/bike accidents never go
>> to trial and the incredibly lenient sentences given to the car drivers
>> when a conviction is actually handed out, reflect the attitude of
>> motorists that cyclists do not obey the rules of the road so they
>> are in effect "accidents looking for a place to happen".
>
>Yes, of course bicyclists often do as you say. And I'm not condoning
>bicyclist irresponsible actions, but really, a bigger problem is
>self righteous motorists who don't believe that 35 in a 25 is breaking
>the law or is dangerous.
I don't agree with you. For some reason, the public sees a motorist
break a law and the don't think "all motorists are scofflaws". However,
the public sees a bicyclist break a law and they do think "all bicyclists
are scofflaws". That is why we, cyclists, have to behave lawfully.
>> All of you who are screaming for justice here, look to yourselves
>> and your riding buddies and ask yourselves if you obey the laws when
>> you are riding your bike. IMHO, the first step to making sure that
>> accidents like Jeff Steinwedel's do not go unpunished is for we cyclists
>> to obey the rules of the road. The solution starts with us.
>>
>
>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.
Bruce Hildenbrand
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.
Thomas H. Kunich
>That only covers pilot error that happened *in front* of the truck. The
>truck company's lawyer would easily be smart enough to claim that it is
>plausible (and remember, the defense *doesn't* have to prove anything)
>that Jeff's "pilot error" occurred when he was alongside the truck and out
>of sight of the driver.
So....you expect that such a defense would be successful? Remember
that passing vehicles are required to do so in a safe manner.
The truck driver certainly didn't have a witness that Jeff didn't
obey all the rules of the road and his postings here would lead
any jury to believe that he was a far more responsible rider than
the average.
>I think you are ascribing homicidal intent where there is no proof that
>this is the case.
Excuse me Tim, I am subscribing homocidal ACTIONS to the truck driver.
There is proof positive of that.
Like most people here I ASSUME that there was no homocidal _intent_
or else the death penalty would be appropriate.
Wayne Pein
Bruce Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> You missed the point. These people won't prosecute because they can't
> win a case because they know the jury will be made up of automobile
> drivers who are not sympathetic to cyclists because they see cyclists
> breaking the law by behaving badly.
>
> Again, it is not about *right* and *wrong* it is about *winning* and
> *losing*.
I got your point completely. My point is that efforts to educate
motorists of the fact that they are not lilly white are desperately
needed.
> I don't agree with you. For some reason, the public sees a motorist
> break a law and the don't think "all motorists are scofflaws". However,
> the public sees a bicyclist break a law and they do think "all bicyclists
> are scofflaws". That is why we, cyclists, have to behave lawfully.
Yes I agree with you. That is why we, cyslists, have to let the
motoring public know that THEY are in fact all scofflaw hypocrites.
>
> >> All of you who are screaming for justice here, look to yourselves
> >> and your riding buddies and ask yourselves if you obey the laws when
> >> you are riding your bike. IMHO, the first step to making sure that
> >> accidents like Jeff Steinwedel's do not go unpunished is for we cyclists
> >> to obey the rules of the road. The solution starts with us.
> >>
> >
> >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.
>
I didn't conveniently leave it out for any particular reason. My victim
blaming statement refers not to Jeff but to your assertion that
bicyclists are the ones responsible for the negative public perception.
You are of course technically correct. I just don't believe it ought
to be that way, and don't believe that perfectly compliance will
make a hill of beans in changing perceptions anyway.
There will, like it or not, ALWAYS be scofflaw riding (and driving).
It is unfortunately part of the appeal of riding a bike. But scofflaw
riding is simply an excuse on the part of the driving public
to persecute a different group- bicyclists sweat, wear funny clothes,
are low SES, don't pay for the roads, block the roads, are vulnerable
and weak, etc, etc. Bicyclists are at the point that rape victims
were 10-20 years ago.
Wayne
Wayne Pein
Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> Yes, he may have miscalculated Jeff's speed; it's easy to do if you think
> that bicycles are usually going 10-12 mph (a normal speed for normal
> people;
I don't for one second believe that a driver can miscalculate
a bicyclist's speed when overtaking. Maybe when on crossing
paths, but not when overtaking, especially when the speeds
are very similar as was apparently true in this case.
Wayne
Bruce Hildenbrand
In article <tomkE9I...@netcom.com> to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>
>In article <5kanes$q...@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
>Bruce Hildenbrand <bhi...@stelvio.eng.sun.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>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.
>
>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.
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
Terra Cholfin
> Perhaps he doesn't know about or remember that when Greg LeMond
> was chosen Athlete of the year by Sports Illustrated in 1989 that
> some stupid, fat, jerky "sports" columnist in San Francisco wrote
> that they should have chosen a "real" athlete. Anyone, he said,
> could ride a bicycle. Strange, after many challenges he failed to
> show for a try up one of the San Francisco streets.
Not that I want to defend said columnist, but this challenge isn't
fair, probably not even for the majority of cyclists. I love
San Francisco dearly, but just thinking about riding up those hills
is enough to make my lungs ache and my knees turn to jelly, and
thinking about riding *down* is enough to make my hands clench
around imaginary brake levers.
[...having reverie about being unable to stop and launching, somewhat
like Evil Knievel, into the bay....]
--
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/
Jeff Bernhard
J.S.'s case is but one case of an innocent cyclist being killed on a
roadway. I personally knew a few victims and in each case the action
by the authorities of the jurisdiction was too little to punish the
drivers involved. There are at least a few reasons for this, I think.
One is intent and competence versus human error. If an accident occurs
and malicious intent or incompetence or negligence cannot be demonstrated
by evidence prior to the accident (e.g., the driver was drunk when he
got behind the wheel), then the accident may be considered simply to
be a result of human error. It is grievous, nonetheless. The "sun was
in my eyes" or "I didn't see anyone" or "I was distracted by a UFO"
is sufficient to rule an accident to be the result of human error, it
seems, especially when these other things cannot be shown by evidence
of the driver's state before the accident. Is this wrong? (Rhetorical)
If a person is walking on the side walk, day dreaming, and bumps into
someone, little harm is done and the 'accident' is excused (well, in
my neighborhood, anyway). A motor vehicle can cause much greater damage
and so we feel demands greater punishment for an accident in which others
may be injured or killed. But it may be the same inattention, the same
lack of intent, the same lack of incompetence in both cases. (Note: The
law apparently does not equate inattention, which we each experience every
day, with incompetence or negligence or bad intent.)
We are paranoid and fear the damage a motorist can do to us. But after
having friends die and seeing that criminal charges are often not made,
I wonder if the civil courts are really the only recourse. Then it isn't
the intent of the driver, but the damage he causes that exacts the
punishment we may feel is proper. It doesn't matter, perhaps, how or
why the damages occurred, only that the driver caused these damages.
And, it isn't whether a life is snuffed out but how and why it happens
than determines if a crime has been committed. Let's not be limited to
criminal law. (Disclaimer: Each case has its own particular set of facts,
so the foregoing is general; I'm not a lawyer and welcome those with real
legal training to correct all participants of this thread where misunder-
standings may have been voiced.)
--
Jeffrey Bernhard at Concurrent Computer Corp. (expressing his opinion only!)
Jeff.B...@mail.ccur.com Voice: (954) 973-5496 Fax: (954) 977-5580
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
Ken Papai
"Innocent until Proven Guilty" is not mentioned in the Constitution.
Here are two of the Bill of Rights that apply here:
Article the seventh [Amendment V]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Article the eighth [Amendment VI]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the
crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the'
Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
"Innocent" or not -- the driver who was stopped AND the
damned trucking company are certain to be found libel in
a Civil case if it does come to that.
--
Ken Papai Team Hub / Bear Republic Racer 5 / Salsa
San Rafael, California Note: $500 Fine if you send me Junk Email
kpa...@rahul.net Support your local microbrewery. 5+++
http://www.rahul.net/kpapai/cycling/
Tom Ace
Bruce Hildenbrand wrote:
>As I have said, time and time again, it is not about *right* and *wrong*,
>it is about *winning* and *losing*!
Dropping the case sends a bad message. Bringing the case to trial--even
if the driver were acquitted--would send a better message. At the very
least, the driver and/or the trucking company would endure the trouble,
bad publicity, and expense of defending the case in court--which might
give people a reason to drive more safely in the future.
I don't think winning and losing is the only issue here.
Tom Ace
cr...@best.com
Adriana C. Bruggeman
In article <5k8lm8$g...@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
Bruce Hildenbrand <bhi...@stelvio.eng.sun.com> wrote:
>Which brings me to my next point:
Maybe, you should haven taken your point to a new thread.
[cyclist runs a red light]
>All I can say is, what a loser. I have had lawyers, DA's and policemen
>all tell me that the actions of cyclists affect how the public views
>cyclists in general. The fact that many car/bike accidents never go
>to trial and the incredibly lenient sentences given to the car drivers
>when a conviction is actually handed out, reflect the attitude of
>motorists that cyclists do not obey the rules of the road so they
>are in effect "accidents looking for a place to happen".
>
>All of you who are screaming for justice here, look to yourselves
>and your riding buddies and ask yourselves if you obey the laws when
>you are riding your bike. IMHO, the first step to making sure that
>accidents like Jeff Steinwedel's do not go unpunished is for we cyclists
>to obey the rules of the road. The solution starts with us.
No. It's not gonna change a thing. Motorists make tons of traffic
violations too, and they know it. The only thing that will change
people's perception is to have them ride bicycles themselves. So,
encourage people to ride, don't snob at them when don't ride a zillion
miles a year, or their clothes are too fancy or not fancy enough.
All this doesn't matter, just go out and ride! The more people ride
bicycles the better the roads are gonna be for all of us.
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.
Jeaan
--
`\------,(__) __o
* | (oo) Freedom of speech is better than sex. _`\<,_
* ||w--||(..)~*~* - Madonna (_)/ (_)
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.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <terra-01059...@twelve-oaks.mit.edu>,
Terra Cholfin <te...@mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <tomkE9I...@netcom.com>, to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
>wrote:
>
>> Perhaps he doesn't know about or remember that when Greg LeMond
>> was chosen Athlete of the year by Sports Illustrated in 1989 that
>> some stupid, fat, jerky "sports" columnist in San Francisco wrote
>> that they should have chosen a "real" athlete. Anyone, he said,
>> could ride a bicycle. Strange, after many challenges he failed to
>> show for a try up one of the San Francisco streets.
>
>
>Not that I want to defend said columnist, but this challenge isn't
>fair, probably not even for the majority of cyclists. I love
>San Francisco dearly, but just thinking about riding up those hills
>is enough to make my lungs ache and my knees turn to jelly, and
>thinking about riding *down* is enough to make my hands clench
>around imaginary brake levers.
>
>[...having reverie about being unable to stop and launching, somewhat
>like Evil Knievel, into the bay....]
Which reminds me -- they found a donkey at the bottom of the Grand Canyon
squashed flat. Under the donkey they found a man squashed flat. He
was wearing a T-shirt that said "Evil Gonzales".
Matt O'Toole
Doug Reding <d.re...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<33681D...@ix.netcom.com>...
> I can't believe it's this bad........ I'm a new cyclist and some of what
> I'm reading in this thread makes me want to carry a 9mm when I ride! I
> couldn't do that though, because if I thought someone actually hit me on
> purpose as happened to you, with my temper I'd probably use it!!!
Your chances of beating them to the draw are not good any time, and even
less so while on a bicycle. Ride defensively, obey the law, and hope your
number doesn't come up.
Matt O.
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
Frank Hamlin
: I don't for one second believe that a driver can miscalculate
: a bicyclist's speed when overtaking. Maybe when on crossing
: paths, but not when overtaking, especially when the speeds
: are very similar as was apparently true in this case.
: Wayne
I think you are making the assumption that the driver is paying attention
to his driving. That is often not the case.
I have kicked the side of a car that was passing me and totally forgot I
was there when I was behind his windshield. From the shocked look on
his face, and his reactions I'm sure it was not deliberate, but he was
running me off the road.
--
Frank Hamlin, Santa Rosa Systems, Hewlett Packard __@ __@
1400 Fountaingrove Pkwy, Santa Rosa, Calif _-\<,-\<,
fra...@sr.hp.com (*)/---/(*)
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?