Los Altos Hills bicyclist killed in big-rig crash was a mother,nurse and a 'go-getter'

My letter to the editor was printed in today's Daily Post. They over-
edited it, but I'll take it as a compliment. Here is the original I
sent to them:

"Subject: Bicyclists Hit

"I favor standard yellow caution signs with a sketch of a bicycle. I
am surprised that Stanford doesn't have any and there aren't any
strategically placed along the common bike routes in the foothills.
We should thank the Daily Post for exposing the high salaries which
present a contradiction to this type of obvious approach to a
recurring problem. I wish people would give me a lot of money for
this letter to the editor."

(signature)

The newspaper did a good job printing the caution sign in color.

Daniel Myers
Palo Alto, CA

Previous thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...rs+at+Stanford

OP:

http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_16536705

Here's an article that says the CHP determined the bicyclist was at
fault, not the truck driver.

http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_16910167?source=most_viewed

jc

(follow-ups set to ba.bicycles)

JC Dill wrote:

Here's an article that says the CHP determined the bicyclist was at
fault, not the truck driver.

http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_16910167?source=most_viewed

The truck driver has killed people three times with his truck, and he
still gets to keep doing his job? In what other field of work
(besides so-called "policing") would that possibly be permitted? Even
if that's just dumb luck, the guy should be taken off the road in the
name of public safety.

Chalo

In article ,
Chalo says...

JC Dill wrote:

Here's an article that says the CHP determined the bicyclist was at
fault, not the truck driver.

http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_16910167?source=most_viewed

The truck driver has killed people three times with his truck, and he
still gets to keep doing his job? In what other field of work
(besides so-called "policing") would that possibly be permitted? Even
if that's just dumb luck, the guy should be taken off the road in the
name of public safety.

Chalo


The truck driver didn't kill anyone. The three people who died killed
"themselves" because they were careless and stupid...not a very nice thing to
say, but very true. I rode by the accident that happened in Santa Cruz just
moments after it occured. It was not a pretty sight. Yeah, the circumstances are
a bit creepy, but again, the truck driver was not at fault.

On 12/22/2010 3:32 AM, wrote:
In ,
Chalo says...

JC Dill wrote:

Here's an article that says the CHP determined the bicyclist was at
fault, not the truck driver.

http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_16910167?source=most_viewed

The truck driver has killed people three times with his truck, and he
still gets to keep doing his job? In what other field of work
(besides so-called "policing") would that possibly be permitted? Even
if that's just dumb luck, the guy should be taken off the road in the
name of public safety.

Chalo


The truck driver didn't kill anyone. The three people who died killed
"themselves" because they were careless and stupid...not a very nice thing to
say, but very true. I rode by the accident that happened in Santa Cruz just
moments after it occured. It was not a pretty sight. Yeah, the circumstances are
a bit creepy, but again, the truck driver was not at fault.


And you know this how?

This guy struck and killed 2 cyclists in 3 years. The first victim's
parents sued and won $1.5M in a wrongful death. There were no witnesses
to the second fatality, so it's the driver's word -- a frequent case in
bike fatalities.

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_...e=most_emailed

On 12/22/2010 9:47 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 12/22/2010 3:32 AM, wrote:
In
,

Chalo says...

JC Dill wrote:

Here's an article that says the CHP determined the bicyclist was at
fault, not the truck driver.

http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_16910167?source=most_viewed

The truck driver has killed people three times with his truck, and he
still gets to keep doing his job? In what other field of work
(besides so-called "policing") would that possibly be permitted? Even
if that's just dumb luck, the guy should be taken off the road in the
name of public safety.

Chalo


The truck driver didn't kill anyone. The three people who died killed
"themselves" because they were careless and stupid...not a very nice
thing to
say, but very true. I rode by the accident that happened in Santa Cruz
just
moments after it occured. It was not a pretty sight. Yeah, the
circumstances are
a bit creepy, but again, the truck driver was not at fault.


And you know this how?

This guy struck and killed 2 cyclists in 3 years. The first victim's
parents sued and won $1.5M in a wrongful death. There were no witnesses
to the second fatality, so it's the driver's word -- a frequent case in
bike fatalities.

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_...e=most_emailed

Guy should not be behind a lethal weapon like that. If you killed
people as a part of your daily job, would you need someone to tell you
to find another one?

Anyway, the initial report doesn't make a lot of sense. She was to the
left of the truck. Was he passing her on the right? It's hard to
imagine why she cut in front from the left. Was there traffic in the
left lane? Anyone know what this road looks like?

On Dec 22, 6:47*am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 12/22/2010 3:32 AM, wrote:





In ,
Chalo says...

JC Dill wrote:

Here's an article that says the CHP determined the bicyclist was at
fault, not the truck driver.

http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_16910167?source=most_viewed

The truck driver has killed people three times with his truck, and he
still gets to keep doing his job? *In what other field of work
(besides so-called "policing") would that possibly be permitted? *Even
if that's just dumb luck, the guy should be taken off the road in the
name of public safety.

Chalo

The truck driver didn't kill anyone. The three people who died killed
"themselves" because they were careless and stupid...not a very nice thing to
say, but very true. *I rode by the accident that happened in Santa Cruz just
moments after it occured. It was not a pretty sight. Yeah, the circumstances are
a bit creepy, but again, the truck driver was not at fault.

And you know this how?

This guy struck and killed 2 cyclists in 3 years. The first victim's
parents sued and won $1.5M in a wrongful death. There were no witnesses
to the second fatality, so it's the driver's word -- a frequent case in
bike fatalities.

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_...=most_emailed- Hide quoted text -

They settled for $1.5 million -- there was no trial or determination
of fault. People settle for all sorts of reasons. Anyway, I'm not
even understanding what happened exactly. This woman was "lane
sharing" -- riding on the left of a giant truck in the same lane?
Frank . . . Frank . . . shouldn't she have been controling traffic?
Really, the truck was only going 15mph. That is a situation where I
would have gotten out front so I could move around in traffic. It
sounds like she anticipated that the truck would turn right and that
she would go with it, but it didn't? Again, I'm not getting what
happened. I don't know who was at fault, but personally, the last
thing I want to do is ride abreast with a giant truck. -- Jay Beattie.

Peter Cole wrote:

wrote:

Yeah, the circumstances are
a bit creepy, but again, the truck driver was not at fault.

And you know this how?

This guy struck and killed 2 cyclists in 3 years. The first victim's
parents sued and won $1.5M in a wrongful death. There were no witnesses
to the second fatality, so it's the driver's word -- a frequent case in
bike fatalities.

Something tells me the driver's word is not going to prevent another
wrongful death settlement in this case. Maybe that will finally get
this accursed trucker into a less lethal profession.

Dude. If you can't excuse yourself from a certain line of work after
killing people *twice*, someone needs to do it for you. Three times,
you need not to drive anything anymore.

I wish we had enough transportation alternatives to have sensible
rules like: If you are driving and you're involved in a crash with a
fatality, you don't drive again. No fault, no exceptions. But as it
is now, in half the country that would amount to house arrest.

Chalo

In article , Peter Cole says...

On 12/22/2010 3:32 AM, wrote:
In ,
Chalo says...

JC Dill wrote:

Here's an article that says the CHP determined the bicyclist was at
fault, not the truck driver.

http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_16910167?source=most_viewed

The truck driver has killed people three times with his truck, and he
still gets to keep doing his job? In what other field of work
(besides so-called "policing") would that possibly be permitted? Even
if that's just dumb luck, the guy should be taken off the road in the
name of public safety.

Chalo


The truck driver didn't kill anyone. The three people who died killed
"themselves" because they were careless and stupid...not a very nice thing to
say, but very true. I rode by the accident that happened in Santa Cruz just
moments after it occured. It was not a pretty sight. Yeah, the circumstances are
a bit creepy, but again, the truck driver was not at fault.


And you know this how?

This guy struck and killed 2 cyclists in 3 years. The first victim's
parents sued and won $1.5M in a wrongful death. There were no witnesses
to the second fatality, so it's the driver's word -- a frequent case in
bike fatalities.

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_...e=most_emailed

And you know this how?


As you point out, there were no witnesses in the 2nd fatality, however there
"were" witnesses and surveillance video to the 1st fatality in Santa
Cruz...that's how we/I "know" what happened there. Additionally, Santa Cruz is
not a large town, in fact, I live withing a short walking distance from the 1st
accident site and have been cycling at or near that same location for the past
30 plus years which helps me to comprehend what occured there. I do however
need to apologize for posting my comments of "careless and stupid" in relation
to the recent 2nd fatality. That was very inappropriate on my part, and I
realize that there were no witnesses to that particular accident and by all
accounts that I have read, the cyclist involved was a skilled and careful
cyclist.

On 12/22/2010 10:52 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered 22 Dec 2010 00:32:00 -0800 the
perfect time to write:

In ,
Chalo says...

JC Dill wrote:

Here's an article that says the CHP determined the bicyclist was at
fault, not the truck driver.

http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_16910167?source=most_viewed

The truck driver has killed people three times with his truck, and he
still gets to keep doing his job? In what other field of work
(besides so-called "policing") would that possibly be permitted? Even
if that's just dumb luck, the guy should be taken off the road in the
name of public safety.

Chalo


The truck driver didn't kill anyone. The three people who died killed
"themselves" because they were careless and stupid...not a very nice thing to
say, but very true. I rode by the accident that happened in Santa Cruz just
moments after it occured. It was not a pretty sight. Yeah, the circumstances are
a bit creepy, but again, the truck driver was not at fault.

Having been a professional driver of big rigs, I can only say that the
truckers statement (and it's the only one we have, as he managed to
kill the only witness to his driving) is simply not credible.
And his past record leads me to suspect that this represents his
normal standard of driving. I notice that last time he killed someone
he (or rather his insurers) had to pay his victim's family $1,500,000
compensation, so the lack of sufficient evidence for a prosecution
clearly doesn't indicate any lack of blame.

He would have had to swing left before making a right turn, to avoid
the trailer wheels cutting across the side of the road, and it was
almost certainly this left swing which knocked his victim off.
Making the left swing without a mirror check on that side is reckless
- you can expect other traffic to be trying to pass on the left as you
indicate a turn to the right, and should be ensuring that any swing is
into gaps in traffic, not into the traffic itself.

And if the CHP don't know the geometry of how a big rig goes around
corners, they are unfit to investigate anything to do with them.

I wonder how they will excuse their allowing him to carry on driving
to his next victim's family?

This seems like what happened but they say that she fell when trying to
turn "in front" of the truck. If he did what you said, and I bet that
he did, then that means that he didn't even look to his left.

Something doesn't sound right. If there were no witnesses coming
forward, this is only the driver's version of what happened. I just
can't imagine turning from the left across the front of a moving 18
wheeler. And then she supposedly fell in front of him when he was going
straight and hit her. But he was turning.