A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 22nd 10, 09:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Big Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default Los Altos Hills bicyclist killed in big-rig crash was a mother,

Why does everyone automatically assume the driver is at fault. I've
seen enugh "wrong way jose's" and "ninja" cyclists to realize that
many cyclists contribute to their own demises. What if the driver
slowed and the cyclist tried to pass without accounting for the left
swing. She'd have been hit and is mostly to blame instead of letting
the truck turn and continuing on. There are bad drivers and bad
cyclists



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





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.


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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Ads
  #22  
Old December 22nd 10, 09:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Los Altos Hills bicyclist killed in big-rig crash was a mother,

On Dec 22, 10:33*am, Jay Beattie wrote:
*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?


I don't understand this either, and I don't think we have nearly the
necessary information to even speculate effectively.

But yes, I see no sense in sharing a lane by riding to the left of a
big truck. Why would someone do that? And if the truck is moving
relatively slowly, why would anyone not control the lane?

So I agree entirely.

- Frank Krygowski

  #23  
Old December 22nd 10, 09:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Los Altos Hills bicyclist killed in big-rig crash was a mother,

On Dec 22, 10:43*am, Peter Cole wrote:

Yeah, I know that. It was (first cyclist) apparently a right hook
incident. That doesn't establish anything either except that such
incidents are usually found to be no fault (or cyclist fault) by the cops..


Well, it establishes that you don't want to be to the right of a
vehicle that may turn right. Especially a big vehicle.

The description didn't make sense to me, either. Apparently there are no
witnesses, so it comes down to the driver's story. Given his driving
record, you'd think there would be a careful forensic investigation, but
bike fatalities don't seem to get the CSI treatment, not even in
Portland, much less elsewhere.


Actually, even most CSs don't get the CSI treatment that people
envision. One of my best friends is a Criminal Justice professor. He
says those TV shows have deluded people pretty thoroughly.

BTW, his department's enrollment exploded since CSI shows got
popular. Unfortunately, many of the students think you don't need
math, you don't need science, and you'll get to work with women who
all look like actresses, with never a moment of drudgery in the work
day. Just like TV, you know?

- Frank Krygowski
  #24  
Old December 22nd 10, 09:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Los Altos Hills bicyclist killed in big-rig crash was a mother,

On Dec 22, 11:51*am, Chalo wrote:
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.


I think we should do it anyway. Alternatives would arise.

- Frank Krygowski
  #25  
Old December 22nd 10, 10:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
kolldata
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,836
Default Los Altos Hills bicyclist killed in big-rig crash was a mother,nurse and a 'go-getter'

On Dec 21, 10:35*pm, Chalo wrote:
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


OH YEAH ? my post last night followed the initial bya few minutes and
itsnot here. DUH.
Nazi's in Google's Garage.

What I wrote---

The CHP determined the CHP and State of California was not at fault.
CHP done same if the cyclist had killed the trucker.

The State is bankrupt. You have a problem. Sue. But we can't help you.
Sorry.
  #26  
Old December 22nd 10, 11:10 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Los Altos Hills bicyclist killed in big-rig crash was a mother,

In article , Peter Cole says...

On 12/22/2010 2:30 PM, wrote:
In , 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.


I'm curious about how his relatives could have received such a large
settlement if there were witnesses and video in the first fatality.

I'm aware that criminal and wrongful death cases may have different
burdens of proof, but from your description it seems like an obvious
conclusion that the deceased was at fault.



Hard to say. Most times the best solution for everyone from a legal standpoint
is simply to settle the matter and move on, rather than drag the case and
families through months or years of legal proceedings, so it stands to reason
that the Trucking Company was "advised" to settle. The family of the Santa Cruz
accident victim named as many defendants as they could in their litigation,
whether they were responsible or not. I'm not trying to say what's right or
wrong with that, but that seems to be the standard in situations such as this,
and the dollar amount, while large, doesn't seem all that out of the ballpark.

  #27  
Old December 23rd 10, 12:37 AM posted to ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.soc
kolldata
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,836
Default LATE BREAKIN' NEWS: SQUASHED CYCLIST LEFT 2 FETI AT SCENE

CMON. BE REASONABLE.
who rides next to an 18 wheeler making a right turn ?
asks the CHP
  #28  
Old December 23rd 10, 01:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jay Beattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,322
Default Los Altos Hills bicyclist killed in big-rig crash was a mother,

On Dec 22, 11:58*am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 12/22/2010 2:30 PM, wrote:





In , 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.


I'm curious about how his relatives could have received such a large
settlement if there were witnesses and video in the first fatality.

I'm aware that criminal and wrongful death cases may have different
burdens of proof, but from your description it seems like an obvious
conclusion that the deceased was at fault.- Hide quoted text -


I am pretty sure California is a pure comparative fault state, meaning
that the plaintiff can recover if defendant is only one percent at
fault -- although the plaintiff only recovers one percent of his
damages. Anyway, with a sympathetic jury and a sympathetic decedent,
the truck driver could have been found "slightly" at fault for
something -- God knows what, maybe failing to be somewhere else at the
time. If the decedent were a high value individual, then $1.5 million
could represent a small percent of a very high potential damage award.

In Oregon, plaintiff's claim is barred if he/she is 51% or more at
fault. So up here, that case would have a low settlement value if the
video were as damning as suggested. -- Jay Beattie.
  #29  
Old December 23rd 10, 01:37 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
kolldata
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,836
Default Los Altos Hills bicyclist killed in big-rig crash was a mother,

On Dec 22, 4:05*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:58*am, Peter Cole wrote:





On 12/22/2010 2:30 PM, wrote:


In , 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.


I'm curious about how his relatives could have received such a large
settlement if there were witnesses and video in the first fatality.


I'm aware that criminal and wrongful death cases may have different
burdens of proof, but from your description it seems like an obvious
conclusion that the deceased was at fault.- Hide quoted text -


I am pretty sure California is a pure comparative fault state, meaning
that the plaintiff can recover if defendant is only one percent at
fault -- although the plaintiff only recovers one percent of his
damages. *Anyway, with a sympathetic jury and a sympathetic decedent,
the truck driver could have been found "slightly" at fault for
something -- God knows what, maybe failing to be somewhere else at the
time. *If the decedent were a high value individual, then $1.5 million
could represent a small percent of a very high potential damage award.

In Oregon, plaintiff's claim is barred if he/she is 51% or more at
fault. *So up here, that case would have a low settlement value if the
video were as damning as suggested. -- Jay Beattie.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


video ? article sez no witnesses.

The CHP and State by opting out, are negligent in leaving the public
at risk.

but, most cautious drivers don't creep up on 18's in a position to
turn right into their vehicles.nada
  #30  
Old December 23rd 10, 03:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tēm ShermĒn™ °_°[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,339
Default Los Altos Hills bicyclist killed in big-rig crash was a mother,

On 12/22/2010 9:27 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
[...]
If you killed people as a part of your daily job, would you need someone
to tell you to find another one?[...]


If the job was working for a right-wing totalitarian government death
squad, killing people regularly would be required behavior.

--
Tēm ShermĒn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bicyclist killed in Norfolk Anton Berlin Racing 5 June 8th 09 07:36 PM
SUV Killed By Bicyclist soinie General 8 February 7th 05 07:35 PM
Bicyclist killed by SUV Ben Kaufman General 59 February 1st 05 12:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Š2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.