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

On 12/22/2010 3:22 PM, kolldata aka AVOGADRO IV wrote:
On Dec 21, 10:35 pm, 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.

The voters in California need to grow up and realize that you can not
have government services without tax revenue.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Dec 22, 6:37 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/22/2010 3:22 PM, kolldata aka AVOGADRO IV wrote:



On Dec 21, 10:35 pm, 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.

The voters in California need to grow up and realize that you can not
have government services without tax revenue.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talkin'_'bout_a_Revolution

Dan O writes:

On Dec 22, 6:13 pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
"T m Sherm n _ " " wrote in
...

On 12/22/2010 9:33 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
[...]
but personally, the last
thing I want to do is ride abreast with a giant truck.[...]

I will not drive drive next to a semi-truck for any longer than absolutely
necessary.

Nor in front of one. Actually, behind them sucks pretty much
as well considering the diesel fumes.

Trucks in town are best handled by getting up speed well away from
them wherever you can, then getting well in front of them, then
getting out of the way if and when they speed up.

No?

On Dec 22, 9:08*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/22/2010 9:33 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
* [...]

but personally, the last
thing I want to do is ride abreast with a giant truck.[...]

I will not drive drive next to a semi-truck for any longer than
absolutely necessary.

I pretty much agree, although I'm not as nervous about it as my wife
is.

I was once run off the freeway onto the shoulder by a semi. He simply
moved right long before he was finished passing. I was forced to hit
a broken-off tailpipe, which ruined a tire.

Another time, I was in the middle of three lanes heading south, at the
left of a semi. The sign said "Left Lane Ends," but the trucker
apparently confused "Left" and "Right." He pushed me into the
vanishing left lane as he changed to the center lane. Then,
apparently realizing his mistake, he dropped back and flashed his
headlights.

OTOH, I have three friends who are long-haul truckers. All three seem
like fine people. The one who's a brilliant 5' 2", 90 pound, artistic
ex-IBM young woman with a degree in math, is a cyclist.

- Frank Krygowski

On 12/22/2010 8:28 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:

"Tºm Shermªn™ °_°" " wrote in
message ...
On 12/22/2010 11:39 AM, A. Muzi wrote:
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.

Thinking of a certain infamous Massachusetts driver, "We'll cross that
bridge when we come to it."

Why does Ted Kennedy get so much more grief than Laura Bush? Would it
be their respective political affiliations, perhaps?

Did Laura Bush get loaded, run her car into a shallow lake and flee in
panic,
leaving her illicit boy friend to drown in 4 feet of water? I must have
missed the
story.

You missed the story about Laura (then Welch) Bush running a stop sign
without even slowing down, and killing her ex-boyfriend? And refusing
to properly acknowledge her vehicular homicide to this very day?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 11/29/2010 4:15 PM, me wrote:
[...]

Why does being a mother get special notice? Are other people less valuable?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Dec 22, 7:33*am, Jay Beattie wrote:
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_...t_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.

I ride this area frequently. I want to make clear, that aside from
knowledge of the roads here I have NO personal knowledge of the
details of this fatal accident beyond what was reported in the media.

Here is the street view of the approximate location of the accident
from google maps:
http://tinyurl.com/2cya76y

This corresponds to the exact location where the fire department
"hosed off" the accident scene:
http://menlopark.patch.com/articles/...ash-with-truck

The white sign (visible in google street maps view, but not legible)
says: "Right lane must turn right."

The road here transitions from two lanes to three, the #3 lane being
the "right lane" which must turn right.

When I ride this exact spot I generally "take (control) the #2 lane."
I believe any experienced vehicular cyclist would do the same. I have
no idea if Ms. Ward "took the #2 lane," but if she did not (taking the
#3 lane instead), I believe what most likely happened here to Ms. Ward
was she was crushed by the rear left wheel as the truck was bearing
right.

On Dec 22, 12:52 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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.


+1

On Dec 22, 8:09 pm, Dan wrote:
Dan O writes:
On Dec 22, 6:13 pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
"T m Sherm n _ " " wrote in
...

On 12/22/2010 9:33 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
[...]
but personally, the last
thing I want to do is ride abreast with a giant truck.[...]

I will not drive drive next to a semi-truck for any longer than absolutely
necessary.

Nor in front of one. Actually, behind them sucks pretty much
as well considering the diesel fumes.

Trucks in town are best handled by getting up speed well away from
them wherever you can, then getting well in front of them, then
getting out of the way if and when they speed up.

No?


Frank, feel free to "chime in" ;-)

On 12/22/2010 5:10 PM, wrote:
In , Peter Cole says...

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

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.

I thought you were aware of evidence that the cyclist was at fault (one
of the 3 "idiots" killed in collisions with this driver). Did I
misunderstand?

What is your understanding of what happened in Santa Cruz?