Verdict is in on Guy Accused of Attacking Mountain Bikers

There is a good account of the trial and verdicts at
http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defendant/#more-600'.

The jury could not reach a verdict on the felony. For the misdemeanors,
there were three guilty and two not-guilty verdicts. The defendant is
free until sentencing.

SMS wrote:

There is a good account of the trial and verdicts at
http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defe....

The jury could not reach a verdict on the felony. For the misdemeanors,
there were three guilty and two not-guilty verdicts. The defendant is
free until sentencing.

Until further notice, off-road cyclists in the South Bay Area are
advised to carry a pulaski, entrenching tool, or-- why the hell not?--
a small, sharp saw with them when they ride. For, you know, emergency
pest control and/or maintenance of trail access.

Chalo

On 3/22/2011 2:11 AM, Chalo wrote:
SMS wrote:

There is a good account of the trial and verdicts at
http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/mr-vandeman-is-a-very-unique-defe....

The jury could not reach a verdict on the felony. For the misdemeanors,
there were three guilty and two not-guilty verdicts. The defendant is
free until sentencing.

Until further notice, off-road cyclists in the South Bay Area are
advised to carry a pulaski, entrenching tool, or-- why the hell not?--
a small, sharp saw with them when they ride. For, you know, emergency
pest control and/or maintenance of trail access.

Chalo

I think Peter Frickwright's hosting bandwidth has been exceeded.

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

On 3/22/2011 12:11 AM, Chalo wrote:

Until further notice, off-road cyclists in the South Bay Area are
advised to carry a pulaski, entrenching tool, or-- why the hell not?--
a small, sharp saw with them when they ride. For, you know, emergency
pest control and/or maintenance of trail access.

Unlikely that he will re-offend.

On 22/03/11 7:24 AM, SMS wrote:

Unlikely that he will re-offend.

I am going to write a letter to the judge, asking him to consider
warning Mike V about trying to "get in the path" of a bike.

(Had I known that Mike would say this, I would have written to the
prosecutor to see if the following could have been brought up during the
trial itself.)

In my job I take photos for insurance companies regarding accidents, and
am given a copy of the accident report to assist me in getting photos of
the location of the accident. One of the incidents was a
vehicle/pedestrian accident, where the pedestrian walked out (in a
crosswalk, where they supposedly have the right-of-way) in front of a
vehicle. The investigating officer found the pedestrian at fault - of
course, this wasn't a trial, just the officer's opinion. But it turns
out that there IS a line in the vehicle code (which was cited in that
accident report) that says that a pedestrian is at fault if they walk
out in front of an approaching vehicle when the vehicle is traveling
fast enough and is close enough to present an imminent hazard.
Pedestrians have the right of way ONLY when it is safe for them to
exercise it. They don't have the right to jump out in front of fast
moving traffic and magically expect that traffic to stop or swerve to
avoid hitting the pedestrian.

When Mike tries to "get in the path" of a bike, he's doing what that
pedestrian did, and that isn't in keeping with the spirit or rule that
pedestrians (hikers) have the right of way on trails over bikes. He's
perfectly entitled to STAY WHERE HE IS in the trail (not step aside)
when he encounters bikes, and they have to yield to his current position
(yield the right of way). But he is not entitled to change his
position, making it impossible for bikers to yield (to an erratic moving
target), setting up a confrontation or accident.

During sentencing, the judge should explain this fine detail of "right
of way" to him, and warn him that if he causes another confrontation by
trying to "get in the path" of a bike he will really feel the wrath of
the courts.

jc

On 3/22/2011 7:59 AM, jcdill wrote:

In my job I take photos for insurance companies regarding accidents, and
am given a copy of the accident report to assist me in getting photos of
the location of the accident. One of the incidents was a
vehicle/pedestrian accident, where the pedestrian walked out (in a
crosswalk, where they supposedly have the right-of-way) in front of a
vehicle. The investigating officer found the pedestrian at fault - of
course, this wasn't a trial, just the officer's opinion. But it turns
out that there IS a line in the vehicle code (which was cited in that
accident report) that says that a pedestrian is at fault if they walk
out in front of an approaching vehicle when the vehicle is traveling
fast enough and is close enough to present an imminent hazard.

V C Section 21950 Right of Way at Crosswalks

Right-of-Way at Crosswalks

21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a
pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within
any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided
in this chapter.

(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using
due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb
or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that
is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may
unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.

(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked
or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the
speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation
of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.

(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty
of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any
marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

Amended Sec. 8, Ch. 833, Stats. 2000. Effective January 1, 2001.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21950.htm

What I see _all the time_ around my area is vehicles not obeying
sub-section a). They will drive right through a crosswalk, in front-of
or behind, pedestrians. Legally, if a pedestrian is in the crosswalk a
vehicle can't go through until the pedestrian is all the way across, not
just far enough through, or not just enough of the way through, for the
vehicle to pass.

When Mike tries to "get in the path" of a bike, he's doing what that
pedestrian did, and that isn't in keeping with the spirit or rule that
pedestrians (hikers) have the right of way on trails over bikes. He's
perfectly entitled to STAY WHERE HE IS in the trail (not step aside)
when he encounters bikes, and they have to yield to his current position
(yield the right of way). But he is not entitled to change his position,
making it impossible for bikers to yield (to an erratic moving target),
setting up a confrontation or accident.

A letter might be in order because the judge might not make the
connection between the laws regarding pedestrians and vehicles and what
Mike did. Of course the flip side of this is that in the case of
pedestrians and vehicles, both have the right to be on the road. In this
case, the bicycles were there in violation of the rules that UC had put
in place regarding bicycles on this road. While you can't attack someone
for violating a rule, as Mike apparently did, it could be argued that
when you're not expecting any bicycles on the trail you aren't required
to accommodate them.

On 22/03/11 8:40 AM, SMS wrote:
On 3/22/2011 7:59 AM, jcdill wrote:

In my job I take photos for insurance companies regarding accidents, and
am given a copy of the accident report to assist me in getting photos of
the location of the accident. One of the incidents was a
vehicle/pedestrian accident, where the pedestrian walked out (in a
crosswalk, where they supposedly have the right-of-way) in front of a
vehicle. The investigating officer found the pedestrian at fault - of
course, this wasn't a trial, just the officer's opinion. But it turns
out that there IS a line in the vehicle code (which was cited in that
accident report) that says that a pedestrian is at fault if they walk
out in front of an approaching vehicle when the vehicle is traveling
fast enough and is close enough to present an imminent hazard.

V C Section 21950 Right of Way at Crosswalks

Right-of-Way at Crosswalks

21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a
pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within
any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided
in this chapter.

(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using
due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb
or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that
is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may
unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked
crosswalk.

(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked
or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the
speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation
of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.

(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty
of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any
marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

Amended Sec. 8, Ch. 833, Stats. 2000. Effective January 1, 2001.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21950.htm

Thanks! I didn't have time to go find the code, I appreciate your
digging it up and posting it.

What I see _all the time_ around my area is vehicles not obeying
sub-section a). They will drive right through a crosswalk, in front-of
or behind, pedestrians. Legally, if a pedestrian is in the crosswalk a
vehicle can't go through until the pedestrian is all the way across, not
just far enough through, or not just enough of the way through, for the
vehicle to pass.

In some areas this would mean that vehicles couldn't move. E.g. trying
to make a right turn at most any intersection in San Francisco. When
you have the green, there are always pedestrians *somewhere* in the
crosswalk you need to cross as you turn. When you have the red there's
a stream of pedestrians crossing the crosswalk in front of you, in
addition to the cars streaming thru the intersection.

So in practice, this rule gets ignored, as long as the vehicle gives the
pedestrian enough berth.

When Mike tries to "get in the path" of a bike, he's doing what that
pedestrian did, and that isn't in keeping with the spirit or rule that
pedestrians (hikers) have the right of way on trails over bikes. He's
perfectly entitled to STAY WHERE HE IS in the trail (not step aside)
when he encounters bikes, and they have to yield to his current position
(yield the right of way). But he is not entitled to change his position,
making it impossible for bikers to yield (to an erratic moving target),
setting up a confrontation or accident.

A letter might be in order because the judge might not make the
connection between the laws regarding pedestrians and vehicles and what
Mike did. Of course the flip side of this is that in the case of
pedestrians and vehicles, both have the right to be on the road. In this
case, the bicycles were there in violation of the rules that UC had put
in place regarding bicycles on this road. While you can't attack someone
for violating a rule, as Mike apparently did, it could be argued that
when you're not expecting any bicycles on the trail you aren't required
to accommodate them.

You aren't required to accommodate them before seeing them, but once you
see them then common sense says that the laws regarding "right of way"
should be followed by both parties, to avoid injury to either party -
even when bikes are technically not allowed on that particular trail.
For comparison, pedestrians are not allowed on freeways and some
expressways. But if you are driving on one of those roads and encounter
a pedestrian, you still have to yield.

jc

On 3/22/2011 8:58 AM, jcdill wrote:

So in practice, this rule gets ignored, as long as the vehicle gives the
pedestrian enough berth.

Probably almost never enforced, though in some cases it should be.

You aren't required to accommodate them before seeing them, but once you
see them then common sense says that the laws regarding "right of way"
should be followed by both parties, to avoid injury to either party -
even when bikes are technically not allowed on that particular trail.
For comparison, pedestrians are not allowed on freeways and some
expressways. But if you are driving on one of those roads and encounter
a pedestrian, you still have to yield.

That's true.

While many people are rather vengeful regarding Vandeman, because of his
whole attitude and his misinformation campaign, the reality is that he
is almost certainly not going to do anything like this again. He'll
probably be banned from that particular area forever since UC has the
right to do that. He is not going to risk more jail time or more costly
trials by being a repeat offender.

Personally I would hope that the DA not retry him on the felony charge,
enough is enough since there is no way to get a not-guilty verdict, but
you only need one juror for a hung jury. The misdemeanors carry enough
of a penalty to make the point that this type of behavior is not acceptable.

SMS wrote:

Chalo wrote:

Until further notice, off-road cyclists in the South Bay Area are
advised to carry a pulaski, entrenching tool, or-- why the hell not?--
a small, sharp saw with them when they ride. *For, you know, emergency
pest control and/or maintenance of trail access.

Unlikely that he will re-offend.

You mean, based on his Usenet behavior since 1993? The words
"intransigent" and "recidivist" come to mind.

Normal people tire of doing things that don't work. This guy
doesn't.

Chalo

On 3/22/2011 9:38 AM, Chalo wrote:
SMS wrote:

Chalo wrote:

Until further notice, off-road cyclists in the South Bay Area are
advised to carry a pulaski, entrenching tool, or-- why the hell not?--
a small, sharp saw with them when they ride. For, you know, emergency
pest control and/or maintenance of trail access.

Unlikely that he will re-offend.

You mean, based on his Usenet behavior since 1993? The words
"intransigent" and "recidivist" come to mind.

But for 18 years it was all talk, and no one outside of Usenet paid any
attention to him. Had he realized the trouble he would get into by his
actions he would not have done what he did. Now he knows. He may need
some anger management classes, and maybe some education on trail impacts
by different groups of users, but he's not going to risk prison by being
a repeat offender.