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
  #11  
Old December 22nd 10, 05:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Chalo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,093
Default Los Altos Hills bicyclist killed in big-rig crash was a mother,

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
Ads
  #12  
Old December 22nd 10, 05:57 PM 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, 8:06*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

The swing left thing sounds right, and really, why would he look left
if the swing would not take him out of his lane? That's the scary
thing about lane-sharing. It puts you below the mirror on the
driver's side and in a blind spot -- or at least a spot where one
would not ordinary look. It's not like there's a bike lane going up
the left side of the far-right lane and one should watch for bikes. I
know Californians love their lane-sharing (rush hour is like a slalom
course for motorcyclists), but it is a dangerous practice. -- Jay
Beattie.
  #13  
Old December 22nd 10, 06:23 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane Hébert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 384
Default Los Altos Hills bicyclist killed in big-rig crash was a mother,

On 12/22/2010 11:57 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 22, 8:06 am, Duane wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

The swing left thing sounds right, and really, why would he look left
if the swing would not take him out of his lane? That's the scary
thing about lane-sharing. It puts you below the mirror on the
driver's side and in a blind spot -- or at least a spot where one
would not ordinary look. It's not like there's a bike lane going up
the left side of the far-right lane and one should watch for bikes. I
know Californians love their lane-sharing (rush hour is like a slalom
course for motorcyclists), but it is a dangerous practice. -- Jay
Beattie.


Yeah. It sounds like the bit about her cutting in front of him and
falling is bull****. I unfortunately have a lot of these trucks
around on my commute and though I think that they are very unpredictable
in general, I've learned that they swing left to turn right every time.

But still, this guy should know as a professional that what he's doing
is out of the ordinary for a typical motorist and he should pay
attention. Maybe he just did a red eye from Boston though. That's the
sort of thing that makes trucks unpredicatble.
  #14  
Old December 22nd 10, 06:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Los Altos Hills bicyclist killed in big-rig crash was a mother,

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."

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
  #15  
Old December 22nd 10, 07:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane Hébert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 384
Default Los Altos Hills bicyclist killed in big-rig crash was a mother,

On 12/22/2010 1:04 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 12/22/2010 12:39 PM, AMuzi 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."


I think he could have afforded a chauffeur.

Maybe not one who wouldn't talk to the national enquirer though.
  #16  
Old December 22nd 10, 07:04 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Peter Cole[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,572
Default Los Altos Hills bicyclist killed in big-rig crash was a mother,

On 12/22/2010 12:39 PM, AMuzi 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."


I think he could have afforded a chauffeur.
  #17  
Old December 22nd 10, 07:42 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Los Altos Hills bicyclist killed in big-rig crash was a mother,

Peter Cole wrote:
On 12/22/2010 12:39 PM, AMuzi 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."


I think he could have afforded a chauffeur.


Had he wanted one.

In a travel article on Ukraine, the reporter sees a street
vendor with a sign, 'Chernobyl Apples' and asks, "Who would
buy a Chernobyl apple?". The reply, "Wives buy them for
husbands, husbands buy them for wives".

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
  #18  
Old December 22nd 10, 08:30 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 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.

  #19  
Old December 22nd 10, 08:58 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Peter Cole[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,572
Default Los Altos Hills bicyclist killed in big-rig crash was a mother,

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.
  #20  
Old December 22nd 10, 09:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane Hébert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Los Altos Hills bicyclist killed in big-rig crash was a mother,

On 12/22/2010 3:10 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Duane considered Wed, 22 Dec 2010
12:23:01 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 12/22/2010 11:57 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 22, 8:06 am, Duane wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

The swing left thing sounds right, and really, why would he look left
if the swing would not take him out of his lane? That's the scary
thing about lane-sharing. It puts you below the mirror on the
driver's side and in a blind spot -- or at least a spot where one
would not ordinary look. It's not like there's a bike lane going up
the left side of the far-right lane and one should watch for bikes. I
know Californians love their lane-sharing (rush hour is like a slalom
course for motorcyclists), but it is a dangerous practice. -- Jay
Beattie.


Yeah. It sounds like the bit about her cutting in front of him and
falling is bull****. I unfortunately have a lot of these trucks
around on my commute and though I think that they are very unpredictable
in general, I've learned that they swing left to turn right every time.

But still, this guy should know as a professional that what he's doing
is out of the ordinary for a typical motorist and he should pay
attention. Maybe he just did a red eye from Boston though. That's the
sort of thing that makes trucks unpredicatble.


With any luck, he'll be uninsurable after this one, and therefore
unable to cause another.
I mean, what kind of premium would you demand to cover his risk?


I wouldn't let him drive a skate board. But I'm afraid that whatever
company pays him has already calculated the premium as part of the
cost of doing business. Maybe they have lots of drivers like this that
they underpay by enough to make up for the rare ones that get caught
and prosecuted.

My point is that it's not enough to rely on anything happening. He
needs to be out of a job and the company that kept him employed
knowing his record needs to pay.
 




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 05:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.