|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 06:35 PM |
Bicyclist killed by SUV | Ben Kaufman | General | 59 | January 31st 05 11:17 PM |