4 ms·

>So here’s my proposal: Every time you get on a bike, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every traffic exchange everywhere... Hahahahaha.

by tsotha 13y ago

>So here’s my proposal: Every time you get on a bike, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every traffic exchange everywhere... Hahahahaha. I see a flaw in this plan. I don't see why the author views a lack of criminal charges as evidence of some kind of travesty of justice. If a cyclist gets run down by someone who didn't see him, that's an accident, not a crime.

scarmig 13y ago
Vehicular manslaughter is a crime.
- tsotha 13y ago
  Vehicular manslaughter requires a "wrongful act".
kazagistar 13y ago
You would be more likely to see the cyclist if you were faced with jail time for not seeing him. There is something deeply wrong with the attitude of "whoops, didn't see him, guess he's dead now, YOLO."
- tsotha 13y ago
  >you would be more likely to see the cyclist if you were faced with jail time for not seeing him. If that's the proposal then my counter-proposal is to ban all bicycles from the streets. People make mistakes, and it's simply not reasonable to put someone in jail for a mistake a normal person would have made.
sliverstorm 13y ago
I think this is the core of the discrepancy. Cyclists are so vulnerable that a half-second of inattention from either the driver or the cyclist can result in death. Many of the errors that grievously injure cyclists would have resulted in a broken mirror and scratched paint, had it been car-on-car. It seems likely to me jurors are recognizing this, and basing their decisions on actions rather that consequences. Which is not necessarily all that ridiculous.
CookWithMe 13y ago
If a child gets run down by someone who didn't see him... ...an investigation will be launched to find out whether it was an accident (i.e. child did jump in front of car) or a crime (i.e. driver was texting, easily could have spotted child). Similarly, an investigation should be launched if someone runs down a cyclist. Could be the cyclists fault (i.e. running a red light) or the drivers fault (i.e. running down a cyclist on a cyclist lane where the driver should take care not to run over cyclists...).
- tsotha 13y ago
  Why do you assume that doesn't happen?
  - CookWithMe 13y ago
    a) The way you stated it implies that it is ALWAYS an accident, never a crime. b) The article claimed so. > “We do not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run,” Leah Shahum, the executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, told me.
    - tsotha 13y ago
      I guarantee you if you killed a cyclist in the SF bay area there would be a police investigation.
jbl 13y ago
The problem is that "I didn't see the cyclist" becomes a catch-all excuse that law-enforcement takes at face value. This leads to an implicit (though not acknowledged or stated) assumption that a driver cannot be at fault in a driver/cyclist ahem interaction. I commute to work by bike every day, and every day I watch drivers with their heads down texting, fiddling with the radio, spaced out, or just plain aggressive. If one of these people hit me due to their inattention or actions, I'm pretty sure most police officers (and juries) would just assume accident. In a lot of cases, the incident wouldn't even be investigated.
- tsotha 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure if the cops knew someone was texting when he hit a cyclist he would get charged with something serious. But I'm not sure how you'd go about proving that's the case in the absence of witnesses. It's not unreasonable to take "I didn't see the cyclist" at face value if you don't have any evidence to the contrary - that's just a presumption of innocence.
revelation 13y ago
Well, theres a problem here, no? Even if we assume these are legitimate accidents, then there still has to be a reaction, or they will just happen again. The buck has to stop with someone, the person who planned the street in the first place, the project manager at Toyota responsible for the software that caused the unstoppable acceleration, and so on. Can't just ignore the problem. If you pour your wine all over your shirt, thats an accident, if someone is critically injured or killed, that warrants an investigation.
- tsotha 13y ago
  >Well, theres a problem here, no? Even if we assume these are legitimate accidents, then there still has to be a reaction, or they will just happen again. I don't think a "reaction" will have any effect at all. People genuinely don't want to run over cyclists already. >The buck has to stop with someone, the person who planned the street in the first place, the project manager at Toyota responsible for the software that caused the unstoppable acceleration, and so on. I disagree. Sometimes things happen that are simply nobody's fault. There's no "buck". And seriously? Street design? Good luck going after the guy who laid out the streets in 1801. >Can't just ignore the problem. If you pour your wine all over your shirt, thats an accident, if someone is critically injured or killed, that warrants an investigation. ... And it's still usually an accident. Where I live (and can you really name a place where this isn't true?) when someone is injured seriously or dies there's always an investigation. But what you're looking for isn't an investigation. You're looking for criminal charges and jail time.

by tsotha 13y ago

scarmig 13y ago

Vehicular manslaughter is a crime.

tsotha 13y ago
Vehicular manslaughter requires a "wrongful act".

kazagistar 13y ago

You would be more likely to see the cyclist if you were faced with jail time for not seeing him. There is something deeply wrong with the attitude of "whoops, didn't see him, guess he's dead now, YOLO."

tsotha 13y ago
>you would be more likely to see the cyclist if you were faced with jail time for not seeing him. If that's the proposal then my counter-proposal is to ban all bicycles from the streets. People make mistakes, and it's simply not reasonable to put someone in jail for a mistake a normal person would have made.

sliverstorm 13y ago

I think this is the core of the discrepancy. Cyclists are so vulnerable that a half-second of inattention from either the driver or the cyclist can result in death. Many of the errors that grievously injure cyclists would have resulted in a broken mirror and scratched paint, had it been car-on-car. It seems likely to me jurors are recognizing this, and basing their decisions on actions rather that consequences. Which is not necessarily all that ridiculous.

CookWithMe 13y ago

If a child gets run down by someone who didn't see him... ...an investigation will be launched to find out whether it was an accident (i.e. child did jump in front of car) or a crime (i.e. driver was texting, easily could have spotted child). Similarly, an investigation should be launched if someone runs down a cyclist. Could be the cyclists fault (i.e. running a red light) or the drivers fault (i.e. running down a cyclist on a cyclist lane where the driver should take care not to run over cyclists...).

tsotha 13y ago
Why do you assume that doesn't happen?
- CookWithMe 13y ago
  a) The way you stated it implies that it is ALWAYS an accident, never a crime. b) The article claimed so. > “We do not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run,” Leah Shahum, the executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, told me.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    I guarantee you if you killed a cyclist in the SF bay area there would be a police investigation.

jbl 13y ago

The problem is that "I didn't see the cyclist" becomes a catch-all excuse that law-enforcement takes at face value. This leads to an implicit (though not acknowledged or stated) assumption that a driver cannot be at fault in a driver/cyclist ahem interaction. I commute to work by bike every day, and every day I watch drivers with their heads down texting, fiddling with the radio, spaced out, or just plain aggressive. If one of these people hit me due to their inattention or actions, I'm pretty sure most police officers (and juries) would just assume accident. In a lot of cases, the incident wouldn't even be investigated.

tsotha 13y ago
I'm pretty sure if the cops knew someone was texting when he hit a cyclist he would get charged with something serious. But I'm not sure how you'd go about proving that's the case in the absence of witnesses. It's not unreasonable to take "I didn't see the cyclist" at face value if you don't have any evidence to the contrary - that's just a presumption of innocence.

revelation 13y ago

Well, theres a problem here, no? Even if we assume these are legitimate accidents, then there still has to be a reaction, or they will just happen again. The buck has to stop with someone, the person who planned the street in the first place, the project manager at Toyota responsible for the software that caused the unstoppable acceleration, and so on. Can't just ignore the problem. If you pour your wine all over your shirt, thats an accident, if someone is critically injured or killed, that warrants an investigation.

tsotha 13y ago
>Well, theres a problem here, no? Even if we assume these are legitimate accidents, then there still has to be a reaction, or they will just happen again. I don't think a "reaction" will have any effect at all. People genuinely don't want to run over cyclists already. >The buck has to stop with someone, the person who planned the street in the first place, the project manager at Toyota responsible for the software that caused the unstoppable acceleration, and so on. I disagree. Sometimes things happen that are simply nobody's fault. There's no "buck". And seriously? Street design? Good luck going after the guy who laid out the streets in 1801. >Can't just ignore the problem. If you pour your wine all over your shirt, thats an accident, if someone is critically injured or killed, that warrants an investigation. ... And it's still usually an accident. Where I live (and can you really name a place where this isn't true?) when someone is injured seriously or dies there's always an investigation. But what you're looking for isn't an investigation. You're looking for criminal charges and jail time.