UnfilteredDregs

Here's the forest for the trees...until jaywalking is enforced effectively accidents like this one are always going to happen, and people are going to be seriously injured, and no matter what cyclists will continue to be blamed.

If you are going to create a shared facility then the rules of how it operates needs to be equally enforced for the safety of all participants involved, pedestrians on foot, casual cyclists, athletic cyclists, joggers, etc..

That is not the case in Central Park. There's a dedicated bike lane divided into slow lanes and fast lanes, the speed limit is 25mph, plenty adequate for many road cyclists. The lines of site are good for the most part. As it stands pedestrians completely ignore what is the posted, proper, and safe use of the right of ways, and the cops don't do **** about it.

IMO they should fence the drive and funnel foot traffic to the crosswalks and strictly enforce the light rules. Cyclists stopping at lights, pedestrians crossing with lights. Problem solved.

Essex

The "Disneyland" effect - LOL.

The visitors from smaller cities in the US tend to follow NYC posted directions. They also tend to look well-scrubbed and a little awe-struck. Other folks, from denser areas of the world tend to follow what the locals do - jaywalk, cross lanes of live traffic but thankfully don't spit like the locals.

The glowing box is a major concern for local denizens as they aimlessly wend their way through ped. traffic sometimes ignoring live traffic. I just got rear-ended by someone who was most likely on a box. Good thing it was a car. My carbon bike would have been blasted to smithereens.

Cheers. Essex

JoeyBike

A pedestrian strolled out in front of a speeding vehicle and got killed.

The cyclist was not invisible. Legally it very well may be 100% the cyclist at fault but in the end a woman is almost dead and that could have been avoided by being more aware of her surroundings as she crossed a live roadway. The only way the injured woman is 100% vindicated morally is if the cyclist was a hit-man hired to kill her. Then she is off the hook for any responsibility in the crash episode. Otherwise, here inattention and complete trust in some inanimate traffic fixture to make her safe puts some blame on her.

There is a set of rusty train tracks three blocks from my house that has not seen a train in ten years. Yet, before I cross them (like 10 times a day sometimes) I look both ways. It does not cost anything.

dougmc

... and they set schedules and policies for such deletions and stick to them.

That way, when somebody comes looking for the document, they can say "well, we kept it for six months and then deleted it per this policy on this date, sorry, if you'd only gotten here a few days ago or told us we needed to preserve it ..."

And it's not just law and accounting firms ... many large firms do this.

As for an individual, most don't do this, and certainly you aren't expected to keep things forever, but if you almost killed somebody yesterday and knew it, and then in a few days they ask for your GPS traces (or video evidence or whatever), and you say "sorry, I deleted it ... you can't expect me to keep this stuff forever!" and yet Strava is full of all your other rides ... that's probably a crime, and they'd have a good case to prosecute you for it.

Most states have laws against this, and this looks like the relevant law for New York -- and stuff on a computer is almost certainly "physical evidence". There's also federal laws against this sort of thing.

That said, they would have to show that you had the evidence in the first place and that you knew they would be wanting it, which may or may not be easy. If you murdered somebody, yes, destroy the evidence, but for a traffic collision, even with a fatality, where you have evidence that hurts your case, I'm pretty sure your lawyer would tell you to keep the evidence, but not volunteer it unless they ask for it.

vol

None of us (including the reporters) know exactly what happened, so just to point out a wording in the article that sounds a bit biased:

"Another witness, Tom Longman, described the moment the high-performance yellow bike made contact with the unsuspecting pedestrian, knocking her off her feet."

"Unsuspecting" would be more appropriate in the cases of the elderly victims in the "knockout games" happening in NYC where young thugs punch passersby to the ground for no reason.

In this pedestrian case maybe "absent-minded" or "inattentive" are more proper.

FBinNY 

I think you're spinning this more than the reporter. Unsuspecting simply implies that she wasn't aware of an impending hazard, which is probably a fair statement. Inattentive or absent minded might not apply, especially IF she had a green light, and therefore reasoned that traffic would stop.

Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to write anything totally neutral, or in such a way as to prevent inferences. Even the very dry "the woman was crossing the road when she was struck by a bicycle" can cause folks to draw inferences and make assumptions based on their bias or experience.

I-Like-To-Bike

Who is this "they" that you speak of with the power and authority to ask and expect to receive whatever "they" feel like asking for from private citizens, whenever "they" ask for it; can examine whatever "they" feel like, and can "prosecute" if what ever is requested is not turned intact over to "them"; all in the absence of any criminal charges, subpoenas or court orders ?

IMO, legal-beagle conjuring about what "they" can demand that a citizen turn over to "them" without a court order.
And even more conjuring about any legal requirement for private citizens to retain information on their personal devices for "them" in case "they" might "ask" for it.

LesterOfPuppets

Those may look like tiny little brake levers on the ends of the aero bars but I suspect that they're FSA Vision Metron shifters, or similar, which do not have any brake actuation facilities.

I-Like-To-Bike

This thread is suffering from an overdose of spin, hot air rhetoric, and legal conjuring.
From the victim's alleged fault due to inattention and jaywalking despite the report that the cyclist swerved into her while trying to avoid other pedestrians. Spinning about vehicular homicide despite no death, speculation about what if the socioeconomic status of victim and cyclist were different; blah, blah, blah.

All we need now is for the BF lynch mob to start speculating based on stereotypes conjured from pictures of the cyclist and/or the bicycle involved. The preceding post would be a good starting point for such a spinning "discussion."

jeichelberg87

Are you just engaged in fishing now? Can you not tell the difference between a legal adult and a child? Spare all of us the next few keystrokes...

jeichelberg87

Well, maybe he was just yelling at the group of pedestrians he was trying to avoid when he swerved in order not to hit them...there goes your wack-a-mole theory...honestly, coming to unfounded conclusions at this point is senseless...

jeichelberg87

Is that the cyclist in the picture? He looks like a purposeful killer, right? [\sarcasm off]

seafood

What's your point -- that it's her fault? The bicyclist struck her while she apparently was crossing the street legally. It's his fault. If those are the facts, there's no debate. The rest -- could she have looked out for traffic more, are pedestrians in NY all idiots, is she really dead -- it's all irrelevant. None of us was there, so let's all stop bull****ting the public and stick to what we actually know. Also, show a little sensitivity to her and her loved ones' loss.

I-Like-To-Bike

[\sarcasm on]
Sure doesn't fit the profile of the law abiding, cycling specific clothing clad commuter as typically seen on BF does he? Must be guilty of somethin'; maybe he is one of them crazy, drug dealing messengers I've been hearing about, better check him out for incriminating tattoos, eh? Maybe his cell phone has some incriminating evidence, maybe "they" should "ask for it and charge him with a crime if anything has been deleted, ever. [\sarcasm off]

FBinNY 

You're doing your own bit of spinning here. If/when the victim is officially declared brain dead and ultimately take off life support (even if that's years out), the cause of death will be the accident. So the appropriate criminal charge, if any is levied, will be some sort of homicide. Of course it could be ruled an accident, but either way this will be treated as a death resulting from the event, not as a non fatal injury.

I might note that James Brady's ultimate death 33 years after being shot was ruled a homicide. IMO, that's a stretch, but that was the official ruling. This will come nowhere near that, so it will be treated as a fatality, even tough the victim isn't dead yet.

jeichelberg87

Just to venture to answer the question, "What's your point...", even though I did not make the the point...
The point is... A pedestrian strolled out in front of a speeding vehicle and is brain dead. The rest of your post? meh...it too, is irrelevant. People die everyday...How are his coments insensitive? Someone should fit your subjectivity when it comes to the term, "sensitive?"

jeichelberg87

I will never dream of riding a bike in New York again...honest...

jeichelberg87

Honestly, it would not surprise me if the rider is sincerely sorrowful someone has suffered grievous injury as result of an accidental collision in which the rider was involved...I know the times I have been in car crashes involving other vehicles my first concern was always, "Am I okay?" and then, "Is everyone else okay?" and then, "What about the cars?" For the most part, this is generally the thoughts of all my acquaintances and friends...

I-Like-To-Bike

The victim is brain dead because she "strolled out in front of a speeding vehicle?" From what inside source did you derive that insensitive and subjective comment?

I-Like-To-Bike

Does anyone on this list know any credible facts in reference to the pedestrian victim's condition?

howsteepisit

Mostly there is just a lot of manure being spread.

jeichelberg87

The article giving birth to this thread...

I-Like-To-Bike

Though the OP article has lots of speculation and gossip, it does not contain the insensitive and subjective (as well as callous) comment about the victim "strolling in front of a speeding vehicle" you gratuitously use to describe the victim's behavior. Maybe it is in the comments section but then that area is normally a cesspool of swirling rhetorical crap, just like much of the content of this thread.

Fissile

No he looks like a self-important, entitled, narcissistic, hipster, doosh. The scarf is a really nice touch.....in 75 degree weather.

LesterOfPuppets

Time stamp of scarf pic is unknown. It is not likely from day of incident.