jon c. 

A pedestrian was killed here yesterday. Student walking to class at 9 am. Driver ran a red light. The police announced today that appropriate citations would be issued to the driver but no criminal charges would be filed.

It was, after all, an accident.

JW Fas

Sure, she could be the millionaire next door, but how likely is that scenario? Either way, your response misses the point. You're predicating a semblance of justice off the remote chance the defendant has money to their name rather than advocating for a systemic criminal statute that punishes this negligent behavior and invokes stricter liability.

jeffwhitfield 

It's not ill-informed. Granted, just because a road has a 55 mph limit doesn't automatically make it unsafe. I'll grant you that. However, there are a lot of other factors to consider. Is it a high-traffic street? Is it two lanes, four lanes, or six lanes? What time of day was it? What was the traffic like then? Was there a curve in the road just before the driver came upon the cyclists? There are a lot of details we don't know out of this story so we can't presume anything.

So, I guess the next question is: What should have the punishment been? My take is that anything that resembles a felony crime might be too harsh. Having a felony crime on your record is no laughing matter. It can ruin your life for good. It can get you fired from your job and make it super, super difficult to find another job. We have to weigh that in with the nature of what happened. If a person was completely negligent and irresponsible beyond any shadow of a doubt then, yes, perhaps a felony level sentence is warranted. But was that the case here? That's the question I ask of everyone reading this story.

livedarklions

If you read his linked blog post, it actually made the judgment that riding was unsafe on that road based solely on the speed limit, no qualifiers and no apparent curiosity regarding the other factors you mentioned. So I would definitely stick by my judgment that the blog post was ill-informed, not to mention hypocritical given the statement that the blogger didn't want to make judgments.

I don't know whether she should have been convicted of a felony or not, but I do think the penalties for distracted driving need to be seriously evaluated.

jeffwhitfield 

I updated my blog post to reflect some of the discussion here. You're right, my post does make it sound like I was giving full judgment. The point I was trying to make is that we should consider all factors and realize that there's more to think about than whether or not the driver is guilty and should have a harsher punishment. You called me out on it and, hey, I honestly appreciate it. Constructive criticism is a good thing.

livedarklions

Cool! I read the update and appreciate the thoughtful response.

adablduya

rehabilitation? that's your idea of justice? send this person to a class or two and call it good ? it's not about "punishment, i'll give you that. it's about ACCOUNTABILITY. and that has to come in the form of some severe pain and inconvenience, and pal, that ain't gonna happen with some training. some jail, sure. a hell of a lot of community service, definitely. having to stand on a street corner wearing a sign that says " i killed cyclists because i was using my cell phone while driving". you bet. but, some "rehabilitation" ? just hearing a suggestion like that makes me apoplectic .

adablduya

either you are joking or you are on some really bad drugs. running a red light an "accident" ? with an outlook like that, my friend, you are part of the problem. criminal charges should most definitely be filed. negligent homicide at a minimum.

adablduya

you are one of way too many people who call refer to negligence as an "accident". in my world, if an undesirable outcome can be prevented, it ain't no accident. speeding ? not paying attention ? you call that an accident ? you are misguided.

jeffwhitfield 

I think you’re missing the point I was making. What were all the variables? We can’t look at just the driver’s actions and come to any sort of conclusion. We’re only reading what the writers and news people are telling us. What information did the police officers at the scene record? What were the conditions of the road? What was the traffic like at that time? Was there a bend in the road? Perhaps a blind spot for the driver? What other factors might have played a part in this? That’s not being misguided...that’s being open minded to the possibility that there are other factors we need to talk about.

Without actually being there and looking at the road, I have no idea on whether the city could improve conditions on that road to help curb more accidents. Higher speed roads without a shoulder or dedicated bike lanes are dangerous to ride on. So we have to think about that as well. In fact, I’m gonna see if I can find out where this accident occurred and, with the help of Google Maps, maybe look at the conditions of the road. Maybe that will shed some light on how we can improve things.

Safety starts with the driver, true. But there’s also things that cyclists can do as well as the city. We can’t forget that.

jeffwhitfield 

Ok, so let’s look a little deeper at this. According to other news outlets in Florida, the incident happened at State Road 84 and Flamingo Road. I took a look at the intersection on Google Maps (https://goo.gl/maps/YNkTbR52sMEZeJTv6). I wasn’t able to locate the exact spot but, from what I can gather, it looks like they were on the feeder road of the State Road 84 freeway.

So, again, were these cyclist riding along the feeder of the freeway? If so, was that perhaps not a good idea? Personally, I avoid the feeder of most major freeways. Just not safe even in a group. Better to stick with roads and crossways that are more bike friendly and safer. Probably need to narrow down where they were riding though before passing judgement on whether the conditions played a part in this. Still, it’s not looking good for anyone involved.

What’s interesting is that there’s also a part called New River Greenway which runs along side the freeway and feeders. Based on what I can tell in Google Street View, this looks like a bicycle friendly path. If I were riding around there I’d probably ride on it or another street off and away from the freeway.

zebreaux

So what if the lady hadn’t been in her car but had been on her bicycle and rear ended the other bicyclists, for whatever reason? Damage done would have been significantly less and she’d be just as guilty of not paying attention, which was actually the crime. A couple of people would be hurt and mad and nobody else would have heard about it. The bikers were voluntarily sharing the road with the automobiles and trusting everybody was paying attention. I’m not taking sides. If the bikers would have all been in autos... or armored vehicles, different outcome.

To one earlier comment about her not suffering any ill effects, I doubt that will be the case.

livedarklions

https://www.google.com/maps/place/S+...38213?hl=en-US

You're still second-guessing the injured riders based on incomplete information. This stretch of road doesn't appear to be anything particularly dangerous, and it's within feet of that intersection. Also, note that the speed limit on that area doesn't appear to be 55 mph as reported. Heck, that's actually a marked bike lane on this road. You need to just stop digging the hole deeper, it just looks like you're giving drivers the benefit of the doubt and not extending the same to riders.

jeffwhitfield 

You’re exactly right. I am giving the drivers the benefit of the doubt...at least to a degree. The fact of the matter is that we cyclists do not own the road. Neither do drivers either really. We share the road. As such, both drivers AND cyclists need to think about safety.

The irony is that you pointed out something that should be considered as well: the bike lane on that road. We still don’t know for sure what part of the road this incident happened. Still, if it was on that stretch of road then I would hope they were riding in that lane.

In fact, it’s good to see that such a lane exists on this road. However, look at the area a little closer. The bike lane doesn’t appear to exist on both sides. Plus, it looks like it’s only for a limited stretch of the feeder road, most likely acting as an extension of the New River Greenway trail.

This is all things that should be discussed. If it turns out that the area that these cyclists were in is prone to similar type accidents then the city needs to invest in bike lanes. Which is exactly the kind of thing we should be thinking about. It can’t be strictly about how drivers need to pay more attention to cyclist. We have to think about the driver, the cyclist, as well as infrastructure.

UniChris

The ghost bike suggests it happened here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@26.1180...7i16384!8i8192

If you back up the speed limit is 55, unlike the 45 stretch further along the road posted earlier.

There's no bike lane there, but there is enough of a shoulder to make it seem possible to ride without competing for the same space as the cars, just as in the later section where that space is marked as a bike lane. But the size of the group and the fact that 5 cyclists were hit suggests they weren't all on the shoulder, but instead in a position that required active driver response, rather than merely staying in a lane.

At what roadway speed limit its no longer safe to have cyclists sharing the actual travel lanes is a complex philosophical question. At 55 mph signed, if someone's car were to break down in a travel lane there, they'd probably be advised to get out of it and go stand by that privacy wall while waiting for help, similarly if road work were going on, highway departments have learned enough about typical behavior to put out warning cones far before the actual obstruction, and dump trucks towing concrete crash barriers at bumper height are not uncommonly seen parked to shield workers.

Sad part is, any conflict there is unnecessary - the sidewalk along the wall demonstrates it's a corridor for human movement, there's plenty of space to build a nice bike lane beside the road, and the distance between intersections is enough that driver/cyclist mutual awareness wouldn't be preserved between them anyway.

livedarklions

I've posted several times in several threads that I find these amateur crash analyses distasteful and pointless, and that they tell us far more about the prejudices and agendas of the people posting them than they do anything useful. Whether you intended to or not, you've now suggested several times that we should consider whether we should blame the cyclists for their own demise based on whether they should have been riding on that particular road. Your earlier redraft of your blog fooled me into believing that you now understood why you probably shouldn't do that, but now you just want to keep going on with it.

Play junior NTSB all you want in your own head, but I really find this whole exercise completely disrespectful to dead cyclists and their families.

You do understand that she admitted plowing into these people because she was distracted, right? Why are you working so hard to figure out why the dead people were responsible for THAT?

jeffwhitfield 

Awesome! You found the spot!

All very, very good points and totally valid. I agree, this looks like a good opportunity for the city to add a bike lane. Definitely plenty of room there. That in itself would help immensely.

jeffwhitfield 

First, I am not prejudiced and do not have an agenda. Your point is actually the opposite of what I see. Way too often I see people who respond viscerally and do not think through the problem. Like I’ve said on my blog and on here, we simply can’t think about the driver alone. We have to look at all the factors that play into the safety of cyclists. If we don’t then we end up ignoring the obvious. Part of that includes the infrastructure as well as the things cyclists themselves can do to promote safer riding. No doubt driver awareness is a big one...but it’s not the only thing we can do. We can’t just punish every distracted driver and assume that’s enough. It’s not. Which is entirely my point.

I have no problem in blaming the driver and, in this case, the driver clearly was part of the problem. She was clearly distracted. Her punishment is what it is. But I think there’s more to it, more questions to ask. So, I ask you: Can you keep an open mind and try to find out more facts about this particular case before jumping to conclusions? We still don’t know all the facts about this case. Knowing them might help us solve problems even in our own area.

I live in Dallas and, believe me, I take cyclist safety very serious. My local cycling group takes safety very serious. I’ve talked with a lot of riders about the routes we take and how we can continue to make them as safe as possible. That includes modifying routes so that we avoid high-speed, high-traffic areas. Like it or not, along with distracted drivers, cyclists themselves can be part of the problem as well.

livedarklions

Nope. Seen too many of these threads, and they all end up going into the same stale discussion--an argument about what the facts are in some pointless debate about where to assign blame. My mind is plenty open, but I have seen no evidence that this particular format produces anything but people pretending to be experts making judgments about an event they neither witnessed nor know much about.

I would not expect you to care one whit about my evaluation of the safety of a route in Dallas, nor would I care about your opinion of the safety of any route I ride that you haven't been on. You may be safer riding on a bike path rather than a busy road, but we are constantly making trade-offs between safety probabilities and other considerations in every aspect of our lives, bicycling is no different in that regard. None of this is a news flash, and none of this required trying to go over the reported and somewhat random details of a person's death in an internet forum like we were arguing over a ref's call in a football game.

jeffwhitfield 

Ok, I'm confused. What are you saying we should do then? Just not talk about it? What are you suggesting?

livedarklions

Quit pretending you can perform a proper inquest and stop second-guessing dead people.

Again, it's not a news flash that someone could be safer riding on a path. If the cyclist was riding where it was legal to ride, whether they "should" have been there isn't a legitimate inquiry, and certainly not one we have anything relevant to say about.

jeffwhitfield 

So I’m clear. You’re saying that we shouldn’t say anything at all because it’s obvious? And thus we shouldn’t talk about to honor the dead? I can’t speak for you so I’m asking. What would you do?

Here’s my reaction to this.

When I first read this story, I noticed that the visceral reaction was “That woman got off way too easy!” Almost nothing was said about how this could have been prevented. Nothing. The only thing towards that was simply “the lady should have been paying attention” and that’s it. My reaction was a bit different. I wondered what could have been done to prevent it. Being that the dead can’t speak, we have to speak for them. Without this conversation, without a debate, absolutely nothing will come out of it other than there being dead cyclists as a result of a careless driver. We can do more.

Yes, no doubt, no debate, the lady should have been paying more attention. That’s one way this could have been prevented. But the more I hear about these stories the more we also hear from other cyclists, even professional cyclists, that we simply can’t rely on drivers to be mindful of cyclists and drive safely. That is an element that simply will not go away...like ever. There will always be drivers who will do things that make us unsafe as cyclists on the road. All the awareness, prevention with better bike lights, reflective stickers, none of that really matters if the driver isn’t paying attention. Even stiffer penalties aren’t a guarantee. People will still do stupid stuff behind the wheel. What else can we do?

Yes, the cyclists could have chosen a safer road to ride on. But, to many, it’s their right to ride on that road. True...but is it still a good idea? Given that we can’t always rely on drivers to pay attention, the risk may outweigh the the reward. But, I digress, it’s still the cyclist’s right to ride on that road. So...what else?

I’ve learned that the city could install dedicated bike lanes on that road. There’s plenty of room to do so. So, my take on this is that one reasonable course of action would be to advocate the city to build bike lanes along the feeders of that freeway. That one step would help save lives by giving riders a free path without the risk of distracted drivers hitting them.

livedarklions

So basically you see these death stories as an opportunity for everyone not involved to speculate on what everyone involved could have done that might have avoided the crash?

Knock yourself out, but why you imagine a conclusion that it would be nice if there was a path built near the busy road requires any analysis at all is beyond me. Water is wet, too, I don't need to offer my third-hand source suppositions of the actions of drowning victims in order to "prove" that.

jeffwhitfield 

No, on the contrary. It's not about speculation. It's about advocating ways that make cyclists safer. Each and every situation has a lesson learned. Saying nothing and simply not talking about it accomplishes exactly that: nothing. The death of any cyclist is something that we should talk about. Having an open conversation about what could have been done to prevent it is one of those talks. If we don't then the same thing could happen in other places. If anything, the conversation can promote others to step up and perhaps advocate changes in the cities they live in. How about we reach out to this community in Florida and promote the bike path idea? Why would that not be good?

livedarklions

I'm sure no one in the vicinity of that crash has ever thought about bike paths and lanes, amirite?

So we're going to have a thread like this EVERY time a cyclist gets killed? Is that just in the U.S. or the entire world? If we just do the U.S. that's 800 threads a year. Knock yourself out.

And no, sometimes there isn't a lesson to be learned, especially when we can't agree on exactly what happened (aka, most of the time).