genec

https://www.cbs8.com/story/16557879/e...in-chula-vista

This quite easily could have been a school child on a bike... yet here is an adult, apparently riding legally and in broad daylight, mowed down by the driver of a car, and the police are just not sure whether to press charges... go figure.

Just remember these words, written by John Forester...
The above quote from a thread about harassment of schoolchildren by motorists... https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post13735337

Hey, if the police won't even press charges on a driver after that driver kills a cyclist riding legally, in broad daylight, in a school zone, well you do the "math." So much for "theory."

sggoodri

"Unclear" does not imply "won't." Most police departments treat fatal crashes with the same sensitivity to due process in the investigation as they would a murder case.

The story says the motorist was exiting a parking lot. Depending on where the cyclist was, the determination of what moving violations were made may not be obvious. Here in Cary, NC, police investigate lots of collisions involving cyclists being hit by drivers leaving parking lots or side streets. Most of these crashes involve cyclists riding in a crosswalk, against the normal flow of vehicular traffic. Police may struggle to determine if the cyclist was required to obey the laws for a pedestrian under such circumstances, and if so, was the motorist already legally entering the intersection (moving across the crosswalk) before the cyclist entered the crosswalk. It gets more murky if the driver pulls across the crosswalk to enter the street, then has to stop for traffic coming faster than expected, but then the pedestrian or cyclist walks out around and in front of the car (outside the crosswalk) just as the driver accelerates again.

Without more information, it's hard to say what the police should charge the motorist with, and that's why the police can't tell the reporter anything more certain about it.

Chris516

Cyclist-RIP(Rest In Peace)

Motorist-RIJ(Rot In Jail)

genec

"though the bicyclist apparently had the right of way at the time of the collision..." a statement made by police.

Sure I can understand a more through investigation... and errors on the part of the reporter... but taken together, this statement of the cyclist having ROW and the police unsure about charges... sure speaks loudly to the nature of biases against cyclists.

At a bare minimum, "failing to yield right of way" is a ticket-able offense.

Poguemahone

It was a school zone. IME, school zones have the highest concentration of bat@#$% crazy, incompetent drivers on the entire planet.

CB HI

Since your quote of John has nothing to do with inattentive drivers, why include it?

I saw no indication the driver was trying to harass the cyclist.

dynodonn 

This is one reason why I work so hard in not letting motorists hit me, since motorists receive very little in the way of penalties, even at times when the motorist is undoubtedly at fault.

I make a mistake, I pay, motorists make a mistake, I pay.

jediphobic

I feel I have to speak up on behalf of law enforcement. For one thing, I agree with sggoodri that unclear doesn't mean won't. Also, it's conceivable that this really was an accident and that the driver was no more at fault than the cyclist. It may not be likely, but it is conceivable. Third, remember that we have one mother of a confirmation bias going on here. We only hear about the cases where the conclusion is unclear or where the driver got off on questionable grounds. That doesn't mean that all cases are like that, just that those are the ones that bear discussion.

CB HI

I am waiting to see if the cyclist was salmon sidewalk riding.

The cyclist had ROW statement makes most of us think the cyclist was riding the way we would, but I am not so sure in this case. Police and News should have made that clear.

genec

I include it not for the harassment aspect but for the simple fact that few if any cases involving motorists hitting cyclists ever amount to the motorist being prosecuted... unless drugs or alcohol are involved... and this is counter to his statement of "if it gets to the level of endangerment, then it is assault and can, in theory, be treated through the legal process." That treatment he speaks of, rarely happens. All too often the cry is well the motorist suffered enough and will live with this forever... yeah, but the cyclist is dead. There is no balance.

I also included it as this too was near a school... where motorists should be paying extra attention. Clearly not the case here.

genec

+100

CB HI

While I consider you JF quote off base, I will agree with your other points.

Chris516

This made me think of when I was out today. As I going about 20mph, I happen to see a car starting to pull out of the parking lot of a local restaurant intending to make a left turn. Even though I was 'taking the lane' on a two-lane blacktop, the moron never looked for traffic coming from their left, just at the traffic traveling in the opposing lane. I had to quickly decide whether to hit the brakes hard(I need to replace my front brakes tomorrow), or to swing wide out to the double yellow line to get around him. I chose to swing wide and avoided t-boning the moron.

But is an indirect example of what happened to the cyclist(RIP) mentioned by the OP. When I am about to pass a parking lot entrance, I immediately look to see if some moron is about to suddenly pull out of the lot without looking for traffic.

Chris516

Not to intentionally sound biased, his age does me make wonder if had lost his drivers' license, so he chose to bike. But cyclist did not think about the traffic laws also applying to a cyclist.

Chris516

+10000000!!!!!!!!

Chris516

Hmmmm.......

True

It is always conceivable in every situation. But the pattern of LEOs' to quickly assign blame to the cyclist regardless of guilt or innocence, shows where law enforcement stands, in regards to cyclists in general.

But a safe bet that it is right. Because motorists usually don't get a hefty fine(let alone a fine at all) for a traffic violation when killing a cyclist.

True, We only hear about them and draw secondary conclusions from the information provided. At the same time, it is hard not to draw a conclusion that the motorist is responsible since, they already expect motorcycles and mopeds on the road. So they should be looking for ANYTHING on the road. Not just what they expect.

genec

I have found an AirZounds horn works fairly well in waking up morons that look right through you in such situations.

sggoodri

Comments on the story page suggest that this collision was crosswalk related. Again, when bicyclists ride from sidewalks into crosswalks, the right of way rules are not as cut-and-dry as for normal roadway cycling. This is why I think the police are being cautious before making a decision about charges. Even the victim's family does not have ill will toward the driver at this point.

noisebeam

here is a review of some related cases (not just AZ): https://azbikelaw.org/blog/sidewalk-cycling-in-arizona/

CB HI

^^I do not know why an attorney would be surprised by the decision, it is exactly the decision I would have expected the court to come to.

B. Carfree

I spoke with the driver's education instructor at a school I was volunteering at a couple of years ago. He teaches his students that cyclists who cross the street in a crosswalk are pedestrians. He claimed that his students didn't think that was surprising at all.

It's a real shame that fear of traffic causes many folks to ride in ways/places that put them at more risk from the traffic they fear (sidewalks, door-zones, gutter-hugging. those sort of places).

CB HI

Big +1.

Chris516

I will look into getting one.

adablduya

accident ? incorrect. in my opinion, too many folks like to use the term 'accident' to refer to an 'incident' with undesirable results. to me, an accident is an unavoidable and unforeseen 'incident', such as an act of God. in this situation, as is the case with just about any 'incident' involving a motorist, there are specific rules of the road designed to create predictibility, especially regarding right-of-way. deviations from predictable and expected actions are foreseeable and avoidable and thus, are not 'accidents', but 'incidents' with undesirable results. rules of the road are very specific, so to call an 'incident' an 'accident' is BS, and only creates an avenue of defense and excuse for the perp. if the cyclist had the ROW, and the motorist violated it, then this is an absolute no-brainer. motorist is guilty.

jfmckenna

Only the nuts in Advocacy and Safety do