Fucking drivers!!!

[AdironRider]

How was she being reckless? You realize you need to prove that right? This guy was riding on a highway, in the dark, next to an active runway, so those lights are going to blend right in. Even a shitty lawyer is going to get her off.

This is an unfortunate situation all around, but all this does is highlight the unfortunate reality of physics when a car and a bike collide.

[doebedoe]

How was she being reckless? You realize you need to prove that right? This guy was riding on a highway, in the dark, next to an active runway, so those lights are going to blend right in. Even a shitty lawyer is going to get her off.

This is an unfortunate situation all around, but all this does is highlight the unfortunate reality of physics when a car and a bike collide.

You an asshole. Go to the Fucking Cyclists thread if you want to parade shit like this around. You're reckless if your driving kills another legal user of road because of your failure to follow traffic laws.

[AdironRider]

So every single traffic death should result in a manslaughter charge? I'm not trying to be a dick here but this is not a great example of "fucking drivers".

[doebedoe]

So every single traffic death should result in a manslaughter charge? I'm not trying to be a dick here but this is not a great example of "fucking drivers".

No, and I didn't say that. Many traffic deaths are single vehicle deaths -- manslaughter not applicable. Many traffic deaths do not have a single party at fault -- manslaughter not applicable. Traffic deaths in which one person's lawbreaking behavior directly causes another persons death? Yes.

If I blow a stop sign and kill a kid on a bike legally proceeding through an intersection-- I should be charged with manslaughter. If I change lanes without yeilding and run another person off a road and kill them -- I should be charged with manslaughter.

Just because you're driving a vehicle doesn't absolve you of not having to kill people with your actions. Accidental or not.

[Dantheman]

How was she being reckless? ...This guy was riding on a highway, in the dark, next to an active runway, so those lights are going to blend right in.

The shoulder in this area is huge, basically another lane. Hitting him required her to swerve 5+ feet out of the lane. That's reckless by any objective definition. Reckless =/ intentional. It's also two lanes each direction and there was no traffic. She should have been in the left lane and never gotten within 10 feet of this guy.

Let's say you veer off the road and hit and kill a State Trooper who is pulled over making a traffic stop. Your ass is going to jail, period.

You realize you need to prove that right? ...Even a shitty lawyer is going to get her off.

He was riding with several others who provided statements. We know exactly what happened here. If they charge her, 99% chance she pleads guilty. If she fights it, yeah, sure, maybe she walks. Got to charge her in the first place to find out, and even if she walks the very act of filing charges sends a message.

[Dantheman]

I'm not trying to be a dick here but this is not a great example of "fucking drivers".

Well, you are being a dick and this incident is actually the epitome of the sentiment of this thread.

Traffic deaths in which one person's lawbreaking behavior directly causes another persons death? Yes.

If I blow a stop sign and kill a kid on a bike legally proceeding through an intersection-- I should be charged with manslaughter. If I change lanes without yeilding and run another person off a road and kill them -- I should be charged with manslaughter.

Just because you're driving a vehicle doesn't absolve you of not having to kill people with your actions. Accidental or not.

Exactly.

[Danno]

How was she being reckless? You realize you need to prove that right? This guy was riding on a highway, in the dark, next to an active runway, so those lights are going to blend right in. Even a shitty lawyer is going to get her off.

This is an unfortunate situation all around, but all this does is highlight the unfortunate reality of physics when a car and a bike collide.

I'm curious, would you feel the same way if a pedestrian was walking on the shoulder, and got hit by a car that swerved into the shoulder?

The shoulder isn't a free lane to use whenever, it's there for things like broken down vehicles, bikes, pedestrians, etc. The very act of swerving into the shoulder and hitting something is reckless.

[babybear]

How was she being reckless? You realize you need to prove that right? This guy was riding on a highway, in the dark, next to an active runway, so those lights are going to blend right in. Even a shitty lawyer is going to get her off.

This is an unfortunate situation all around, but all this does is highlight the unfortunate reality of physics when a car and a bike collide.

i know you like to push buttons but this comes across as extremely dickish
esp given that you know lots of cyclists. and even courteous/ aware cyclists
come on man

[::: :::]

i know you like to push buttons but this comes across as extremely dickish
esp given that you know lots of cyclists. and even courteous/ aware cyclists
come on man

unfortunately, it's a remarkably common viewpoint tbh, and, as such, i'm happy to see it getting some pushback here

Everyone succumbs to a certain amount of driver self-centeredness. It takes some perspective to realize piloting vehicles with thousands of pounds of mass have implications. The higher the mass; the higher the responsibility.

[TBS]

From KSL article

{Police} are waiting on results from a toxicology screening and looking into whether she may have looked down before the crash.

What's the law in Utardia regarding driving and texting/otherwise using you phone? 'Cause I'm betting that's what happened.
So sad

[californiagrown]

Really, really shitty accident. I am conflicted on accidents like this where a simple mistake, or frankly common bending of a traffic law (going 10mph over, texting/calling/eating, rolling stop signs, etc), results in a horrific accident. It scares me because there was no ill will or active disregard for safety yet it is 100% the drivers fault for killing someone. I want there to be a villain to hate in these cases so that an extreme punishment to fit the extreme tragedy seems fitting... but extreme punishment doesnt seem fitting here despite there being an extreme tragedy.

I hate the idea of full time autopilot driving, but these kind of situations make me think that option is a better and better idea.

[jamal]

Really, really shitty accident. I am conflicted on accidents like this where a simple mistake, or frankly common bending of a traffic law (going 10mph over, texting/calling/eating, rolling stop signs, etc), results in a horrific accident. It scares me because there was no ill will or active disregard for safety yet it is 100% the drivers fault for killing someone. I want there to be a villain to hate in these cases so that an extreme punishment to fit the extreme tragedy seems fitting... but extreme punishment doesnt seem fitting here despite there being an extreme tragedy.

I hate the idea of full time autopilot driving, but these kind of situations make me think that option is a better and better idea.

Except that it's not an accident, and texting/eating/being distracted IS ill will and active disregard for safely.

You are behind the wheel of thousands of pounds of steel going really fast. It's your responsibility to pay attention and not kill someone.

[doebedoe]

Distracted driving is just as much an active disregard for safety as driving intoxicated.

We're finally reaching a societal norm that intoxicated driving is unacceptable. If our computer overlords don't take over soon, we will eventually reach the same position with distracted driving.

[AdironRider]

Really, really shitty accident. I am conflicted on accidents like this where a simple mistake, or frankly common bending of a traffic law (going 10mph over, texting/calling/eating, rolling stop signs, etc), results in a horrific accident. It scares me because there was no ill will or active disregard for safety yet it is 100% the drivers fault for killing someone. I want there to be a villain to hate in these cases so that an extreme punishment to fit the extreme tragedy seems fitting... but extreme punishment doesnt seem fitting here despite there being an extreme tragedy.

I hate the idea of full time autopilot driving, but these kind of situations make me think that option is a better and better idea.

This is my thought process on the matter, and as usual more eloquent in delivery. There is risk involved with everything. In this situation one risks this worst case scenario doing what he did. You will never eliminate this risk if you want to ride your bike on a roadway.

And of course, if she was hammered or texting throw the damn book at her. She openly stopped, clearly felt massive guilt, got the authorities involved herself (way to go buddies that were there by the way). This does not seem malicious or necessarily negligent on the surface.

If she wasn't hammered or texting I do not see how throwing her in jail and ruining another life, who probably also has kids and a husband, solves anything other than your need for vengeance.

[::: :::]

you can't go through life eliminating all risk

That is different than negligence

Failing to operate a vehicle safely is not the same as a boulder releasing from above a highway and causing an injury

Not everything bad should result in jailtime

sympathy for the one at fault is generous, but it seems very unbalanced when the result for the victim is significant injury or death

if you taco a cyclists wheel, but the rider is fine...that's one thing, but changing someone's life because the driver is inattentive is pretty significant

[::: :::]

I do not see how throwing her in jail and ruining another life solves anything other than your need for vengeance.

No, it won't bring anyone back. I don't think it is about vengeance either; that doesn't serve society at all.

What it does is addresses a cultural appreciation of the privilege of driving and the seriousness of what it entails. It establishes a higher threshold for responsibility for driving. By identifying a punishment at par with the damage done, we create an expectation for all drivers.

Driving is currently so easy that the risks involved are commonly taken for granted.

[AdironRider]

Fair enough, this situation is certainly different than an act of god.

Do you think the biker took on more risk by riding on the highway at night? Should that be taken into account at all?

The lady is not acting like someone who isn't going to be mentally fucked forever. Some may prefer physical prison, but I'd wager she now is trapped in a mental one for life.

[doebedoe]

Fair enough, this situation is certainly different than an act of god.

Do you think the biker took on more risk by riding on the highway at night? Should that be taken into account at all?

The lady is not acting like someone who isn't going to be mentally fucked forever. Some may prefer physical prison, but I'd wager she now is trapped in a mental one for life.

Why are you trying to make this about the victim? It is established that the biker was riding on a large shoulder, with lights, with other riders, who saw this happen.

You sound like someone who is asking if someone was wearing a short skirt, walking home after dark, took on more risk of being sexually assaulted. As if that makes it more understandable or okay that they are sexually assaulted.

[jamal]

Ah, yes, the driver was the true victim here. Also, what was the cyclist wearing?

[::: :::]

Do you think the biker took on more risk by riding on the highway at night? Should that be taken into account at all?

I have no idea. Someone is hopefully looking at that. It is possible. However, I want to emphasize that the operator of the larger vehicle should carry a heavier burden of resposibility (the whole mass thing). That delta in mass is a huge factor. If the driver is not operating appropriately for conditions (driving at a speed that headlights can't adapt for, for example)

The lady is not acting like someone who isn't going to be mentally fucked forever. Some may prefer physical prison, but I'd wager she now is trapped in a mental one for life.

perhaps...seems like how any of us might feel, but that doesn't eliminate the community's need to adjudicate the results of this event with appropriate actions. Otherwise, why have rules?

[californiagrown]

Why are you trying to make this about the victim? It is established that the biker was riding on a large shoulder, with lights, with other riders, who saw this happen.

You sound like someone who is asking if someone was wearing a short skirt, walking home after dark, took on more risk of being sexually assaulted. As if that makes it more understandable or okay that they are sexually assaulted.

The drivers guilt and the actions or the victim are separate issues. I hate that people get shouted down whenever the victims obviously negligent/dangerous actions are brought up. They do not excuse or warrant the tragedy, but they deserved to be discussed. Its just a separate conversation from the guilt/culpability/liability of the perpetrator, which is the only thing you seem intent on discussing. I don't think anyone here thinks the driver isnt culpable or doesn't deserve punishment.

[AdironRider]

I think you are sliding down a slippery slope by saying one road user has more responsibility than the other. That is exactly why lots of people hate cyclists for thinking the rules apply to thee and not to me so to speak.

You have two forms of transportation where there are inherent risks, including death, sharing a roadway, and outside of specific situations (like an Idaho stop sign) share the same responsibilities and rules to follow. People can die and no rules could be broken. In this case it appears she only broke a rule determined by society to result in a ticket currently.

I would agree that most traffic infractions should face stiffer penalties than they currently do though.

[::: :::]

I think you are sliding down a slippery slope by saying one road user has more responsibility than the other. That is exactly why lots of people hate cyclists for thinking the rules apply to thee and not to me so to speak.

You have two forms of transportation where there are inherent risks, including death, sharing a roadway, and outside of specific situations (like an Idaho stop sign) share the same responsibilities and rules to follow. People can die and no rules could be broken. In this case it appears she only broke a rule determined by society to result in a ticket currently.

I would agree that most traffic infractions should face stiffer penalties than they currently do though.

not a slippery slope & it does not absolve smaller vehicles of responsibility to operate safely

it has everything to do with the level of potential damage ::: speed and mass

huge trucks
small trucks
passenger vehicles
motorbikes
scooters
bicycles
pedestrians
kids

we already have many precedents for level of potential danger

[jamal]

I think you are sliding down a slippery slope by saying one road user has more responsibility than the other. That is exactly why lots of people hate cyclists for thinking the rules apply to thee and not to me so to speak.
.

A person in 4000lbs of steel going 60 mph absolutely does have more responsibility than someone on a bike. not just from a physics standpoint but legally as well. Know how you have to have things like a driver's license and insurance to drive a car? And last I checked, cyclists are the ones responsible for over 30000 deaths a year in the us.

[AdironRider]

Just because you don't need a license to ride a bike does not absolve you from risk, or the rules of the road.

What does a body count have to do with anything?