YES! Cyclists' death sparks lawsuit

[PM5K]

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Follow-up-Cyclists-death-sparks-lawsuit/LI-0dPFAbEGkbJ_4taYhBw.cspx

I'm sure you guys heard about this originally. Obviously I can't say if they'll win or not, but I hope they do.

It just seems pretty fucked up to me that two people can be dead and the person responsible for their deaths can simply say "Oops" and then get to just walk away.

I hope they win.

[exstatic]

My guess is that it involved a phone, either talking or texting. The road conditions just don't indicate losing control unless they were majorly distracted.

[lil'mo]

That's what happens when you ride a novelty bike (or any bike for that matter) on a busy San Antonio motorway. I hope they lose the lawsuit.

[exstatic]

That's what happens when you ride a novelty bike (or any bike for that matter) on a busy San Antonio motorway. I hope they lose the lawsuit.

Uh, the truck veered into the median, over corrected, and wiped them off the shoulder. You are entitled to ride on the road, tandem bike or not.

[mavs>spurs2]

That's what happens when you ride a novelty bike (or any bike for that matter) on a busy San Antonio motorway. I hope they lose the lawsuit.

you're a douchebag

[lil'mo]

you're a douchebag

o.k.

[Vinnie_Johnson]

you're a douchebag

Big time.

[chode_regulator]

Uh, the truck veered into the median, over corrected, and wiped them off the shoulder. You are entitled to ride on the road, tandem bike or not.

too lazy to look. link please.

[lil'mo]

Uh, the truck veered into the median, over corrected, and wiped them off the shoulder. You are entitled to ride on the road, tandem bike or not.

You have to be some kind of daredevil to ride a bike on that road.

[Wild Cobra]

Uh, the truck veered into the median, over corrected, and wiped them off the shoulder. You are entitled to ride on the road, tandem bike or not.
Is that what a witness said?

Bicycles should not be on a highway. Just the suction caused by vehicles passing them at highway speeds can make a bicycle overcorrect. More often than not, bicycle/car accidents I've seen are the riders fault.

How do we know they didn't veer into the car lane?

What is the speed limit where this happened? If it's 45 MPH or more, they were foolish to be on the road.

[Wild Cobra]

Uh, the truck veered into the median, over corrected, and wiped them off the shoulder. You are entitled to ride on the road, tandem bike or not.
That's just an assumption right? It seems to me the investigators are assuming that, because the bycycle was suppose to be on the shoulder, right? What if the bicyclists veered into his lane? I saw no witness account saying he veered. Did the driver say he veered? Was it suggested once, and everyone ran with that?

WTF..

How can someone be so ignorant about safety, and to ride a bicycle on a 65 MPH road? On top of that, 8-10 miles away, uphill from their house. How tired were they, and how did that contribute to the accident?

About 50% of the accidents where I live are atrributed to the car driver, but from most the accident's I hear about, the bicyclists disobeyed traffic laws.

Here's something to think about:


“Planes, trains and automobiles have collisions everyday in this country,” Bexar County First Assistant District Attorney Cliff Herberg said. “Although innocent people often die in these accidents, the vast majority of those do not result in criminal charges.”

To pursue charges of manslaughter, prosecutors must have evidence of not only a “bad act” that leads to someone's death, but enough proof to convince a 12-person jury the driver had a mental state that was a gross deviation from reasonable behavior, Herberg explained.

Mere negligence — going 5 mph over the speed limit, drifting out of a lane while changing a radio station or briefly not paying attention — is not sufficient under the law to charge a driver with a crime, he said.

A police spokesman said few tickets or misdemeanor charges are brought against drivers because the collisions often are the fault of the pedestrians and cyclists.


link: Cyclists to air their grievances (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/Cyclists_to_air_their_grievances.html)

Here's an interesting event:

Rush hour crash on Hawthorne Bridge raises questions about bike traffic (http://bikeportland.org/2009/05/07/is-bike-traffic-at-a-tipping-point-rush-hour-crash-on-hawthorne-bridge-raises-big-questions/)

[exstatic]

The Bruehlers were southbound in the 18500 block of Texas 16 when a pickup driven by Gilbert John Sullaway Jr., 40, plowed into them about 10:45 a.m., said Deputy Ino Badillo, spokesman for the Bexar County Sheriff's Office. The truck then dragged the bicycle about 200 feet, Badillo said.

He said it appeared that Sullaway, a resident of Helotes, veered off the highway in a Ford F-150 at least once before the cyclists were hit, but investigators don't suspect alcohol played a role. Both cyclists were wearing helmets.

“He lost control of his vehicle and drove off the road,” Badillo said. “He overcorrected and as a result of that struck the bicyclists.”

link (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/Married_couple_on_bicycle_killed_in_collision.html )

[bus driver]

i dont know if the drive should face any jail time, but we should be allowed to beat him for his negligence/accident.

i would much rather have him beat by the community than pay for his time in jail......

[exstatic]

i dont know if the drive should face any jail time, but we should be allowed to beat him for his negligence/accident.

i would much rather have him beat by the community than pay for his time in jail......
This isn't about jail. It's Tort action. Different thing altogether.

[BacktoBasics]

Yes bikes are allowed to be on the road. Regardless I would never under any circumstances put the value of my life in the hands of the driving public like that. This country and particularly this State doesn't do enough to promote bike awareness.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Yeah I'm not brave enough to get off the bike trails and sidewalks. I have no idea how the dudes do it in NYC. It's a sight to see.

[BacktoBasics]

Yeah I'm not brave enough to get off the bike trails and sidewalks. I have no idea how the dudes do it in NYC. It's a sight to see.Well in a place like NYC people are much more aware of who shares the road with them. Down here the all the fucking necks think they own the roads.

[Spursfan092120]

I live in the Texas hill country, and there's a road called River Road...some of you may know it. Thin roadway...a LOT of turns and twists and hills. We have a LOT of bicyclists on the road, and it's not safe. To top it off, they don't move when a car is behind them. They just stay right in front of them. Not safe at all.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Well in a place like NYC people are much more aware of who shares the road with them. Down here the all the fucking necks think they own the roads.

Dude it's everyone for themselves on NYC roads. Stripes in the road are merely suggestion marks.

[Cry Havoc]

lots of blah

WC making assumptions and casting aspersions again. :lol

[MannyIsGod]

Yes bikes are allowed to be on the road. Regardless I would never under any circumstances put the value of my life in the hands of the driving public like that. This country and particularly this State doesn't do enough to promote bike awareness.

One of the reasons I don't commute on my bike nearly as often as I used to is because of this. I've been hit by cars before, and generally people are pretty horrible at sharing the road.

It sucks because when you have awesome weather like this it completely beats sitting in traffic in a car and is a pretty decent work out.

[katyon6th]

One of the reasons I don't commute on my bike nearly as often as I used to is because of this. I've been hit by cars before, and generally people are pretty horrible at sharing the road.

It sucks because when you have awesome weather like this it completely beats sitting in traffic in a car and is a pretty decent work out.

I got a sweet ass vintage cruiser to ride around the southtown/King William area. Perfect for days like this. No way I'd get on a busy road on a bike, though.

[MannyIsGod]

I got a sweet ass vintage cruiser to ride around the southtown/King William area. Perfect for days like this. No way I'd get on a busy road on a bike, though.

Thats probably the most bike friendly part of town.

[BacktoBasics]

I got a sweet ass vintage cruiser to ride around the southtown/King William area. Perfect for days like this. No way I'd get on a busy road on a bike, though.
Any chance we could get one of those two seaters with you in the front so I can stare at those sweet humps of yours.

[mrsmaalox]

Dude it's everyone for themselves on NYC roads. Stripes in the road are merely suggestion marks.

Also there are so many cars on the street that no one is traveling at too great a speed. A car can't make too many uncontrolled movements in such a tight area.

[katyon6th]

Thats probably the most bike friendly part of town.

Yeah. A lot of group bike rides in the area.

[katyon6th]

Any chance we could get one of those two seaters with you in the front so I can stare at those sweet humps of yours.

Doesn't the person in the front do most of the pedaling? Lazy!

[Wild Cobra]

The Bruehlers were southbound in the 18500 block of Texas 16 when a pickup driven by Gilbert John Sullaway Jr., 40, plowed into them about 10:45 a.m., said Deputy Ino Badillo, spokesman for the Bexar County Sheriff's Office. The truck then dragged the bicycle about 200 feet, Badillo said.

He said it appeared that Sullaway, a resident of Helotes, veered off the highway in a Ford F-150 at least once before the cyclists were hit, but investigators don't suspect alcohol played a role. Both cyclists were wearing helmets.

“He lost control of his vehicle and drove off the road,” Badillo said. “He overcorrected and as a result of that struck the bicyclists.” link (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/Married_couple_on_bicycle_killed_in_collision.html )No Shit Sherlock.

Saw that.

Don't you know how to pars wording?

“He lost control of his vehicle and drove off the road,” Badillo said. “He overcorrected and as a result of that struck the bicyclists.” is an assumption. Like I said, were there witnesses? Did the driver say this?

[Cry Havoc]

No Shit Sherlock.

Saw that.

Don't you know how to pars wording?

“He lost control of his vehicle and drove off the road,” Badillo said. “He overcorrected and as a result of that struck the bicyclists.” is an assumption. Like I said, were there witnesses? Did the driver say this?

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee24/MaxVest/backpedal.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

WC making assumptions and casting aspersions again. :lol

No, I am pointing out what is factually known, and showing the what else can be assumed.

I do not state facts that I don't know.

[thispego]

Bike riders want all of these rights and to be treated equally on the road, as if they were a car or motorcycle. then I see some cyclist pedal through a red light or weave between slow moving traffic. dumb. Not to mention the lame spandex outfits.

[The Reckoning]

Bike riders want all of these rights and to be treated equally on the road, as if they were a car or motorcycle. then I see some cyclist pedal through a red light or weave between slow moving traffic. dumb. Not to mention the lame spandex outfits.


and ride on the sidewalk.

they're like pavement hovercrafts.

[thispego]

I'd rather them be on the sidewalks and not in my way on the road

[The Reckoning]

id rather them be in your way on the road and outta my way on the sidewalks

[mrsmaalox]

Bike riders want all of these rights and to be treated equally on the road, as if they were a car or motorcycle. then I see some cyclist pedal through a red light or weave between slow moving traffic. dumb. Not to mention the lame spandex outfits.

I've observed a lot of that sort of behavior too. Not all bikers of course. In fact most of the "neighborhood" riders I've encountered are extremely safe and conscientious. But the pro guys in the hideous spandex really do challenge the traffic at times. They ride 3 or 4 abreast and get around traffic signals if they can. It's like they are trying to make a point to the cars, but some do it very dangerously.

[Shastafarian]

Highway 16 was shutdown for about two hours as crews worked to clear the accident site. Investigators say there are no charges on the driver. They believe this was an accident and that somehow the driver lost control of his truck.
They just must be guessing. I mean, who actually looks at evidence at the scene of an accident and deduces facts from that evidence? Skid marks? LOL those could be from ANYTHING.


a man in a pickup veered off the road and hit them.How do they know the bicyclists didn't draw him off the road with their shiny pedals? I mean, those things are death traps for drivers. So distracting.


"He looked off, he was looking at something else and realized the curve in the road came a lot faster than what he anticipated," explained Deputy Chief Dale Bennett of the Bexar County Sheriff's Office.This guy is just making shit up.


WC...you suck at life. Just FYI.

[Wild Cobra]

This guy is just making shit up.

Until there is a report that tells us that the driver admited these things happened, or an eye witness accout, this is an expert opinion that can be wrong. That's all I'm saying. To take the word of this man at face value is rather ignorant. It could be true, it could be a best guess, or worse yet, he could have made it up.

Bottom line is there is nothing I have seen that was reported as a factual witnessed account.

[antimvp]

I got hit by a car on a motorcycle and thats is the same bullshit I was told "oops" I didn't see you.

the laws need to get tighter.......cars need to yield to anything smaller than they are PERIOD.

[lil'mo]

I got hit by a car on a motorcycle and thats is the same bullshit I was told "oops" I didn't see you.

the laws need to get tighter.......cars need to yield to anything smaller than they are PERIOD.

Yield to something they can't see? Makes sense.

[CosmicCowboy]

That guy was effectively dead anyway. No self respecting guy would ride a tandem bicycle in public.

[EmptyMan]

I drive up there all the damn time. The cyclists are easy to spot.

Cyclists are very annoying, but it really pisses me off that some idiot hit this couple.

[Wild Cobra]

I drive up there all the damn time. The cyclists are easy to spot.

Cyclists are annoying, but it really pisses me off that some idiot hit this couple.

Why do cyclists go for that Darwin Award.

I'm sorry, but I would never ride on a stretch of road with a posted 65 MPH speed limit. I'm just not that stupid.

[thispego]

what are all those scuff marks on the concrete barriers from anyways?

[Wild Cobra]

Yield to something they can't see? Makes sense.No kidding.

It's bad enough to have bicycle lanes on a 40 MPH stretch and have to crash into a car next to you because a bicycle swerves. I don't think they ever stay in their lane.

I witnessed such an accident, the bicyclist left the scene. No plates, couldn't trace the mofo. I gave my view of what I saw, and no way to collect damages from the cyclist. When I learned on that, I told them, well, I'll hit the bicyclist instead of the car then if I must to collect damages.

[Wild Cobra]

I found an interesting article. Apparently, only about 6% of bicycle accidents are the fault of a driver of a car:

Bike/Car Intersection Collision Liability Portland, OR (http://articles.directorym.com/BikeCar_Intersection_Collision_Liability_Portland_ OR-r935217-Portland_OR.html)

Often, the suits get rediculous:

Lars Larson on Bike vs. Bus Suit (http://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php/archives/2225-Lars-Larson-on-Bike-vs.-Bus-Suit.html)
A young boy ran a red light on his bicycle. He was hit by a bus. The bus killed him. But really he killed himself. The police determined that it was his fault for the accident.

The problem is, his parents decided to sue anyway. Their lawyers went after the bus company and when they were done the bus company agreed to pony up hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[ploto]

I have said it before and I will say it again- if bicyclists want to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, they should have a licence, registration with plates to identify them, and insurance to cover the accidents they cause.

[Shastafarian]

Until there is a report that tells us that the driver admited these things happened, or an eye witness accout, this is an expert opinion that can be wrong.Your opinion having never seen the accident or anything involving it >>> expert's opinion

That's all I'm saying. To take the word of this man at face value is rather ignorant.Taking the word of a police officer whose job it is to get these things right is rather ignorant.

It could be true, it could be a best guess,A guess based on evidence. Something you don't seem to understand.

or worse yet, he could have made it up.Again, you suck at life. You'll find ANY reason you can to be a contrarian here and this situation just happens to involve the deaths of a mother and father of a young child.


Bottom line is there is nothing I have seen that was reported as a factual witnessed account.
Bottom line is you're a horses ass. Why don't you go down to SA and investigate and get to the bottom of this police conspiracy.


Legally speaking, in nearly every state a bicycle is considered to be a "vehicle" and therefore, just like motorists, cyclists must follow the rules of the road. When it comes to collisions occurring at intersections, liability usually boils down to who had the right-of-way -- the car or the bike.

[Shastafarian]

I found an interesting article. Apparently, only about 6% of bicycle accidents are the fault of a driver of a car:

Where did you get that number? I read through that article you posted and didn't see it. Are you making things up again?

[Wild Cobra]

Where did you get that number? I read through that article you posted and didn't see it. Are you making things up again?

Again?

I don't make things up. Don't you know how to parse what you read?

I did that purposely. It proves a lack of misunderstanding readers like yourself have, that a story can be written factually to give a false impression.

Try to figure out what I did if you can.

[exstatic]

Again?

I don't make things up. Don't you know how to parse what you read?

I did that purposely. It proves a lack of misunderstanding readers like yourself have, that a story can be written factually to give a false impression.

Try to figure out what I did if you can.

Yeah, except what I said was actually in the story I quoted, stated by a L.E.O. Your shit was made up.

By your theory (I refuse to call it reasoning), a dead body could be found next to fresh tire marks in soft mud, and since no one witnessed the killing/dumping, there should be no consequences to the killer, even though the tire marks match his vehicle's, right down to a nail and a few embedded stones. Forensic evidence is used EVERY DAY to convict people of criminal offenses, which, by the way, have a much higher standard of evidence than Tort offenses.

[Shastafarian]

Again?Yeah, again. Here's the latest in the WC "I'm gonna pull something out of my ass cuz hey, it's all brown and gooey down there" file.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3805187&postcount=4

If you want me to find more I can.


I don't make things up.Yes you do.

Don't you know how to parse what you read?I do. What does that have to do with you making up a statistic?


I did that purposely.I know you made it up purposely.

It proves a lack of misunderstanding readers like yourself have,It proves a lack of misunderstanding? Is that your final answer?

that a story can be written factually to give a false impression.How does you making up a statistic prove that?


Try to figure out what I did if you can.
What, you making up statistics?

[timvp]

First I'm reading of this and damn I saw that tandem bike on the same stretch of road. Might have been the same day. Now I feel bad for laughing at it.

[Cry Havoc]

First I'm reading of this and damn I saw that tandem bike on the same stretch of road. Might have been the same day. Now I feel bad for laughing at it.

Don't lie. You don't feel bad for laughing at all. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah, except what I said was actually in the story I quoted, stated by a L.E.O. Your shit was made up.
I know that, and I didn't say otherwise. I am only pointing out another possibility for the facts. How do we know the driver veered? Investigators are not always right, and unless there is a witness...

That's all I'm saying!

Yeah, again. Here's the latest in the WC "I'm gonna pull something out of my ass cuz hey, it's all brown and gooey down there" file.

You refuse to see simple logical facts.

The story said that only 11% of accidents bicyclists have are with cars. If you look around, you'll find that in the US, about 53% of those accidents are the automobile drivers fault.

0.53 x 0.11 = 0.0583, or about 6%

Therefore, only about 6% of bicycle accidents are the fault of a car.

Like I said, you have to learn to parse what you read, or be baffled by bullshit.

[Höfner]

Cyclists are dangerous. At any stopsign or red light they could attack.

[Shastafarian]

You refuse to see simple logical facts.

The story said that only 11% of accidents bicyclists have are with cars. If you look around, you'll find that in the US, about 53% of those accidents are the automobile drivers fault.

0.53 x 0.11 = 0.583, or about 6%

Therefore, only about 6% of bicycle accidents are the fault of a car.Yeah so 53% of bike/automobile accidents see the driver of the car at fault. I understand. Do you understand?


Like I said, you have to learn to parse what you read, or be baffled by bullshit.
I'm baffled if you are indeed serious with the above mathematics.

[Shastafarian]

Let's do another math exercise shall we?

.47 X .11 = 0.0517 (not .517 silly)

0.0517 X 100 = 5.17(%)

What does that 5.17% signify? A cookie if you know WC.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah so 53% of bike/automobile accidents see the driver of the car at fault. I understand. Do you understand?
Absolutely. That is a statistic that few people disagree with.


I'm baffled if you are indeed serious with the above mathematics.
Why?

Remember, I said I purposely did that to prove you didn't know how to parse what you read. I never said, or implied, that the 6% number applied to accidents between cars and bicycles. You are baffled because you are so easily manipulated by the way the liberal media writes a story. Then when someone who you disagree with does the same thing, you find unwarranted fault.

If I used the same tactics with something you agreed with, you would have the wrong notions in your head. You probably wouldn't have even questioned my method.

Please, learn to parse what you read.

[Wild Cobra]

Let's do another math exercise shall we?

.47 X .11 = 0.0517 (not .517 silly)

0.0517 X 100 = 5.17(%)

What does that 5.17% signify? A cookie if you know WC.

OMG...

So I accidently leave out a zero, but I still say 6%, not 60%.

So fucking what. I made a mistake. I'll admit it. Do you ever admit yours? That's the wrong thing to dwell on.

Admit it. You don't know how to parse the news for the truth. Stop side-stepping the point.

[Wild Cobra]

Let's do another math exercise shall we?

.47 X .11 = 0.0517 (not .517 silly)

0.0517 X 100 = 5.17(%)

What does that 5.17% signify? A cookie if you know WC.

I went back and inserted a zero to correct that one post. I guess a thanx is in order, somewhat.

OK, the 5.17% would be a useless number. It represents how many accidents a bicyclist is at fault, but excluding non-car related accidents. There is no determination of how many other accidents the cyclist may be at fault for of the remaining 30% (89% not involving a car - 59% single bicyclist fault). Still, we have a minimum of 59% + 5.17%, or a minimum 64% of bicycle accidents are caused by it's rider.

It depends on what data you look at.

the point I was making is your lack to understand how to parse text.

[exstatic]

I think the most important point is your inability to "parse" either mathematics or the truth. This whole "testing your ability to parse" shit may wash once, but when you keep attempting to repeatedly extricate that particular Lepus from your Bowler, we suspect you are full of shit, and just spinning your mistakes.

[Shastafarian]

Why?

Remember, I said I purposely did that to prove you didn't know how to parse what you read. I never said, or implied, that the 6% number applied to accidents between cars and bicycles. You are baffled because you are so easily manipulated by the way the liberal media writes a story. Then when someone who you disagree with does the same thing, you find unwarranted fault. Except it was totally warranted because you claim you were being dishonest on purpose. I think you're full of shit and tried to prove, using faulty math, that accidents were more often than not caused by bikes.


If I used the same tactics with something you agreed with, you would have the wrong notions in your head.If you had made up a statistic for something else I probably would've called you on it no matter what it was in support of.

You probably wouldn't have even questioned my method.I would've questioned you doing elementary math incorrectly, yes.


Please, learn to parse what you read.
I did exactly that. I read through the article YOU posted. I found no evidence of this "6%" and called you on it. You claimed you did it on purpose to see if I could "parse" what I was reading. Yet wouldn't that prove I parsed what I was reading. You never said where you got the 6%, only that it was fact. You suck at life (and math).

[Shastafarian]

OMG...

So I accidently leave out a zero, but I still say 6%, not 60%.

So fucking what. I made a mistake. I'll admit it. Do you ever admit yours? That's the wrong thing to dwell on.

Admit it. You don't know how to parse the news for the truth. Stop side-stepping the point.

My post was to point out that you did math incorrectly. The fact that you thought (lol typo) .53 X .11 was .583 was just a bonus.

[Wild Cobra]

I think the most important point is your inability to "parse" either mathematics or the truth. This whole "testing your ability to parse" shit may wash once, but when you keep attempting to repeatedly extricate that particular Lepus from your Bowler, we suspect you are full of shit, and just spinning your mistakes.
That's the problem. I am the one keeping the open mind, it's you guys who are "stuck on stupid" for ignoring other possibilities.

I'm not doing any spinning other than my example to show you and Shasta cannot parse text. I am only saying that we only have what appears to be expert opinion of what happened. There appears to be no witness or confession.

Experts are not always right:


He said it appeared that Sullaway, a resident of Helotes, veered off the highway in a Ford F-150 at least once before the cyclists were hit, but investigators don't suspect alcohol played a role. Both cyclists were wearing helmets.
He didn't say it happened that way, he said it appeared to happen that way.

[Shastafarian]

I went back and inserted a zero to correct that one post. I guess a thanx is in order, somewhat.You're welcome.


OK, the 5.17% would be a useless number. It represents how many accidents a bicyclist is at fault, but excluding non-car related accidents. There is no determination of how many other accidents the cyclist may be at fault for of the remaining 30% (89% not involving a car - 59% single bicyclist fault). Still, we have a minimum of 59% + 5.17%, or a minimum 64% of bicycle accidents are caused by it's rider.You could use the same methods when talking about automobiles. Why don't you find some more statistics for us?


It depends on what data you look at.Yeah like looking at the relevant data. Data like bicycle accidents when automobiles are involved.


the point I was making is your lack to understand how to parse text.My lack to understand? Again, final answer?

[Wild Cobra]

My post was to point out that you did math incorrectly. The fact that you thought (lol typo) .53 X .11 was .583 was just a bonus.There you are, stuck on stupid again.

I never thought the answer was 0.583. I just missed putting in a zero.

My God. You are a zero.

[Shastafarian]

There you are, stuck on stupid again.

I never thought the answer was 0.583. I just missed putting in a zero.

My God. You are a zero.

Hence "lol typo".

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Bikes+cars=recipe for disaster.

I'm an avid rider and ride all the time, but I stay away from anything but quiet backstreets. EVERY rider I know who rides on busy roads has ended up in hospital at least once. Thankfully, Canberra has an excellent off-road cycle path network so I mostly use that - that's what all cities need, really, and all it comes down to is a moderate investment of public money.

[Wild Cobra]

Bikes+cars=recipe for disaster.

I'm an avid rider and ride all the time, but I stay away from anything but quiet backstreets. EVERY rider I know who rides on busy roads has ended up in hospital at least once. Thankfully, Canberra has an excellent off-road cycle path network so I mostly use that - that's what all cities need, really, and all it comes down to is a moderate investment of public money.

I like riding also, but for a good ride, I have to drive and park my bike to someplace like Springwater Trail. I will not ride on the streets in the Portland area.

I wish more people would realize that the streets are dangerous. I simply cannot imagine the lack of concern, stupidity, ignorance, or what ever it is that has riders chance the busy and fast streets.

Something else to consider. In most accidents, and it doesn't matter by vehivle type, are avoidable by defensive driving. There may be one party deemed legally at fault, but I would guess that about 90% of the accidents could have been avoided if the victim practiced better defensive driving. I have now been in two auto accidents in my almost 40 years of driving. I have avoided at least a couple dozen because of defensive driving. The two I was in, were impossible to avoid without driving 3/4 of the speed limit or less. Both times, I had someone pull out in front of me, talking the right-of-way from me, and hitting them under 10 MPH after slamming on the brakes. Just almost stopping in time.

If I was a less defensive driver, I would have nailed at least 4 bicyclists by now, for their stupidity, running stop signs, etc. In nearly all cases I read about happening in my area, the bicyclist was better able to avoid the accident than the car. The most common seems to be a bicyclists driving fast, or fast downhill, passing a vehicle on the right, when the vehicle makes a right turn.

[Wild Cobra]

Hence "lol typo".
You wrote that in a manner that suggested to me you didn't believe it was a typo.

[Thompson]

Just because it is technically legal to ride your bike on the shoulder of a busy highway doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's moronic.

[Wild Cobra]

Just because it is technically legal to ride your bike on the shoulder of a busy highway doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's moronic.

That's why I ask if people are going for the Darwin Award.

[PM5K]

Just because it is technically legal to ride your bike on the shoulder of a busy highway doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's moronic.

I agree, but that doesn't mean the people that run riders over should get a free pass.

[Wild Cobra]

I agree, but that doesn't mean the people that run riders over should get a free pass.
This is true also.

However, this thread started with the unproven, but assumed idea that's just what happened.

I have yet to see evidence that the riders did not swerve in front of the vehicle. Only a reasonable assumption.

[PM5K]

According to investigators, the Bruehlers had taken off from their home near Braun and Tezel roads in San Antonio and were cycling north of Helotes on Texas 16 when Sullaway’s truck, going about 5 mph over the 65-mph speed limit, came up behind them. The pickup veered off the road and then Sullaway overcorrected, striking the cyclists, who were riding on the shoulder. The truck dragged their tandem bicycle about 200 feet.

[FromWayDowntown]

Certainly, with a theory of the case that involves a motorist veering off the roadway and overcorrecting in a manner that resulted in a collision with a bicycle would appear to be enough to support instituting suit against the driver. That's true whether or not the alleged facts can be indisputably proven or not.

In fact, the theory is enough, if supported by facts, to allow a jury to decide that the driver was negligent and award damages for that negligence.

It seems like a reasonable lawsuit to me. If the driver bears no culpability, he'll be able to disprove the theory and convince a judge or a jury that he is not liable.

[PM5K]

Certainly the standards are different in civil rather than criminal court, but I would argue that if this case as is were a crime, rather than something that is classified as an accident, I submit that the driver would be very likely to be found guilty.

[FromWayDowntown]

Certainly the standards are different in civil rather than criminal court, but I would argue that if this case as is were a crime, rather than something that is classified as an accident, I submit that the driver would be very likely to be found guilty.

I think if it were characterized as criminally-negligent homicide, it would be fairly easy to prove if the State could develop proof that the driver was speeding, left the roadway as a result, and caused the collision with the bicycle as a consequence.

I'll admit that the State's unwillingness to prosecute in that instance makes me wonder a bit about how certain the investigators are of their facts.

But I think that in the context of a civil action, with the plaintiff only needing to prove her claim by a preponderance of the evidence and with a strong likelihood that an expert accident reconstructionist could conclude that the driver's speed was a proximate cause of the accident and the plaintiff could get a sustainable verdict. A jury might put some of the responsibility on the riders, too, and reduce the driver's liability by some fraction -- a possibility that would be consistent with WC's concern for the facts in some absolute sense.

[PM5K]

I guess I just assume that when police file a report, they don't pull shit out of their asses, they base the report on eye witness testimony, testimony of the parties involved in the accident (when possible) and evidence available at the scene of the accident.

I could be wrong though.

[Wild Cobra]

According to investigators, the Bruehlers had taken off from their home near Braun and Tezel roads in San Antonio and were cycling north of Helotes on Texas 16 when Sullaway’s truck, going about 5 mph over the 65-mph speed limit, came up behind them. The pickup veered off the road and then Sullaway overcorrected, striking the cyclists, who were riding on the shoulder. The truck dragged their tandem bicycle about 200 feet.

Problem is, if you read the material out there, that is the journalists words applied to the investigators report, where he doesn't state that as factually happening. It's just an opinion of what happened.

[exstatic]

According to investigators...

[Cry Havoc]

Problem is, if you read the material out there, that is the journalists words applied to the investigators report, where he doesn't state that as factually happening. It's just an opinion of what happened.

For someone who bandies about the "willing to admit I'm wrong" card so much, you certainly do cling to your arguments even when they have no basis in reality any longer.

On page 1, you accused posters of assuming something that had happened that had no real basis in evidence.

Next, you moved onto, "Well, it was only one person suggesting something that could have happened, not that it actually did."

Now you're stuck on, "Well, the journalist might be making assumptions based on the investigators' report of what happened."

I mean, my god man, take a step back and look how doggedly you're clinging to this notion.

You are cognitive dissonance in the walking, talking flesh.

[thispego]

For someone who bandies about the "willing to admit I'm wrong" card so much, you certainly do cling to your arguments even when they have no basis in reality any longer.

On page 1, you accused posters of assuming something that had happened that had no real basis in evidence.

Next, you moved onto, "Well, it was only one person suggesting something that could have happened, not that it actually did."

Now you're stuck on, "Well, the journalist might be making assumptions based on the investigators' report of what happened."

I mean, my god man, take a step back and look how doggedly you're clinging to this notion.

You are cognitive dissonance in the walking, talking flesh.

only.... wild cobra is right! :wow shut the fuck up cyclists and realise that your own kind are fucking up your bicycling world

[Cry Havoc]

only.... wild cobra is right! :wow shut the fuck up cyclists and realise that your own kind are fucking up your bicycling world

Except he's not.

[Wild Cobra]

I mean, my god man, take a step back and look how doggedly you're clinging to this notion.

I am not clinging to the notion the man driving the vehicle wasn't at fault. I'm only saying it is possible he is not at fault.

[FromWayDowntown]

I guess I just assume that when police file a report, they don't pull shit out of their asses, they base the report on eye witness testimony, testimony of the parties involved in the accident (when possible) and evidence available at the scene of the accident.

I could be wrong though.

No, you're right.

What baffles me about the contentiousness in this thread is that even Wild Cobra is admitting the possibility that the driver could be at fault. That possibility -- and the grey area between that possibility and the possibility that the riders were at fault -- is what juries are charged with figuring out.

If there's no lawsuit, nobody (beyond the families and maybe an insurance carrier) cares much about how responsibility is allocated. When there's a lawsuit, the care is escalated and we bring in 12 other people to sort out the story.

[phyzik]

Im all for cycling rights on our roads, but riders need to have some accountability for their actions as well. If they decide to ride on a freaking highway where cars are traveling in excess of 60mph shits eventually going to happen in those circumstances. Its the Darwin effect at work at that point. No law is going to make everyone a good, or even decent, driver. There will always be car accidents. If your a cyclist you should understand this. If your a cyclist riding along a 60+mph highway, that's your decision, but don't come crying to me when shit happens.

I wonder if people ride bikes on the autobahn in Germany?

Im guessing the first thought in peoples heads when reading that question was "that would be stupid, cars are going WAY too fast on the Autobahn." If your on a bike, there's really not much of a difference between getting hit at 60mph and 160mph, the end result in either case will still be the same.

How does that saying go? if you play with fire........

I'm guessing the lawsuit gets thrown out.

[FromWayDowntown]

How does that saying go? if you play with fire........

I'm guessing the lawsuit gets thrown out.

I'd be curious why you think that. Texas tort law doesn't include assumption of the risk (to my knowledge). The fact that the injured party was involved in a hazardous activity doesn't preclude them from bringing a claim; it allows the jury to put some of the blame on them.

To get the case thrown out, the Defendant driver would have to establish that he didn't owe a duty to the bike riders, but that would mean that no driver on a Texas roadway ever owes a duty to those on bicycles (and likely to pedestrians, either). The Defendant could maintain that he didn't breach the duty, essentially taking Wild Cobra's apparent view of the facts; but to win there, the defendant would have to show, basically, that he didn't leave the roadway and any question about his story will mean that the case goes to trial. The Defendant could maintain that he didn't cause injuries to the decedents, but if there's a question about whether he left the roadway, and no doubt that he struck and killed the bicycle riders, whether his conduct caused the injuries will be for a jury to decide.

I frankly can't imagine any scenario in which the case would be thrown out. I can see that it might settle quickly. I can see that the driver (actually, the driver's insurer) might take it through trial and try to put as much responsibility on the bicycle riders as possible. I can see that the driver might try to develop as many facts as possible to suggest that the riders bore most of the responsibility for the accident. But I can't see dismissal.

[phyzik]

I'd be curious why you think that. Texas tort law doesn't include assumption of the risk (to my knowledge). The fact that the injured party was involved in a hazardous activity doesn't preclude them from bringing a claim; it allows the jury to put some of the blame on them.

To get the case thrown out, the Defendant driver would have to establish that he didn't owe a duty to the bike riders, but that would mean that no driver on a Texas roadway ever owes a duty to those on bicycles (and likely to pedestrians, either). The Defendant could maintain that he didn't breach the duty, essentially taking Wild Cobra's apparent view of the facts; but to win there, the defendant would have to show, basically, that he didn't leave the roadway and any question about his story will mean that the case goes to trial. The Defendant could maintain that he didn't cause injuries to the decedents, but if there's a question about whether he left the roadway, and no doubt that he struck and killed the bicycle riders, whether his conduct caused the injuries will be for a jury to decide.

I frankly can't imagine any scenario in which the case would be thrown out. I can see that it might settle quickly. I can see that the driver (actually, the driver's insurer) might take it through trial and try to put as much responsibility on the bicycle riders as possible. I can see that the driver might try to develop as many facts as possible to suggest that the riders bore most of the responsibility for the accident. But I can't see dismissal.

Im sorry, when I said "thrown out" I meant along the lines of nothing is going to happen to the driver. It wasn't malicious intent on the drivers part as far as I can tell. No arrests where made. It was an accident on a highway. The driver would have likely lost control regardless if the cyclists where there or not.

Still, I am no lawyer so we will have to see, but that would be my viewpoint as a juror.

[FromWayDowntown]

Im sorry, when I said "thrown out" I meant along the lines of nothing is going to happen to the driver. It wasn't malicious intent on the drivers part as far as I can tell. No arrests where made. It was an accident on a highway. The driver would have likely lost control regardless if the cyclists where there or not.

Still, I am no lawyer so we will have to see, but that would be my viewpoint as a juror.

Straight negligence requires no malicious intent, in civil law. The fact that he wasn't arrested is irrelevant to whether or not he's liable for damages.

I wonder if you'd say that the driver wouldn't be liable if everything else was the same except that instead of striking a couple on a bicycle, he hit a pedestrian.

Are you saying that drivers who experience lapses that result in catastrophic injuries to others should not be liable for the injuries caused by their lapses?

[lefty]

Usually, most of those bike accidents are caused by bikers
Most of the time, they are respionsible and act as victims

[Wild Cobra]

I wonder if people ride bikes on the autobahn in Germany?

Absolutely not. It's also illegal to ride them the the interstate freeways here.

Im guessing the first thought in peoples heads when reading that question was "that would be stupid, cars are going WAY too fast on the Autobahn." If your on a bike, there's really not much of a difference between getting hit at 60mph and 160mph, the end result in either case will still be the same.

Well, even though it probably is equally deadly under either speed, it's the wind and pressure changes that make it dangerous as a vehicle passes a bycycle. Especially 18 wheelers. That's why I say I never ride on a road with a speed limit around 40 MPH or more. Even strong winds can blow a bicycle in fromt of a vehicle.

What were the wind speeds and gusts that day, in that area?


How does that saying go? if you play with fire........

I'm guessing the lawsuit gets thrown out.

Me to. unless intent or negligence can be demonstarted, I think any reasonable judge will toss it out.

[FromWayDowntown]

n/m

[Wild Cobra]

I don't clearly remember the case, but I believed it involved a car killing a child riding a bicycle. The parents of the child sued the driverm but the ruling ended up that the parents had to pay for the damages to the car. The child was at fault.

It could happen that family members suing could end up paying for the guys truck!

[PM5K]

FWDT: I don't really understand your position as far as comparative negligence goes, which is what I assume you are saying.

Let's say I decide to go for a walk through a bad part of town late at night and get assaulted, do you think I should be partially responsible for my injuries LEGALLY?

I don't really see how the cyclists deaths are any different. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't walk around a bad part of town late at night nor would I ride my bike anywhere near people traveling at highway speeds, but would doing so make me negligent or partially responsible?

I don't think it does but I certainly respect your opinion if it differs.

[PM5K]

I don't clearly remember the case, but I believed it involved a car killing a child riding a bicycle. The parents of the child sued the driverm but the ruling ended up that the parents had to pay for the damages to the car. The child was at fault.

It could happen that family members suing could end up paying for the guys truck!

Yeah that makes sense, they are at fault for being struck by a driver while on the shoulder of the road.

[FromWayDowntown]

FWDT: I don't really understand your position as far as comparative negligence goes, which is what I assume you are saying.

Let's say I decide to go for a walk through a bad part of town late at night and get assaulted, do you think I should be partially responsible for my injuries LEGALLY?

I don't really see how the cyclists deaths are any different. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't walk around a bad part of town late at night nor would I ride my bike anywhere near people traveling at highway speeds, but would doing so make me negligent or partially responsible?

I don't think it does but I certainly respect your opinion if it differs.

In either your example or the bicyclists situation, there is nothing to say that you are absolutely responsible in any way for what happens. That is, you're not negligent as a matter of law in those situations. But what Texas law permits is for a jury to consider the possibility that you might have been negligent, as a matter of fact, in some fashion. The jury can say you have no responsibility; it can say that you are entirely responsible; or it can say that you share responsibility in some proportion to the defendant.

Functionally, this serves to reduce the defendants' liability by the percentage of your responsibility. Say, hypothetically, a jury in this case finds that the defendant is 75% responsible for the accident and that the bicyclists were 25% responsible and awards $1,000,000 in damages. All other things being equal, the defendant would bear liability only for $750,000 (75% of $1,000,000) of the damages.

There obviously has to be some evidence to support a finding that you had any responsibility for the incident that caused your injuries. But if there is some evidence, we trust juries to allocate blame among the parties, including the plaintiff(s).

Like I say, in Texas we don't allow an "assumption of the risk" defense, which would be the legal equivalent of the notion of making them responsible as a matter of law for their injuries. But we do allow the defendant to put some of the responsibility on the plaintiffs if there is some proof to support that effort.

[phyzik]

In either your example or the bicyclists situation, there is nothing to say that you are absolutely responsible in any way for what happens. That is, you're not negligent as a matter of law in those situations. But what Texas law permits is for a jury to consider the possibility that you might have been negligent, as a matter of fact, in some fashion. The jury can say you have no responsibility; it can say that you are entirely responsible; or it can say that you share responsibility in some proportion to the defendant.

Functionally, this serves to reduce the defendants' liability by the percentage of your responsibility. Say, hypothetically, a jury in this case finds that the defendant is 75% responsible for the accident and that the bicyclists were 25% responsible and awards $1,000,000 in damages. All other things being equal, the defendant would bear liability only for $750,000 (75% of $1,000,000) of the damages.

There obviously has to be some evidence to support a finding that you had any responsibility for the incident that caused your injuries. But if there is some evidence, we trust juries to allocate blame among the parties, including the plaintiff(s).

Like I say, in Texas we don't allow an "assumption of the risk" defense, which would be the legal equivalent of the notion of making them responsible as a matter of law for their injuries. But we do allow the defendant to put some of the responsibility on the plaintiffs if there is some proof to support that effort.

So, just out of curiosity, given what little actual facts we know right now, would you take this case in favor of the plantif? and if so, how much of a chance do you think they have a chance to win?

again, no speculation and hearsay, just off of what we know which is essentially:

a. a vehicle lost control on a highway.

b. 2 cyclist got hit in the median.

everything else is hearsay and subject to inturpretation IMHO.

[Cry Havoc]

Let's say I decide to go for a walk through a bad part of town late at night and get assaulted, do you think I should be partially responsible for my injuries LEGALLY?

That's a ridiculously slippery slope you're on. Should someone be responsible for their injuries if they walk through just an "ok" neighborhood at dusk and are assaulted? What about a good neighborhood at night? Or a lower income area during the day? What constitutes responsibility of the person walking for being the victim of an unprovoked attack?

Basically you are saying if you live in less than excellent neighborhood, it's your own fault if you get beaten/etc. That's some pretty insane logic.

[PM5K]

Basically you are saying if you live in less than excellent neighborhood, it's your own fault if you get beaten/etc. That's some pretty insane logic.

No I'm actually saying the opposite.

[PM5K]

everything else is hearsay and subject to inturpretation IMHO.

First of all, they weren't hit on the median they were hit on the shoulder.

Secondly, while what we have heard is by definition hearsay, in court it won't be hearsay, it will be direct eyewitness testimony.

Let me break it down for you since you don't know the difference between median (which essentially means in the middle) and shoulder, which much like the shoulder on your body, is on the side of the road.

It's hearsay right now because we are hearing this information from the police officer who heard it from an eyewitness, however in a court of law the eyewitness will offer his or her direct testimony as to what he or she saw that day, which is not hearsay.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah that makes sense, they are at fault for being struck by a driver while on the shoulder of the road.
But were they on the shoulder? Can you maintain any integrity stating that as fact?

That is not established fact, but an opinion, unless there are farther developments than I have found or anyone else has and not linked.

Facts please.

[Wild Cobra]

It's hearsay right now because we are hearing this information from the police officer who heard it from an eyewitness, however in a court of law the eyewitness will offer his or her direct testimony as to what he or she saw that day, which is not hearsay.
Link please. This is the first I heard of an eye witness.

[BacktoBasics]

This thread is old news.

[Wild Cobra]

This thread is old news.
Might be old news, but I want to know about the "Eye Witness."

[PM5K]

As I mentioned before, Police don't just make it up as they go along, they use facts available to them via eye witnesses, and evidence. If there weren't any witnesses or evidence, they'd just say they have no idea what happened, or that they are still investigating.

I don't have to prove to you that what the police stated is fact, you have to prove that it's not.

[lil'mo]

As I mentioned before, Police don't just make it up as they go along...

Yes, actually, they do. All the time.

[Wild Cobra]

As I mentioned before, Police don't just make it up as they go along, they use facts available to them via eye witnesses, and evidence. If there weren't any witnesses or evidence, they'd just say they have no idea what happened, or that they are still investigating.

I don't have to prove to you that what the police stated is fact, you have to prove that it's not.
Oh, I see.

You're just full of shit.

You are wrong. Police officers often make things up. The deputies are reporting, as fact, what the investigator said "appears" to have happened. The investigator never stated it as fact that I have seen. Therefore I ask for proper evidence.

Do you know what the instigators words are? The best I find is:

"He said it appeared that Sullaway, a resident of Helotes, veered off the highway in a Ford F-150"

An appearance of what happened is not a fat of what happened. The investigator is not willing to put his reputation on the line and state it as fact. How can you? If you have evidence the police don't have, then you should go to the authorities and report what you know.

I have yet to see any facts about the driver swerving. Now I am not stupid ignorant to say he didn't swerve. Apparently there are numerous people ignorant enough to say he did, outside of any reasonable facts.

[Wild Cobra]

What's the latest? Unable to find anything new.

[Wild Cobra]

OK People...

Those of you living in the area, what's the newest news?

Silence tells me the case is dismissed.

[exstatic]

OK People...

Those of you living in the area, what's the newest news?

Silence tells me the case is dismissed.

God, you're ADD. Lawsuits can drag out for years. They also won't do interval updates. You'll find out the decision when it's made. There will be no "newest news" until then.

[Wild Cobra]

God, you're ADD.
I never claimed otherwise.

I do find it funny that there is a new piece of news out there, but not mentioned. Guess I'll sit on it.

:stirpot:

[exstatic]

So, you don't believe the law enforcement account of the accident, but you believe the driver?

driver denies being distracted. yeah right. (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/Motorist_denies_wrongdoing_in_fatal_bicycle_accide nt.html)

That also means they're still doing preliminary filings. Unless there is a settlement, we're a long way from home.

[lil'mo]

Novelty bike. Shoulder of a busy highway. You've got to be pretty dumb if you believe the driver should be held responsible.

[Wild Cobra]

Novelty bike. Shoulder of a busy highway. You've got to be pretty dumb if you believe the driver should be held responsible.
I would only hold him to that if it could be shown he did it intentionally.

[Bartleby]

Novelty bike. Shoulder of a busy highway. You've got to be pretty dumb if you believe the driver should be held responsible.

What does the fact that they were riding a tandem have to do with it?

[jack sommerset]

I have not hit a biker with my car yet but I will one day. I ran a few off the road. :lol

They are everywhere on the weekends in my neighborhood. When I see them I drive real fast and get as close to them as I can. Sometimes I slow down and tell them to fuck themselves. I throw things at them. I hate those dumb, dumb, dumb adult dildos

They break the laws. They run lights, stop signs, get no where near the 45 mph speed zones, these dumb motherfuckers have ear phones on as they pedal there way to death. They have to take one hand off the steering handles to tell us which way they are turning or if they are stopping. Real safe there. Maybe that is why you SELDOM see this law in action. Next the hot air balloon people will be having there festivals at airports.

You are one DUMB MOTHERFUCKER for riding your lil bike on the streets. You deserve to die.

[Wild Cobra]

I have not hit a biker with my car yet but I will one day. I ran a few off the road. :lol

They are everywhere on the weekends in my neighborhood. When I see them I drive real fast and get as close to them as I can. Sometimes I slow down and tell them to fuck themselves. I throw things at them. I hate those dumb, dumb, dumb adult dildos

They break the laws. The run lights, stop signs, get no where near the 45 mph speed zones, these dumb motherfuckers have ear phones on as they pedal there way to death. They have to take one hand off the steering handles to tell us which way they are turning or if they are stopping. Real safe there. Maybe that is why you SELDOM see this law in action. Next the hot air balloon people will be having there festivals at airports.

You are one DUMB MOTHERFUCKER for riding your lil bike on the streets. You deserve to die.
Wow...

Calm down...

You prescription meds run out?

[FromWayDowntown]

I would only hold him to that if it could be shown he did it intentionally.

So you'd do away with civil negligence claims or prosecution for crimes that require only a negligent mental state (criminally negligent homicide, for instance)?

[Wild Cobra]

So you'd do away with civil negligence claims or prosecution for crimes that require only a negligent mental state (criminally negligent homicide, for instance)?
How can you hold the driver of a vehicle responsible for differing amounts of damage for the same type of mistake? The bicyclist must assume some responsibility too. If this driver hit another vehicle, on this road, meant for motor vehicles, chances are, only property damages would have occurred. Assuming the driver was at fault, why should two different penalties apply for the same mistake just because one was a car, the other a bicycle? Sorry, but a bicyclist must assume the risk of such things happening.

It should not be legal to have an unpowered vehicle on a fast stretch of road. Just because it isn't illegal doesn't mean its safe to do so. Anytime a bicyclist chooses to do such a stupid act, a driver should not have to pay for their stupidity.

[Bartleby]

If this driver hit another vehicle, on this road, meant for motor vehicles, chances are, only property damages would have occurred.

At 70mph? That's highly unlikely.

[Wild Cobra]

At 70mph? That's highly unlikely.Point is, another vehicle will be traveling a similar speed. Delta velocity is dramatically reduced.

[FromWayDowntown]

How can you hold the driver of a vehicle responsible for differing amounts of damage for the same type of mistake? The bicyclist must assume some responsibility too. If this driver hit another vehicle, on this road, meant for motor vehicles, chances are, only property damages would have occurred. Assuming the driver was at fault, why should two different penalties apply for the same mistake just because one was a car, the other a bicycle? Sorry, but a bicyclist must assume the risk of such things happening.

It should not be legal to have an unpowered vehicle on a fast stretch of road. Just because it isn't illegal doesn't mean its safe to do so. Anytime a bicyclist chooses to do such a stupid act, a driver should not have to pay for their stupidity.

That's why:

1. in the criminal law, there are differing penalties for the same act depending on the mental state of the actor -- intentional criminal acts are punished more harshly than negligent criminal acts (which usually bring only probated sentences or fines);

2. in the civil law, the culpability of the injured party is also a matter that a jury can consider -- if the jury believes that the plaintiff's conduct caused the accident, it can reduce the liability of the driver accordingly; under Texas law, a jury could simply decide that the driver wasn't negligent at all.

I've noted this several times in this thread.

[lil'mo]

What does the fact that they were riding a tandem have to do with it?

Well, if you're a man, you sholdn't be caught riding a tandem bike anywhere. But when these dumbasses took their novelty bike act to a busy highway, well, it was only a matter of time before they were wiped off the road. They basically guaranteed they would both be taken out at the same time. People were probably losing control all over the road that day being distracted by that queer tandem action.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, if you're a man, you sholdn't be caught....
And if you have half a brain, you don't put yourself in harm's way for a scenic bicycle ride.

I consider them honorary winners of the Darwin Award.

[phyzik]

That's why:

1. in the criminal law, there are differing penalties for the same act depending on the mental state of the actor -- intentional criminal acts are punished more harshly than negligent criminal acts (which usually bring only probated sentences or fines);

2. in the civil law, the culpability of the injured party is also a matter that a jury can consider -- if the jury believes that the plaintiff's conduct caused the accident, it can reduce the liability of the driver accordingly; under Texas law, a jury could simply decide that the driver wasn't negligent at all.

I've noted this several times in this thread.

Im just wondering in this particular case, what facts have come out to prove the driver was negligable? An opinion at the time from law enforcement doesnt mean, in a court of law, that the driver was negligent.... what if he just simply lost control? So far, no actual facts have been provided except a questionable statement to the press at the time from law enforcement. Just because someone is law enforcement shouldnt mean we should take them at their word.

Thats why we have a legal system.

[phyzik]

Dont get me wrong, my best friend is a cylcists. I used to hit up OP Shinable, 700 acres and most recently Government Canyon.

My friend does bikerides through Downtown through Planet Bike. Tom is his name and Carlos is the owner.

I'm all for cyclists rights, but there has to be a point where they take responsibility. Just because they have the same rights to a road as a car, doesnt mean they should jump on an express way and expect nothing to happen.

[exstatic]

Im just wondering in this particular case, what facts have come out to prove the driver was negligable? An opinion at the time from law enforcement doesnt mean, in a court of law, that the driver was negligent.... what if he just simply lost control? So far, no actual facts have been provided except a questionable statement to the press at the time from law enforcement. Just because someone is law enforcement shouldnt mean we should take them at their word.

Thats why we have a legal system.

Losing control doesn't just happen in a vacuum. In a single vehicle incident, you are either are drunk, distracted, or falling asleep, all of which are actionable in court.

[FromWayDowntown]

Losing control doesn't just happen in a vacuum. In a single vehicle incident, you are either are drunk, distracted, or falling asleep, all of which are actionable in court.

True. Additionally, a driver is charged with a legal duty to keep his vehicle on the roadway. The failure to abide by that duty is, technically, negligence -- or the failure to exercise the degree of care deemed reasonable in the circumstance.

Look, suppose that the driver had swerved off the road -- for whatever reason -- and a cop had been right there on the spot. Would you argue that the cop would have no reason to stop the driver and ticket him for failure to maintain a single lane of traffic? The only difference here is that when this driver lost control of his vehicle, for whatever reason that happened, there were bicyclists there and they were struck by the vehicle. The question a jury would be asked is, essentially, how much was the driver's negligence a part of causing the accident (and specifically, the injuries suffered by the bicyclists) and how much was the bicyclist's negligence a part of causing the accident?

I'm not sure it would be a good rule for society to simply allow drivers to leave their lanes of traffic without consequence, if leaving that lane results in accidents. Building on the earlier example, if this driver had lost control of his vehicle and moved to the left (rather than the right) and struck another vehicle, is there any doubt that he'd face the possibility of a civil suit for the damages caused by that accident (whether those were personal injuries or property damages)? Of course he would, and nobody would think anything of it. That he happened to drift right doesn't absolve him of that possibility, particularly where doing so resulted in injuries.

[DarkReign]

Well, if you're a man, you sholdn't be caught riding a tandem bike anywhere. But when these dumbasses took their novelty bike act to a busy highway, well, it was only a matter of time before they were wiped off the road. They basically guaranteed they would both be taken out at the same time. People were probably losing control all over the road that day being distracted by that queer tandem action.

:lmao

[DarkReign]

I hate cyclists on the road...I think theyre fucking insane and have a real overconfidence problem to think that their hobby is important enough to risk their life, to trust other idiots on the road to drive safely and with their best interests in mind.

I do nothing in my life with the laundry list of assumptions that a cyclist must adhere to to even have the balls to get on a highway with a rinky-dink helmet and spandex.

Beyond that, I have a question, but I dont know if its a legal question or not.

Bikes being on the road, especially a highway of 60+mph, creates an unfair liability problem for the drivers of motor vehicles. I have always thought this. What would have been a fender-bender, or a side-swipe or maybe even a hospital visst is instant fucking death if you hit a bike.

A bike, mind you, that is nearly 10x as small on the road, with nearly no "road profile" to speak of...especially when traveling at highway speeds.

It just seems that if you drive a car, youre at a disadvantage to a person on a bike legally...no matter what happens, youre the asshole that kills someone which requires an immediate investigation from the authorities. Even if you had a lapse in judgement, again, if you had hit another vehicle, its a simple exchange of insurance info.

Now, youre up for vehicular homicide.

Deck is stacked against drivers in this instance. Legally, is this a valid argument?

[DarkReign]

On a personal note, I cant stand cyclists on main road's. Residentials and low-traffic areas, fine. But I see these schmucks on the main veins of town...during rush hour...on a Friday.

Its like "suicide by cop" only theyre waiting for just one driver to have a bad day or a teenage queen to be texting, boom, youre dead. Dont act all surprised or outraged when it happens, either.

Right or wrong, responsible or not, you put your life in your hands when you thought it was a good idea to play "Tour de France" on the same road as double-trailer Mack trucks going 50mph with an assumption of safety on the part of your fellow man.

I mean, if you dont mind dying doing what you love, by all means, continue. Because it really is only a matter of time before youre dead or seriously injured with a dumbass hobby like that.

Youre literally going against every shred of common sense youve ever heard. Dont play in traffic....unless youre an adult....on a bike....with spandex and a dream. To me, its like a guy who swallows swords crying how his throat got cut.

[FromWayDowntown]

I hate cyclists on the road...I think theyre fucking insane and have a real overconfidence problem to think that their hobby is important enough to risk their life, to trust other idiots on the road to drive safely and with their best interests in mind.

I do nothing in my life with the laundry list of assumptions that a cyclist must adhere to to even have the balls to get on a highway with a rinky-dink helmet and spandex.

Beyond that, I have a question, but I dont know if its a legal question or not.

Bikes being on the road, especially a highway of 60+mph, creates an unfair liability problem for the drivers of motor vehicles. I have always thought this. What would have been a fender-bender, or a side-swipe or maybe even a hospital visst is instant fucking death if you hit a bike.

A bike, mind you, that is nearly 10x as small on the road, with nearly no "road profile" to speak of...especially when traveling at highway speeds.

It just seems that if you drive a car, youre at a disadvantage to a person on a bike legally...no matter what happens, youre the asshole that kills someone which requires an immediate investigation from the authorities. Even if you had a lapse in judgement, again, if you had hit another vehicle, its a simple exchange of insurance info.

Now, youre up for vehicular homicide.

Deck is stacked against drivers in this instance. Legally, is this a valid argument?

I don't think so, because none of those arguments apply, for example, to a driver who strikes a pedestrian. We permit civil and criminal liability against drivers who leave the roadway and strike pedestrians (or for those who fail to yield to pedestrians in the roadway -- ask Donte Stallworth). I'm not sure, legally, why there would be any difference (or why there should be any difference) between a pedestrian and a bike rider.

And I don't buy, from a public policy standpoint, that pedestrians are somehow without recourse if a driver leaves the roadway to strike them.

Again, the protections are inherent in the system for the driver. From a criminal standpoint, if the driver's conduct is simply a matter of inadvertence, the charges against him will be reduced and, in the overwhelming number of instances, will be so insubstantial as to deter any prosecution at all. From a civil standpoint, the protections vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but if a state doesn't recognize an "assumption of the risk" defense to the driver, it allows the driver's negligence to be compared to the pedestrian/bike rider's; that allows a jury to conclude (essentially) that the bike rider assumed the risk of an accident and bears the consequences of that accident.

But, with that said, the law itself -- AGAIN -- favors the bike rider. Drivers are obligated (by law) to maintain a single lane of transit and, presumptively, leaving a lane of traffic (other than making a legal lane change) is a violation on the part of the driver. Fundamentally, this is why we allow the imposition of liability against drivers who strike pedestrians. And its why I think the civil claims asserted against this driver are likely to either settle or go to trial (rather than being dismissed). It might be that, in the civil context, a jury would decide that the Plaintiffs should recover nothing, but that's a very different question than whether the claims asserted by these Plaintiffs are legally valid.

[FromWayDowntown]

Im just wondering in this particular case, what facts have come out to prove the driver was negligable? An opinion at the time from law enforcement doesnt mean, in a court of law, that the driver was negligent.... what if he just simply lost control? So far, no actual facts have been provided except a questionable statement to the press at the time from law enforcement. Just because someone is law enforcement shouldnt mean we should take them at their word.

Thats why we have a legal system.

One other thought about this:

the credibility of claims aren't determined by what's reported by the media and it's rarely decided before parties have an opportunity to conduct discovery. Assuming the civil case goes forward, the plaintiffs get the chance to question the driver, to subpoena his records, to depose anyone they can find who witnessed the accident, and to otherwise investigate their claims. That's not a process that's either: (a) done very quickly; or (b) limited to what the media reports (or what the police now know). Hell, at this point, it's likely that discovery hasn't even begun in any civil action that might be ongoing. Discovery can take months or even years, in some instances.

If, after discovery has concluded, there's insufficient proof that the driver did anything wrong -- for instance, if discovery reveals that the bike swerved into the path of the driver -- the Defendant will be entitled to summary judgment. If, however, discovery shows that reasonable people could conclude that the driver was negligent -- perhaps in ways that we don't yet know -- then the case will go to trial (or settle).

The notion that the validity of cases should ever be decided by what we are told through the media is a frightening idea.

[DarkReign]

Alright, I'll buy that. Thanks for the reply.

While I see the similarity between a pedestrian and cyclist in that they both have right-of-way, the similarities end there.

One is considered a vehicle, an uninsured vehicle that has rights to lanes of traffic, but a vehicle nonetheless.

The other is a person on foot.

I understand having concern for a pedestrian because they arent trying to share the road with motorized vehicles on the regular. Cyclists are and I still think cyclists put drivers at a complete legal disadvantage in every imaginable way.

They are:

1. considered vehicles
2. require no insurance
3. unlicensed
4. have a miniscule "road profile" in comparison to other vehicles, even motorcycles
5. have no means to keep pace with other traffic, creating a very dangerous gap in capability

It just seems the deck is stacked totally against drivers and totally for adults who like to ride bikes on busy roads.

I just dont get the equalizing between a cyclist and pedestrian. If a pedestrian wanders onto a highway, in Michigan anyway, is hit and killed by traffic travelling the posted 70mph speed limit, its the pedestrians fault, end of discussion.

Not so with a cyclist because as a vehicle, he has rights to the road. Catch 22 of bullshit proportions.

[FromWayDowntown]

Alright, I'll buy that. Thanks for the reply.

While I see the similarity between a pedestrian and cyclist in that they both have right-of-way, the similarities end there.

It's not even about the right-of-way. It's about maintaining a single lane of travel and remaining within that single lane while travelling. If a driver leaves the roadway and strikes, for example, a farmer's fence, the driver is liable for property damages associated with striking the fence not because the fence had the right-of-way, but because the driver violated his duty to maintain a single lane of travel.

I don't see that as a particularly controversial principle.


One is considered a vehicle, an uninsured vehicle that has rights to lanes of traffic, but a vehicle nonetheless.

The other is a person on foot.

If the bicycle is operating in a lane of traffic, the questions are different, but I'm not sure that they make your argument. If I'm driving in any lane of traffic, I have an obligation to operate my vehicle in a manner that reasonably ensures that others around me (whether they be in cars, on motorcycles, on bicycles, or on foot) aren't injured. Certainly, there may be situations in which sudden emergencies may arise and it may be that the conduct of others will leave me unable to do anything other than hit them. But, in the main, my duty (as a matter of law) is to avoid others -- and my obligation is to operate my vehicle in a manner that will allow me to avoid others. Presumptively, obeying the speed limit will show that I've done that; but if it's raining or icy or foggy, obeying the speed limit won't protect me from the consequences of hitting someone. And, if I leave my lane, it doesn't matter what my speed was before I did that -- I could have never gone above the speed limit and still be negligent for having left my lane.


I understand having concern for a pedestrian because they arent trying to share the road with motorized vehicles on the regular. Cyclists are and I still think cyclists put drivers at a complete legal disadvantage in every imaginable way.

But, again, the systems in place create protections for drivers in those situations, too. I'm not sure why people refuse to acknowledge that fact in this thread -- I think I've noted it about 7 times now. Drivers have defenses that include the negligence of the bike riders and that negligence could include something as simple as putting themselves in that position.

Take this particular case as an example. Police think that there's no basis to press criminal charges -- I think that's not because there wasn't some sort of criminally-cognizable conduct, but because proving a criminal charge against this driver in light of the silliness of riding a bicycle in this location is astronomically difficult.

From the civil side of things, again, if the case makes it to a jury, the driver can point to the bicyclists and say "no sane person would have ridden a bike on this highway and you [the jury] should put a significant portion of the responsibility for this accident on the bike riders." Whether a jury buys that or not is a different question, but that's why we have juries. By and large, juries have pretty good bullshit detectors and usually apportion responsibility in a manner that would make common sense to most people -- after all, juries are comprised of our friends and neighbors.



They are:

1. considered vehicles
2. require no insurance
3. unlicensed
4. have a miniscule "road profile" in comparison to other vehicles, even motorcycles
5. have no means to keep pace with other traffic, creating a very dangerous gap in capability

It just seems the deck is stacked totally against drivers and totally for adults who like to ride bikes on busy roads.

See above.


I just dont get the equalizing between a cyclist and pedestrian. If a pedestrian wanders onto a highway, in Michigan anyway, is hit and killed by traffic travelling the posted 70mph speed limit, its the pedestrians fault, end of discussion.

And had this bicycle wandered onto the highway (and the evidence might end up showing that it did), there would be no liability because the accident would be the rider's fault. But I don't think we can assume that the bike did that -- at least not without evidence to support that theory -- and if it's the truck that left its lane of traffic and struck the bike, then the truck driver is at least somewhat at fault. Just as he would be at fault if he left his lane and struck:

1. another vehicle
2. a motorcycle
3. a pedestrian; or
4. a piece of personal property

That's not a function of whether any of those things has rights to the road; it's entirely a function of the driver's obligation to maintain his lane of travel.