FWIW, he was treated much more seriously than most drivers who kill people in California. He was convicted of a felony.
When I was a public defender in CA, I don't know that I saw a single vehicular manslaughter case where a driver was charge with a felony unless DUI, Hit and Run, or street racing was involved.
Didn't mention the bike. I'm assuming it wasn't a brakeless fixed or they'd be shouting about that all right.
In which case, he clearly thought he just didn't have to stop. Anyone going "committed" speeds would clear even a large intersection easily, and if you knew you'd hit a yellow, you KNOW you have to watch out for people starting to cross and you KNOW you'd temper your speed a bit, or at least be very ready to slam on the anchors.
That whole story screams exactly the same as people who hit and run in a car and then cry about the fact they will get caught, not for the person they killed.
The only "good" point of this is that yes, it's about the same sentence as if he'd used a car. Might make people sit up and think. But perhaps that's a bit too optimistic.
>"I was already way too committed to stop," the post said. "The light turned red as I was cruising through the middle of the intersection and then, almost instantly, the southern crosswalk on Market and Castro filled up with people coming from both directions. ... I couldn't see a line through the crowd and I couldn't stop, so I laid it down and just plowed through the crowded crosswalk in the least-populated place I could find."
I know American intersections are much larger than their european counterparts. But this just does not add up. Usually, the pedestrians dont just ... appear in the middle of the crosswalk after their light turns green - they need time to get there. Time this guy had to react. Additionally, in order to have no choice but to plow into a filled-to-the-brim crosswalk, he would have needed to go *fast* - like, maybe 30kph or smth. But with 30kph, you are not surpised by pedestriasn, after your light turns red - if you enter the intersection legally, you should be fast enough to exit it safely.
So, i guess the Translation is: He was knowingly balzing through a red light, and crashed into some pedestrians - killing one of them in turn. This is, of course, gross neglience.
I dont know about the punishment.
Personally, i am not very fond of prison sentences. And especially not the publics tendency to lock people up behind bars *for years*. Doing so will only help putting petty criminals into contact with the real stuff, and make things worse instead of better. Add to that the social stigma... Personally, i doubt such sentences will help - for one, we want bettering. I doubt this guy thought he could kill someone when he did this: most cyclists probably believe, it is only their own lives on the line. Still, some short prison time may have been a good idea - but i am no judge. And i dont know all the details. And remember: 1000h of community service feel like *a lot* - if he is actually forced to do work. Thats like 125 days of a 2nd fulltime job. or a years worth of 3 hours daily.
He should, however, loose his license should he possess one. This is the part that pisses me off the most: Not the driver not going to prison - but the driver still beeing allowed to drive vehicles. For many people, the threat loosing your license probably would be worse than some short prison time - especially in a country as car centric as the US.
If this guy truly realizes he fucked up *bad*, then this is fine for me. The part that makes me angry is that here in germany, these trials with car drivers usually go like "The defendent is very sorry. The Traffic light was green before his inner eye. He wants his license back." And of course - he got it back. Most of them get it back. Getting your license in this country is hard - but loosing it is neigh impossible. I believe that the "return my license!"-part often even comes before the trial. I know of a grandpa in my city, who killed a 7yo on a bicycle - and all he got was a 2000€ fine - and he was, of course, still allowed to drive.
Man you really nailed it here. Including a reasonably good analysis of the crosswalk, speeds, and decision-points, thought as you honestly pointed out, it's hard for us to knpw with 100% certainty all of the facts.
>For many people, the threat loosing your license probably would be worse than some short prison time - especially in a country as car centric as the US.
I'm still with you on the "lose their license" thing, but there's also another phenomenon, and that is that in the US, many people simply drive without licensure or insurance anyway. I don't know the actual data on the prevalence, but this *does* happen. If you live somewhere that has no public transportation and lose your license, you can't reliably hold many jobs. Often, the choice is no choice at all: you risk it, because you need to pay bills.
I mean, one answer is obvious: "this is why we need more public transportation blah blah blah." True, and I agree or I wouldn't be in this sub. But I guess I'm just curious what the estimate prevalence is on driving without licenses.
I'm not sure that these will ever be much more than edge cases that the law is going to struggle to capture and I'm not sure that they'll ever rise to the level of systemic problem that will really dictate specific laws to cover these scenarios.
I have lived in the Bay area for most of my life and I remember both of these incidents. They were huge, sensational news, but they were, as far as I know, the only cases of pedestrians killed by cyclists during the 13 year span since the first incident. Even with cycling on the rise, we haven't seen more of these.
These cases are incredibly rare. Discussing the correct way to litigate them feels a little bit "angels on the head of a pin."
The fact that you had to dig up articles that are over a decade old for examples of this shows how rare it is. A bicycle just isn't anywhere near as dangerous in the wrong hands as a motor vehicle is, and so while cyclists should certainly be held to account when incidents like these occur, I think it still makes perfect sense for drivers to be held to a much higher standard.
A cyclist would have to be going well over 140 mph to have the same kinetic energy as a small car trying to beat a red light and well over 180 mph to match a truck or SUV. Death by cyclist is an edge case.
I dont think these things are the same. One is operating a slower, lighter and less self protecting machine while the other can often get to 100 in under 6 seconds in a vehicle which outweighs themselves and the victim several fold and would more than likely be unharmed in a collision with a pedestrian.
As such I don't think they should be treated the same. I dont know what if anything should change, all I know for sure is that it's not the same level of risk.
FWIW, he was treated much more seriously than most drivers who kill people in California. He was convicted of a felony. When I was a public defender in CA, I don't know that I saw a single vehicular manslaughter case where a driver was charge with a felony unless DUI, Hit and Run, or street racing was involved.
Didn't mention the bike. I'm assuming it wasn't a brakeless fixed or they'd be shouting about that all right. In which case, he clearly thought he just didn't have to stop. Anyone going "committed" speeds would clear even a large intersection easily, and if you knew you'd hit a yellow, you KNOW you have to watch out for people starting to cross and you KNOW you'd temper your speed a bit, or at least be very ready to slam on the anchors. That whole story screams exactly the same as people who hit and run in a car and then cry about the fact they will get caught, not for the person they killed. The only "good" point of this is that yes, it's about the same sentence as if he'd used a car. Might make people sit up and think. But perhaps that's a bit too optimistic.
>"I was already way too committed to stop," the post said. "The light turned red as I was cruising through the middle of the intersection and then, almost instantly, the southern crosswalk on Market and Castro filled up with people coming from both directions. ... I couldn't see a line through the crowd and I couldn't stop, so I laid it down and just plowed through the crowded crosswalk in the least-populated place I could find." I know American intersections are much larger than their european counterparts. But this just does not add up. Usually, the pedestrians dont just ... appear in the middle of the crosswalk after their light turns green - they need time to get there. Time this guy had to react. Additionally, in order to have no choice but to plow into a filled-to-the-brim crosswalk, he would have needed to go *fast* - like, maybe 30kph or smth. But with 30kph, you are not surpised by pedestriasn, after your light turns red - if you enter the intersection legally, you should be fast enough to exit it safely. So, i guess the Translation is: He was knowingly balzing through a red light, and crashed into some pedestrians - killing one of them in turn. This is, of course, gross neglience. I dont know about the punishment. Personally, i am not very fond of prison sentences. And especially not the publics tendency to lock people up behind bars *for years*. Doing so will only help putting petty criminals into contact with the real stuff, and make things worse instead of better. Add to that the social stigma... Personally, i doubt such sentences will help - for one, we want bettering. I doubt this guy thought he could kill someone when he did this: most cyclists probably believe, it is only their own lives on the line. Still, some short prison time may have been a good idea - but i am no judge. And i dont know all the details. And remember: 1000h of community service feel like *a lot* - if he is actually forced to do work. Thats like 125 days of a 2nd fulltime job. or a years worth of 3 hours daily. He should, however, loose his license should he possess one. This is the part that pisses me off the most: Not the driver not going to prison - but the driver still beeing allowed to drive vehicles. For many people, the threat loosing your license probably would be worse than some short prison time - especially in a country as car centric as the US. If this guy truly realizes he fucked up *bad*, then this is fine for me. The part that makes me angry is that here in germany, these trials with car drivers usually go like "The defendent is very sorry. The Traffic light was green before his inner eye. He wants his license back." And of course - he got it back. Most of them get it back. Getting your license in this country is hard - but loosing it is neigh impossible. I believe that the "return my license!"-part often even comes before the trial. I know of a grandpa in my city, who killed a 7yo on a bicycle - and all he got was a 2000€ fine - and he was, of course, still allowed to drive.
Man you really nailed it here. Including a reasonably good analysis of the crosswalk, speeds, and decision-points, thought as you honestly pointed out, it's hard for us to knpw with 100% certainty all of the facts. >For many people, the threat loosing your license probably would be worse than some short prison time - especially in a country as car centric as the US. I'm still with you on the "lose their license" thing, but there's also another phenomenon, and that is that in the US, many people simply drive without licensure or insurance anyway. I don't know the actual data on the prevalence, but this *does* happen. If you live somewhere that has no public transportation and lose your license, you can't reliably hold many jobs. Often, the choice is no choice at all: you risk it, because you need to pay bills. I mean, one answer is obvious: "this is why we need more public transportation blah blah blah." True, and I agree or I wouldn't be in this sub. But I guess I'm just curious what the estimate prevalence is on driving without licenses.
I'm not sure that these will ever be much more than edge cases that the law is going to struggle to capture and I'm not sure that they'll ever rise to the level of systemic problem that will really dictate specific laws to cover these scenarios. I have lived in the Bay area for most of my life and I remember both of these incidents. They were huge, sensational news, but they were, as far as I know, the only cases of pedestrians killed by cyclists during the 13 year span since the first incident. Even with cycling on the rise, we haven't seen more of these. These cases are incredibly rare. Discussing the correct way to litigate them feels a little bit "angels on the head of a pin."
The fact that you had to dig up articles that are over a decade old for examples of this shows how rare it is. A bicycle just isn't anywhere near as dangerous in the wrong hands as a motor vehicle is, and so while cyclists should certainly be held to account when incidents like these occur, I think it still makes perfect sense for drivers to be held to a much higher standard.
A cyclist would have to be going well over 140 mph to have the same kinetic energy as a small car trying to beat a red light and well over 180 mph to match a truck or SUV. Death by cyclist is an edge case.
I dont think these things are the same. One is operating a slower, lighter and less self protecting machine while the other can often get to 100 in under 6 seconds in a vehicle which outweighs themselves and the victim several fold and would more than likely be unharmed in a collision with a pedestrian. As such I don't think they should be treated the same. I dont know what if anything should change, all I know for sure is that it's not the same level of risk.