Of course they are. If you have sat thru the entire proceedings and thus saw, heard & read all the same evidence, you can make a informed opinion.
Again, from what I said earlier, “I had the right of way” is a terrible epitaph for a tombstone. You change that to “I was doing what I was instructed to do” and he’d still be just as dead. The prudent thing to do is watch for, and give way to, anything that poses a danger. As a cyclist I’ve done this many times including hopping over a curb. the sound of a large diesel semi truck would have set this process in motion without a second thought.
This has nothing to do with who had the right of way or the poor judgement of the truck driver. It’s just common sense.
The question of whether unsafe overtaking occurred has everything to do with right of way.
It has nothing to do with the common sense of the cyclist. He’s dead and it was a simple situation to avoid.
If the cyclist went under the wheels at the location his body was found then he had to have paced the truck to do so. It was something like 350 feet away from the intersection the truck pulled out from. Cyclists don’t usually travel at car speeds so when the trucker passed him on the bridge then his perception of where the bike would normally have been at the next intersection would be behind the truck. At this point he knows he has passed the bike (with his tractor) and his focus is now on the traffic ahead of him.
- (from your qoute) cyclist was going downhill, which equals faster.
- Truck turned onto road behind cyclist. Mack trucks are not known for their 0-60 performance; they are slow at the low end to have gearing for power. Therefore, it should have taken some distance to catch the cyclist.
- Things was a 30+ year “professional” truck driver in a 40+’ rig, not a Smart car. He should have enough experience to know that pulling alongside is not synonymous with passing. When the cyclist was alongside the tractor he had NOT yet completed the pass.
There are only two parties that have any blame for this debacle - the truck driver (majority) & the ADA who prepared the case (minor) as this should have been a slam dunk to get an indictment.
. . . he says based on knowing only those facts reported in articles he found online, in blissful ignorance of all the facts that were presented to the grand jury (and in blissful . . . unignorance . . . of things that may not be facts at all).
I read a pretty detailed police report linked in the OP; however, it took me less than 3 hours to read, let alone 3 days so I presume there was a lot more evidence presented to the GJ than what I know. However, “Grand juries almost always indict people on the prosecutor’s recommendation.” but in this case they didn’t. Remember the GJ is a one-sided case; there is no skilled defense attorney planting a seed of doubt in just one juror as there would be at the trial.
Exactly. So, there was so little evidence that a crime was committed that a Grand Jury wouldn’t even *indict. *
Ipso facto, there wasn’t enough evidence to convict.
Honestly, if you even sit on a GJ, you will never try and second guess them again. They get to see lots of stuff you don’t and sometimes never will.
Well, same with a regular jury, in fact. Unless there was some hugely damning piece of evidence that the public got to see but the jury didn’t.
I didn’t say anything about downhill. What you see in the video is the cyclist riding onto a bridge over a railroad. It will have a slope on either side.
A diesel truck is capable of moving smartly into traffic and it appears the truck in question wasn’t dogging it off the line. Witness #1 who was at the intersection heading in the opposite direction said the truck was moving fast. That means the rider had to have sprinted to beat him to the intersection. She also said the bike rider must have had guts to ride with a truck coming up fast behind him. Looking at the intersection the road narrows immediately after Linden Street.
It appears from reading the initial report that the cyclist outran the truck to the next intersection. He was riding a Specialized brand bike and he was wearing shoes that locked into the pedal. This was not a cheap bike and he wasn’t a casual rider. I’d guess it was in the 5 to $10 thousand dollar range. From my experience with a light weight touring bike I could hit about 34 mph on a sprint. He could probably sprint to 40 mph with his bike.
After reviewing the initial report I’d have to say there is a 3rd party who showed poor judgment. You’re correct in that the truck in question is not a Smart car. It doesn’t stop on a dime. The cyclist put himself in harm’s way by racing the truck. He didn’t have the physical capacity to remain in front of the truck and the narrowing road didn’t allow for the space needed for the truck to get by. He lost a good 3 feet of clearance and would have had to jog to the left to avoid the sidewalk. The cyclist put the trucker in a bad spot and the trucker chose to try to go around him versus locking it up. If the truck driver had locked up the brakes then he would have lost some control of the truck which again, puts the cyclist in danger. It’s not as cut and dried as you might think.
Whenever I have any doubt regarding the safety of passing a cyclist, I error on the side of caution. That is, I slow down, even to a stop if necessary, or try to change lanes, the same as I would do for a stray animal. It would seem as though the truck driver didn’t exercise caution even though the road narrowed.
However, I haven’t read any articles or watched any video about the incident, so I don’t have an opinion about the grand jury finding. Was it a very busy street where a vehicle can’t slow way down or change lanes without causing a traffic accident?
There’s no disagreement there. I measured the road at between 23 and 24 feet wide curb to curb using Google Earth. So if half the road is 12 feet wide and the trailer is 8.5 feet wide (standard) that leaves 3.5 feet if the truck rides the center line. The truck driver would have to encroach on the oncoming lane to give way to the bicycle. It’s not unusual for a driver to do this if the situation allows for it.
IANAL but the way I see it they probably didn’t have the needed proof the trucker was too close to the bike. We can believe it a good possibility but absent some indication of this then the case is weak. Given the amount of information the GJ was given it’s possible the point of impact was a significant distance away from the curb. What we do know is that the tractor cleared the bicycle so there was at least enough room for that to occur.
There are a lot of “maybes” that could have occurred. Maybe the cyclist saw how close he was and bounced of the curb into the truck. Maybe he saw the utility poll and tried to hop the curb onto the sidewalk. Maybe the trucker assumed the cyclist would take the sidewalk. We don’t know. The two converged at a choke point and decisions had to be made.
The trucker should have seen the road narrowing and assumed the worst and slowed down. He should have seen the cyclist when he first pulled out on to Weston and been looking for him down the road. Legally he had a responsibility in this regard.
I still think the cyclist chose poorly on his own behalf and would never have advised his kids to do the same.
Let us not confuse “the trucker is civily responsible” vs “the trucker committed a crime”. The GJ only ruled on the 2nd, they ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge the trucker with a crime.
In many areas it needs a LEO’s direct witness to give a moving violation.
But in any case, the trucker could still well be responsible for the accident without it rising to the level of a crime.
That’s about how I see it.
Trying to hop up a curb which one is riding parallel to, especially on a road bike is exceeding difficult & not something the average cyclist has the technical ability to do. One might get the front wheel up, but the rear wheel is much harder to get up & over the curb. With high-end wheels, failure to cleanly execute this maneuver might very well trash them. Depending upon the height of the curb, you could also damage the rear derailleur when the rear wheel doesn’t make it up. Going down a curb or up perpendicular are both easier to accomplish, as is attempting this with a BMX bike.
May I refer you to your post #14
a popular brand sold in many bike stores. My experience is that the majority of bikes that they sell are for about ¼ of your suggested price range.
Do you have any evidence the cyclist did anything other than ride in a predictable, straight line, where everyone can see him?
Since I don’t have any BBQ sauce on me, we can’t continue this dialogue where it really belongs. So let’s just say, you’re right. :rolleyes: I’m out.
One request though, keep your vehicle outta my area.
I’ve done it ever since I was 5 and for the reason stated. I’ve never lost a contest with a semi because I never tried. I did have an altercation with a moving car. I was lucky. Neither the driver or myself saw each other.
The road narrows after the bridge and the intersection. It’s the center line that remains constant and not the curb. the curb moves to the left. He had no choice but to move to the left. By default, the distance between the truck and the curb becomes reduced. It’s just a bad situation to ride into. What is legal and what is safe are not always mutually inclusive.
BBQ sauce comments aside, it’s not a good thing trade a legal construct against one’s safety. I know how to drive around cyclists and I also know an unsafe situation when I see it. I’ve had the luxury of learning the hard way early in life and lived to tell the tale. The 1st witness saw the danger in the situation and if you look at the street views I think you would see it too.
I read the report. Let’ see now we have:
[ul]
[li]Video of a truck belonging to that trucking company in the area at the time of the accident[/li][li]The GPS in the truck said it was on that road at the time of the accident[/li][li]After that truck passed, the bicyclist was dead on the road[/li][li]the tire marks on the victims arm match the tire tread of one of the trailer tires[/li][li]The driver of the truck has a record as long as my arm[/li][/ul]
The driver’s defense? SODDI*
Shit it is dead simple to explain why the GJ didn’t return a true bill. The GJ was made up of the same people that post here in the pit in various bicycle hate threads.
Fuck.
*Some Other Dude Did It
I don’t think there is much doubt that the cyclist died after being crushed by the truck trailer in question. That is not proof that the driver was negligent. He went under the trailer wheels on the right side away from any eye witnesses. All this happened out of camera view.
As has been pointed out, we do not have access to the lengthy amount of information presented to the GJ. You’re accusing them of bias without the facts.
There is a good chance that a civil suit (already brought) will have a different outcome because the rules of conviction are more relaxed.
In a sense, it was the cyclist’s fault. He should have been 3’ into the primary lane well before the bridge. Drivers generally avoid hitting things in front of them (as it is their responsibility), a cyclist getting run down from behind is actually a pretty uncommon event. The safest place for a bicycle to ride is in the road, where drivers have to notice them, where they make their own bailing space if a situation gets dangerous.
From a text book POV that would be correct. I don’t have enough confidence in drivers to find out. I’m always amazed at how many ways a well intentioned driver can miss something obvious. People don’t have the peripheral vision they think they have. The brain fills in a lot of detail when looking about.
Personally I was taught to look under parked cars as I drive to see if there are any kids or pets waiting to spring out into my path. It’s paid off a couple of times but I’m not patting myself on the back. Had a buddy who hit a kid who ran out in front of him. Although it only involved a broken arm it could have been so much worse.
WTF is with all the threadshitting? You want to argue that maybe we don’t have all the information? Fine. But to denigrate all of us because we dared ask the question of whether the grand jury might be wrong? That’s threadshitting. You’re denigrating people for even wanting to discuss the topic. I know the mods have given up on ever stopping it, but that doesn’t mean we as posters should bother engaging those who are doing it.
But the argument that we don’t have all the information is irrelevant. WE NEVER HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION. All human beings have to make judgments with incomplete information. Expecting complete information would mean that nothing would ever get done.
Based on the information we do have, this decision is bullshit. If more information comes out, then my opinion can change. But I’m not going to be an idiot and assume that information I don’t have will lead me to the opposite conclusion. You can only make rational judgments based on the information you currently have.
And I sure as hell can do something if the Grand Jury continually makes the wrong decision. As a moral person, I cannot of my own free will choose to obey a law that I think is immoral. If I think the jury made a mistake in any trial, grand jury or petite jury, I am free to treat the person as if they were guilty or at least indicted. And I am free to advocate for new laws that would not be immoral. The one thing I am not free to do is defer to the law when my morality disagrees.
And, that, Rand Rover, is one of many things that makes morality different than just what I like to do. I may want to go along with the because it’s easier. But as a moral person, I can’t. It doesn’t matter if those morals came from my own head or from some divine decree.
Another is that my morality informs what I try to get others to do, and not just myself. Thus I am morally obligated to try and change the law, and even make life hard on the people who enforce the unjust law.