Teen cyclist critical after being struck by milk tanker

[djg21]

The following was posted by a friend on Facebook:

Upstate NY bicycle racing phenom Christopher Welch has been airlifted to Upstate Medical Center. His father said that Chris is "in pretty tough shape but does not have a brain injury. He has a cervical fracture but can move his arms and legs. Lots of broken bones. Thanks for thinking of us."

STEUBEN - A Barneveld teen lies in critical condition after a milk tanker truck backed into his bicycle on Monday afternoon in Steuben, according to the Oneida County Sheriff’s Office.

Christopher Welch, 17, sustained head and leg injuries in the accident and was airlifted by Mercy Flight to St. Elizabeth Medical Center in Utica and then to Upstate University Hospital in Syracuse, deputies said.

Brenda Brouty, 43, of Carthage, was getting ready to back the truck into a farm driveway on State Route 274 when she heard a loud noise from the back of her truck, deputies said. She got out and saw the teen, who was wearing a bicycle helmet, and a damaged bicycle under the truck’s third axle, they said. She called 911 around 2:50 p.m.

Brouty was issued a traffic ticket for not having reverse lights and an audible alarm working on the truck, deputies said. She is due to appear in Steuben Town Court at a later date.

http://www.uticaod.com/news/20160823/barneveld-teen-in-critical-condition-after-crash-involving-milk-tanker-bicycle

[ultraman6970]

Wow, this is just a bad accident, hope the kid gets out of this one the best way possible.

[Hilltopperny]

Very close to home for me. I get passed by milk trucks all the time and am always vigilant when they are preparing to pull into a local farm. They typically pull forward and reverse into the farms. Hope this kid gets well soon!

[54ny77]

jeezus. here's good wishes to the kid. that's just plain awful circumstance.

[AngryScientist]

sad, 17 is so young. hopefully he is able to make a full recovery, he does have youth on his side.

[Onno]

This happened very close to where I live and ride, and though I've never met him, I've heard from several people that he is a phenomenal rider. The accounts of the accident online are very strange.

I hope he recovers quickly and well.

[Hilltopperny]

Milk trucks do not typically keep an eye out for cyclists. I have experienced this first hand a couple of months ago. The driver pulled past the farm and immediately reversed to enter the driveway without looking. Luckily I was paying attention to what he was doing and I am slow. Sounds like the kid was riding along and the driver abruptly stopped and reversed without warning lights or back up horn. It's very unfortunate and sad. Hopefully he makes a full recovery.

[MattTuck]

Sounds like a terrible accident. Hoping for a full recovery.

At 17, I was doing some pretty stupid stuff on a bicycle. One has to wonder whether youthful indiscretion and/or lack of experience on the road were not contributing factors.

[parris]

I rode a number of these roads when I lived in that part of the state. It's also Dave Kirk's old home turf. Reading s**t like this just sucks on so many levels. Best wishes for a full recovery.

Matt it's too early to tell just what happened. But the tanker driver was ticketed for some equipment problems. The roads where this took place are all pretty quiet rural roads and the locals typically know them pretty well. It'll be interesting to hear more as it shakes out.

[pro12tc]

One has to wonder whether youthful indiscretion and/or lack of experience on the road were not contributing factors.

He's a very experienced cyclist with a good head on his shoulders. He has only gotten better since they wrote this article about him:
http://www.uticaod.com/article/20130818/News/308189934

No need for any "victim-blaming" on this one...

[MattTuck]

Matt it's too early to tell just what happened. But the tanker driver was ticketed for some equipment problems. The roads where this took place are all pretty quiet rural roads and the locals typically know them pretty well. It'll be interesting to hear more as it shakes out.

He's a very experienced cyclist with a good head on his shoulders. He has only gotten better since they wrote this article about him:
http://www.uticaod.com/article/20130818/News/308189934

No need for any "victim-blaming" on this one...

Agreed. It is a tragic accident, regardless of the circumstances, and my heart goes out to him for a full recovery.

On the topic of victim blaming, perhaps your definition and mine differ. I wasn't blaming the victim, and if it came across that way, I am sorry. I don't want to hijack this thread for that discussion, but you can PM me and I'm happy to share my detailed thoughts. Suffice it to say that I feel for the kid, and know he has a long road to recovery, and I sincerely hope he finds his way back to the bike.

[ripvanrando]

Bike crashes are not accidents

When drivers who mow down cyclists just get a ticket for equipment infractions, the problem is obvious and sickening.

http://www.bikelaw.com/2016/02/26/bicycle-crashes-are-not-accidents/

[djg21]

Bike crashes are not accidents

When drivers who mow down cyclists just get a ticket for equipment infractions, the problem is obvious and sickening.

http://www.bikelaw.com/2016/02/26/bicycle-crashes-are-not-accidents/

You make a distinction without a difference. "Accident" means unintentional and unexpected. Do you really think that the driver here intended or expected to hit the cyclist when she put her milk truck in reverse and started to back into a dairy farm's driveway? No one here intentionally "mowed down" anyone else. Of course it was an accident, albeit one with tragic and unfortunate results. This is not to say there was no negligence, but it does not sound like there are any grounds to prosecute criminally to the extent that is what you're suggesting.

[GregL]

I don't know Chris personally, but I have raced against him and his dad and spoken with them on several occasions. They are very personable and Chris is a very, very strong rider. The last time I chatted with him, I kidded him about beating up on the old guys (e.g., me...) when the 1/2/3 and masters fields raced in the same wave. Sure enough, Chris's accelerations beat the snot out of me in my last race. According to the local cycling grapevine, "there is no brain injury, a fractured spine but no loss of function to any of the limbs." Hopefully Chris recovers quickly and will soon be dropping me again.

Greg

[Mark McM]

You make a distinction without a difference. "Accident" means unintentional and unexpected. Do you really think that the driver here intended or expected to hit the cyclist when she put her milk truck in reverse and started to back into a dairy farm's driveway? No one here intentionally "mowed down" anyone else. Of course it was an accident, albeit one with tragic and unfortunate results. This is not to say there was no negligence, but it does not sound like there are any grounds to prosecute criminally to the extent that is what you're suggesting.

So, you are saying that the driver couldn't know that it is possible to run over something (or someone) that is behind the truck when going in reverse, and therefore there is no need to look behind before reversing? And that if the driver did not look before reversing, that running something (or someone) over is completely unexpected?

Every driver should know that they need to look where they are going before moving (forward or reverse). If a driver does not verify that their path is clear before moving and end up hitting something (or someone), it is not an "accident". If the collision was not intentional, then it may be negligence, but negligence is not an accident.

[gdw]

Large trucks like the one involved in the accident have huge blind spots to their rear. The driver can check his mirrors but it's impossible to see a cyclist or car directly behind the truck.

[MattTuck]

So, you are saying that the driver couldn't know that it is possible to run over something (or someone) that is behind the truck when going in reverse, and therefore there is no need to look behind before reversing? And that if the driver did not look before reversing, that running something (or someone) over is completely unexpected?

Every driver should know that they need to look where they are going before moving (forward or reverse). If a driver does not verify that their path is clear before moving and end up hitting something (or someone), it is not an "accident". If the collision was not intentional, then it may be negligence, but negligence is not an accident.

This is just speculation. We really have no idea of the details of the accident. I was taught a lesson early on in life, and that is to assume that no one can see you - and that is especially true with trucks/vans with poor visibility. Whether in a parking lot, or on the road, a vehicle that is stopped or in reverse is a big red flag and should be treated with extreme caution.

I can envision multiple scenarios where the driver and cyclist both did nothing technically wrong, that led to this outcome. We really have no idea (based on this story. if you have other sources for the description of this incident, please post) whether the cyclist was moving or stationary, what direction he was riding, which direction the truck was going, and on which side of the road the truck was backing into.

[parris]

^ Well stated. I grew up working on my dad's farms and although we always were careful there were a few accidents due to blind spots around various pieces of equipment and trucks. One of them was on my 21st birthday when I was turning into a field with a large tractor towing a big red piece of equipment. I scanned multiple times but an old guy going too fast literally ran into the back/side of the tractor because he thought he could squeeze through a decreasing gap. the road was a double yellow and he drew a ticket for it.

Anyone that's driven for a long enough time can look back and think of situations where although you were being careful due to site lines and such you just didn't see the other guy.

I'm in no way trying to let the truck driver off in this instance. things go wrong at times and can suck for all those involved. I'd much rather deal with people operating equipment in farm country than the thousands of mind numb self absorbed jackasses looking at their phones other places.

[ripvanrando]

You make a distinction without a difference. "Accident" means unintentional and unexpected. Do you really think that the driver here intended or expected to hit the cyclist when she put her milk truck in reverse and started to back into a dairy farm's driveway? No one here intentionally "mowed down" anyone else. Of course it was an accident, albeit one with tragic and unfortunate results. This is not to say there was no negligence, but it does not sound like there are any grounds to prosecute criminally to the extent that is what you're suggesting.

Backing up a big vehicle against traffic flow would not suggest a crash is unexpected. If the driver had been texting and hit a cyclist, would you feel different? What if the vehicle of death were a firearm and the owner accidentally forgot to put the safety on and someone died. Putting a motor vehicle in reverse and travelling against traffic without knowing it is safe is not an accident, it is pure negligence that resulted in the death of a young man.

The flip side is the complete disregard and lack of any meaningful consequences when killing a bicyclist with a motor vehicle. Driver gets a minor traffic violation and pays $46 or $350 depending upon the state. Basically any motor vehicle can kill any cyclist and get off as long as they did not really mean it. They can be drunk, texting, reading, eating, distracted, backing up,......you name it.

[MattTuck]

Backing up a big vehicle against traffic flow would not suggest a crash is unexpected. If the driver had been texting and hit a cyclist, would you feel different? What if the vehicle of death were a firearm and the owner accidentally forgot to put the safety on and someone died. Putting a motor vehicle in reverse and travelling against traffic without knowing it is safe is not an accident, it is pure negligence that resulted in the death of a young man.

The flip side is the complete disregard and lack of any meaningful consequences when killing a bicyclist with a motor vehicle. Driver gets a minor traffic violation and pays $46 or $350 depending upon the state. Basically any motor vehicle can kill any cyclist and get off as long as they did not really mean it. They can be drunk, texting, reading, eating, distracted, backing up,......you name it.

The kid died? That is sad. I thought he was stable.

[parris]

I just did a quick search and haven't seen anything new on this.

[superbowlpats]

GoFundMe page set up for him

https://www.gofundme.com/2djdb2dw

pretty cool that Sir Bradley Wiggins donated.

[efaust_o]

Large trucks like the one involved in the accident have huge blind spots to their rear. The driver can check his mirrors but it's impossible to see a cyclist or car directly behind the truck.

Maybe in the not to distance future trucks can have back-up cameras...I don't totally depend on mine, but it's definitely beneficial on my passenger vehicle...

[sacwolf]

man, that's rough. I hope he recovers. WE recently had a local cyclists pass away after a couple years battle from bike accident/cervical damage suffered in a freak crash only half a mile from the ride end. Let's just hope his age will allow him to fully recover. No milk trucks out here in Sacramento, but plenty of big trucks in the Sierra Nevadas with a distaste for cyclists. Scary

[djg21]

So, you are saying that the driver couldn't know that it is possible to run over something (or someone) that is behind the truck when going in reverse, and therefore there is no need to look behind before reversing? And that if the driver did not look before reversing, that running something (or someone) over is completely unexpected?

Every driver should know that they need to look where they are going before moving (forward or reverse). If a driver does not verify that their path is clear before moving and end up hitting something (or someone), it is not an "accident". If the collision was not intentional, then it may be negligence, but negligence is not an accident.

No. I'm saying that she likely had not formed a specific intention to run over someone, and she probably didn't anticipate hitting the cyclist. I think the whole semantic distinction concerning use of the term "accident" and "crash" is silly, and I offered the opinion that there appear to be no grounds to prosecute the driver as her conduct, while likely negligent, does not appear to have been criminal.

A few questions? How long have you been driving? Have you never inadvertently backed into something -- another car, a mailbox, a stone wall, a garbage can etc.? Have you never driven into a garage with a bicycle on your roof rack?

If you did any of these things, you too were negligent, but I'm sure you would characterize the incident as "accidental" and would agree that your conduct should not have resulted in a criminal conviction.

The driver ****ed up terribly. She was negligent and will pay a large civil penalty or settlement. But there is nothing to suggest criminal conduct. To the contrary, it appears she remained at the scene and was cooperative with law enforcement in all respects.

Save the talk about criminal prosecution for the drivers who intentionally harrass or injure cyclists, and truly deserve it.

[unterhausen]

I think I was fortunate noticing how a local milk truck driver was operating before this happened to me. He would pull up next to a farm, stop, and throw it in reverse and hope nothing was behind him.

[rePhil]

I hope Christopher heals quickly and fully.
These days,for insurance purposes one or both has to be found at fault.I hope the truck driver has good insurance.
I tell anyone that will listen to make sure to have under / uninsured motorist coverage.

[djg21]

Backing up a big vehicle against traffic flow would not suggest a crash is unexpected.This would depend entirely on the circumstances. We're the farm on a major highway with heavy traffic, you may be correct. If on a rural road with no traffic, the driver's actions may have been reasonable.

If the driver had been texting and hit a cyclist, would you feel different? That could evidence a reckless disregard for human life which could and IMO should be prosecuted as involuntary manslaughter.

What if the vehicle of death were a firearm and the owner accidentally forgot to put the safety on and someone died.I don't want to start a gun control debate, but IMO, if you own a firearm, which is an inherently dangerous instrumentality specifically designed to inflict injury or death, you are acting in reckless disregard if you fail to properly secure that weapon and it is used to cause a death. Manslaughter charges should be automatic as a policy matter.

By the way, if you "race" your car on public streets and the driver of another car involved in the race or any other person is killed, you will be prosecuted for homicide given that you were engaging in reckless conduct resulting in a fatality.

Putting a motor vehicle in reverse and travelling against traffic without knowing it is safe is not an accident., it is pure negligence.This likely is a counterfactual. It is much more likely that the driver put her vehicle in reverse and backed into the driveway after looking in her mirrors and believing that if was safe to do so. The cyclist could have been approaching at significant speed for all we know. I would think it safe to say, however, that had the driver known there was a cyclist behind her, she would not have attempted to back into the driveway until the cyclist passed.

In any event, the terms "accident" and "negligent" are not mutually exclusive.


The flip side is the complete disregard and lack of any meaningful consequences when killing a bicyclist with a motor vehicle. Driver gets a minor traffic violation and pays $46 or $350 depending upon the state. Basically any motor vehicle can kill any cyclist and get off as long as they did not really mean it. They can be drunk, texting, reading, eating, distracted, backing up,......you name it.

This is just not the case here. The driver and the owner of her truck in this instance will pay a significant civil judgment or settlement. This just does not appear to be a case where the driver was drunk or distracted (as far as we know). I do agree that juries unfortunately often are not willing to convict drivers who engage in reckless conduct involving cyclists. But this does not appear to be a case where criminal charges should even be an issue, unless there is more to the story than we know.

[gdw]

None of us know what happened so arguing over who is at fault is foolish and accomplishes nothing.

[Mark McM]

No. I'm saying that she likely had not formed a specific intention to run over someone, and she probably didn't anticipate hitting the cyclist. I think the whole semantic distinction concerning use of the term "accident" and "crash" is silly, and I offered the opinion that there appear to be no grounds to prosecute the driver as her conduct, while likely negligent, does not appear to have been criminal.

The semantics between "accident" and "crash" are not silly. This nomenclature has been used to excuse negligence for far too long. And while simple negligence may not be a crime, gross negligence can be. For example, what if a driver takes their eyes off the road to hunt Pokémon on the side of the road, and their vehicle drives over a curb and hits an pedestrian. The driver (or their lawyer) may claim this was just an "accident", because they didn't intend to hurt anyone by playing Pokémon. But certainly this is not an "accident" at all, since any reasonable driver would know that they should be paying attention to where they are going instead of playing games. In fact, this example may go beyond simple negligence and might be considered negligent homicide (manslaughter).

A few questions? How long have you been driving? Have you never inadvertently backed into something -- another car, a mailbox, a stone wall, a garbage can etc.? Have you never driven into a garage with a bicycle on your roof rack?

If you did any of these things, you too were negligent, but I'm sure you would characterize the incident as "accidental" and would agree that your conduct should not have resulted in a criminal conviction.

In my many years of driver, I have once or twice tapped another parked car while maneuvering out of a parking space - but never at more than 1 or 2 mph. I always check for people or other vehicle before moving, never hit a person or moving vehicle, and definitely never driven into a garage with a bike on the roof. In those cases where another parked car was tapped, it was not an "accident" - I was fully aware of the potential for damage, and (negligently) misjudged distances. These were not "accidents", they were the results of my own errors.


Save the talk about criminal prosecution for the drivers who intentionally harrass or injure cyclists, and truly deserve it.

I disagree. As Spiderman said, "With great power comes great responsibility". The duty of care increases with the size and power of a vehicle. The repercussions for not executing that duty should also increase in proportion. When Captain Schettino drove the cruise ship Costa Concordia far too close to the island of Giglio, causing it to crash into underwater rocks and capsize with the loss of 32 lives, was it just an "accident" that he shouldn't be prosecuted for?

Too many motorists refuse to accept the responsibility that comes with piloting and large and power vehicle. So yes, sometimes drives should be prosecuted if they exercise gross negligence in the handling of their vehicles.

[choke]

I think the whole semantic distinction concerning use of the term "accident" and "crash" is sillyI disagree. To me, 'accident' implies that it was unavoidable. IMO most things that we call an 'accident' could have been avoided if the person had paid more attention to what they were doing or to their surroundings.

Have you never inadvertently backed into something -- another car, a mailbox, a stone wall, a garbage can etc.? Have you never driven into a garage with a bicycle on your roof rack?

If you did any of these things, you too were negligent, but I'm sure you would characterize the incident as "accidental" and would agree that your conduct should not have resulted in a criminal conviction.I've backed into an inanimate object once and I certainly wouldn't refer to it an 'accident'. I wasn't paying enough attention - if I had been it would not have happened, simple as that. While I don't feel someone should be criminally charged for such an event, when a person is injured then it takes on a new dimension and I do feel that they should be charged....myself included, should I be the perpetrator.

[ripvanrando]

This would depend entirely on the circumstances. We're the farm on a major highway with heavy traffic, you may be correct. If on a rural road with no traffic, the driver's actions may have been reasonable.

That could evidence a reckless disregard for human life which could and IMO should be prosecuted as involuntary manslaughter.

I don't want to start a gun control debate, but IMO, if you own a firearm, which is an inherently dangerous instrumentality specifically designed to inflict injury or death, you are acting in reckless disregard if you fail to properly secure that weapon and it is used to cause a death. Manslaughter charges should be automatic as a policy matter.

By the way, if you "race" your car on public streets and the driver of another car involved in the race or any other person is killed, you will be prosecuted for homicide given that you were engaging in reckless conduct resulting in a fatality.

This likely is a counterfactual. It is much more likely that the driver put her vehicle in reverse and backed into the driveway after looking in her mirrors and believing that if was safe to do so. The cyclist could have been approaching at significant speed for all we know. I would think it safe to say, however, that had the driver known there was a cyclist behind her, she would not have attempted to back into the driveway until the cyclist passed.

In any event, the terms "accident" and "negligent" are not mutually exclusive.




This is just not the case here. The driver and the owner of her truck in this instance will pay a significant civil judgment or settlement. This just does not appear to be a case where the driver was drunk or distracted (as far as we know). I do agree that juries unfortunately often are not willing to convict drivers who engage in reckless conduct involving cyclists. But this does not appear to be a case where criminal charges should even be an issue, unless there is more to the story than we know.

Don't let facts get in the way of a justified lynching.

Who's side are you on?

[Bruce K]

I believe djg21 is speaking from a legal standpoint, and that is what the driver of the truck will have to face, the law.

I would like to think that most of our anger in theses instances comes from the fact that the law does not seem to be enforced by our elected/appointed officials when it involves a cyclist as it is in other instances.

It also does not seem to be enforced the same as when motor vehicles are involved.

The fact that a teenager with such promise is involved brings out strong feelings in all of us.

Please, let's keep to the facts of the situation and the needs of this young man and his family and pull it back from the cliff of personal confrontation.

BK

[djg21]

The semantics between "accident" and "crash" are not silly. This nomenclature has been used to excuse negligence for far too long. And while simple negligence may not be a crime, gross negligence can be. For example, what if a driver takes their eyes off the road to hunt Pokémon on the side of the road, and their vehicle drives over a curb and hits an pedestrian. The driver (or their lawyer) may claim this was just an "accident", because they didn't intend to hurt anyone by playing Pokémon. But certainly this is not an "accident" at all, since any reasonable driver would know that they should be paying attention to where they are going instead of playing games. In fact, this example may go beyond simple negligence and might be considered negligent homicide (manslaughter).



In my many years of driver, I have once or twice tapped another parked car while maneuvering out of a parking space - but never at more than 1 or 2 mph. I always check for people or other vehicle before moving, never hit a person or moving vehicle, and definitely never driven into a garage with a bike on the roof. In those cases where another parked car was tapped, it was not an "accident" - I was fully aware of the potential for damage, and (negligently) misjudged distances. These were not "accidents", they were the results of my own errors.




I disagree. As Spiderman said, "With great power comes great responsibility". The duty of care increases with the size and power of a vehicle. The repercussions for not executing that duty should also increase in proportion. When Captain Schettino drove the cruise ship Costa Concordia far too close to the island of Giglio, causing it to crash into underwater rocks and capsize with the loss of 32 lives, was it just an "accident" that he shouldn't be prosecuted for?

Too many motorists refuse to accept the responsibility that comes with piloting and large and power vehicle. So yes, sometimes drives should be prosecuted if they exercise gross negligence in the handling of their vehicles.

We just disagree. The term "accident" simply does not mean unavoidable. All "accidents" may be avoided if some excessive (and perhaps unreasonable) degree of care is exercised. All vehicle "accidents" could be avoided if all vehicles are prohibited because of the inherent danger they pose and we go back to a horse-and-buggy culture. But this would not be very utilitarian and pretty impractical. I'm sure you could have avoided hitting the cars parked behind you had your car been equipped with a back-up camera (as many cars now are). But until relatively recently, the cost of installing such a camera was pretty large, which made the their use impractical for all but the very well-heeled.

Of course the duty of care increases with the size and power of the vehicle. No argument here. As to Schettino, he knew or should have known as a supposedly skilled and licensed sea captain that he was piloting his cruise ship perilously close to underwater rocks. He not only failed to exercise a reasonable standard of care, but he acted with reckless disregard to the lives aboard his ship, clearly had criminal culpability, and deservedly was prosecuted.

I entirely agree that a "crash" is not an "accident" where it is the result of intentional conduct or reckless disgard, i.e., gross negligence. We should reserve our ire (and criminal sanctions) for those cases. But in cases of simple negligence, I don't think it really matters that they be referred to as "accidents."

There will be no escaping civil liability in the case we are discussing. And assuming there are no aggravating factors to indicate the driver was acting with reckless disregard for human life, that is how the case should be resolved.

[acoffin]

Merriam-Webster

Simple Definition of accident
: a sudden event (such as a crash) that is not planned or intended and that causes damage or injury
: an event that is not planned or intended : an event that occurs by chance
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld

[oldpotatoe]

None of us know what happened so arguing over who is at fault is foolish and accomplishes nothing.

hear hear....

[djg21]

hear hear....

The argument isn't about this case actually. It's about the semantics. Should incidents involving motorists and cyclists be called "accidents" or does referring to them as "accidents" somehow allow motorists to evade responsibility? There's also a separate issue of criminal penalties and when they are appropriate.

As an aside, there was a suggestion made earlier in the thread that the driver of the milk truck here was (criminally) negligent per se merely because she backed into the driveway of the farm. You all need to check the law in your jurisdictions. In many places, it is unlawful to back a motor vehicle out of a driveway into a public road. Unless you have a u-shaped driveway, this might mean you are required to back into a driveway. This is not the law in NY, but apparently it is in Vermont and in other jurisdictions.

http://www.wcax.com/story/1509481/backing-out-is-breaking-the-law

[AngryScientist]

while not specifically referring to this case, but rather the "nature" of what happened out there, i do agree that it was most likely an accident. to me an accident implies that there was no gross negligence and no intended harm.

in all likelihood what happened is that the driver needed to back into a driveway, like she has done countless times in the past. She was on a rural backroad with little traffic, checked her mirrors and glanced around, again, as was probably her routine on this and similar roads and backed up.

she remained at the scene and cooperated with law enforcement.

i think it's terrible what happened, but i also dont think it's appropriate to throw the book at the driver in every case of vehicle collision. sometimes this stuff just happens.

we'll see if any further details are released.

[djg21]

https://www.gofundme.com/2djdb2dw

[pbarry]

Truck had no back up lights or reverse warning buzzer.

[oldpotatoe]

Truck had no back up lights or reverse warning buzzer.

"She got out and saw the teen, who was wearing a bicycle helmet, and a damaged bicycle under the truck’s third axle"..

Report says the driver was preparing to back up..so the truck was stopped?..I wonder if the young man didn't notice it was stopped? Tried to pass as the truck started to turn?

Very sad, I hope he makes a quick and complete recovery.

[GregL]

How 'bout some positive news for a Friday AM? Chris was released from the hospital yesterday to continue his recuperation at home. Don't know the specifics of his current condition, but the picture posted of him on Facebook shows a smiling young man flashing a peace sign. Best wishes for a full recovery! Looking forward to him once again beating up on CNY racers in 2017!

- Greg

[echappist]

that's great to hear!

[-holiday76]

great news!

[soulspinner]

How 'bout some positive news for a Friday AM? Chris was released from the hospital yesterday to continue his recuperation at home. Don't know the specifics of his current condition, but the picture posted of him on Facebook shows a smiling young man flashing a peace sign. Best wishes for a full recovery! Looking forward to him once again beating up on CNY racers in 2017!

- Greg

:hello:

[malcolm]

Awesome news that he is recovering.

I think the problem with the term accident is it connotatively implies lack of fault, at least to most people. Most incidents involving motor vehicles do have a party at fault. Usually from inattention or impairment, cell phone, booze, etc.. In this case who knows you could certainly argue that backing a large vehicle against the flow of traffic should require a greater than normal sense of care.

We stopped using the term accident in emergency medicine decades ago especially concerning auto incidents, the term MVA, motor vehicle accident has been MVC, motor vehicle collision for years.

[GregL]

Resurrecting an old thread with some good news:

https://www.usacycling.org/results/?permit=2017-1015

While it was a small, local, early-season race, the second place rider was a former pro with Health Net and Jelly Belly. A great way to make a comeback and start the season!

Greg

[Rekalcitrant]

I think he's been racing on the collegiate circuit. And the day before the Check Your Legs race he came second behind recently retired CX pro Dan Timmerman in a local gravel race. He looked strong when I watched him disappear into the distance in front of me. Somewhere on Facebook I saw that his dr told him he could hope to race in maybe two years. So much for that. He was riding very strong last year before the accident—dropped the whole field on the first hill at Blackfly—and looks like he might be more or less back to that level, which is incredible.

[soulspinner]

Great news.