very sad

[quaintjh]

Anyone know these folks? I wonder what happened?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2008/police_california_deaths08

Jay

[rinconryder]

Don't know them but that road is part of my regular training ride. Really tragic. There is talk that the deputy may have dozed off and crossed the road. Lots of people are up in arms about the cars vs. cyclist thing but I don't think this is really that sort of incident. It was an accident pure and simple - could have been a car full of kids on the way to the park and been just as tragic. My heart goes out to the families and friends of these riders.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . It was an accident pure and simple - could have been a car full of kids on the way to the park and been just as tragic. . . .

"Accident" implies no one is responsible. By law, the driver is responsible for the safe operation of his vehicle. In this case he was definitely not operating it in a responsible and safe manner. Regardless of the reason, he crossed the centerline and hit the cyclists, who WERE operating THEIR vehicles in a responsible manner. The deputy may be "distraught" over the whole thing, but really, so what? He's still responsible. Way too often these cases turn into more sympathy for the "distraught" survivor than for the dead victims.

My heart goes out to the families and friends of these cyclists. Unfortunately, given past experience, I doubt this guy will get anything but sympathy and a slap on the wrist. It will be interesting to see how things unfold.

BBD

[rinconryder]

"Accident" implies no one is responsible. ....The deputy may be "distraught" over the whole thing, but really, so what? He's still responsible. Way too often these cases turn into more sympathy for the "distraught" survivor than for the dead victims.

BBD

Maybe "accident" was the wrong choice of words, but it certainly wasn't intentional. There is some serious hatred being expressed by the cycling and triathlon community (check out slowtwitch) towards the deputy. He should be held responsible for his actions and in my book that is involuntary manslaughter, something like 2-5 years.

My intended point above, and I don't think I stated it clearly enough, is that car vs. bike incidents can be categorized in two ways. First, you have the intentional acts (I am going to buzz these bikers who held me up for five seconds/ road rage/ etc.) that occurred as a result of premeditated malicious intent. These are the incidents that pose a SERIOUS concern to me as a cyclist.

Then you have the second set of incidents, such as this one. A pure and simple case of being in the right place at the wrong time. This is a dangerous sport because we are on the roads with cars yet don't have the same protections. What if the same people had just finished their ride, been driving around that corner at the exact same time, bikes on top of cars? The news may have hit the forum, but not with the same magnitude that it is at the moment.

My point is that I don't think this is an instance where people should go on a witch hunt because a CYCLIST was killed. This is not that type of malicious incident that raises the rights of bicyclists to be on the road and motorists respect of those rights.

Here is a link to the latest article. Follow mercury news for more information.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8530018

[MilanoTom]

Maybe "accident" was the wrong choice of words, but it certainly wasn't intentional. There is some serious hatred being expressed by the cycling and triathlon community (check out slowtwitch) towards the deputy. He should be held responsible for his actions and in my book that is involuntary manslaughter, something like 2-5 years.

My intended point above, and I don't think I stated it clearly enough, is that car vs. bike incidents can be categorized in two ways. First, you have the intentional acts (I am going to buzz these bikers who held me up for five seconds/ road rage/ etc.) that occurred as a result of premeditated malicious intent. These are the incidents that pose a SERIOUS concern to me as a cyclist.

Then you have the second set of incidents, such as this one. A pure and simple case of being in the right place at the wrong time. This is a dangerous sport because we are on the roads with cars yet don't have the same protections. What if the same people had just finished their ride, been driving around that corner at the exact same time, bikes on top of cars? The news may have hit the forum, but not with the same magnitude that it is at the moment.

My point is that I don't think this is an instance where people should go on a witch hunt because a CYCLIST was killed. This is not that type of malicious incident that raises the rights of bicyclists to be on the road and motorists respect of those rights.

Here is a link to the latest article. Follow mercury news for more information.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8530018

You may be preaching to the wrong choir on this one. I don't know about your experiences, but I suspect that the people who intentionally buzz riders are far outnumbered by the inattentive and negligent drivers - and they're the ones who kill more of us.

Frankly, if it takes more "witch hunts" to convince (or remind) drivers that they are essentially operating a two ton (or more) killing machine and that they need to take that fact seriously for a change, I'm all for it.

If you want to talk law, here's the California Penal Code, Section 192 (bold added):

192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds:

(a) Voluntary—upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.

(b) Involuntary—in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle.

(c) Vehicular-

(1) Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 191.5, driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, and with gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, and with gross negligence.

(2) Driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, but without gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, but without gross negligence.

(3) Driving a vehicle in connection with a violation of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 550, where the vehicular collision or vehicular accident was knowingly caused for financial gain and proximately resulted in the death of any person. This provision shall not be construed to prevent prosecution of a defendant for the crime of murder.

This section shall not be construed as making any homicide in the driving of a vehicle punishable that is not a proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, or of the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner.

“Gross negligence,” as used in this section, shall not be construed as prohibiting or precluding a charge of murder under Section 188 upon facts exhibiting wantonness and a conscious disregard for life to support a finding of implied malice, or upon facts showing malice, consistent with the holding of the California Supreme Court in People v. Watson, 30 Cal. 3d 290.

(Amended Sec. 2, Ch. 91, Stats. 2006. Effective January 1, 2007.)

[dleroy]

Accident implies unfortunate incident and does not assign responsibility. Crime requires proof of intent while negligence only requires the lack of reasonable attention to establish culpability. Be that as it may, what concerns me here is the overwhelming prevalence in our society to identify those who have been hurt in an "accident" as victims which already suggests that their is a guilty someone who must be punished. To me, this constitutes a circle of violence that we are seeing perpetuated all over the world. People are intent on getting their due recompense by getting even somehow with those they deem at fault for their misfortune as if that could put an end to pain. There is no end to this tableau, it is everywhere, without beginning or end. Turn on the TV around 6 and you'll see graphic evidence of just what I'm talking about. I don't know what happened on that road in California beyond what I've read here, and it is truly terrible; the families of those who lost their lives have my heartfelt sympathy. However, although he pretty obviously screwed up in the worst possible way, I seriously doubt the Deputy involved wanted to hurt anyone, anymore than did the little girl that fell off her bicycle in front of the rider who crashed his Goodrich. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fundamentalist Christian in any conventional sense but I've heard that Jesus didn't enjoin people to get even and extract "justice" but rather to forgive. No matter if your problem is as distant as the situation in the middle east or as local as a tragedy on a sunny California day, that advice seems the best way to a better world. In fact, I think its the only way.

[Keith A]

You may be preaching to the wrong choir on this one. I don't know about your experiences, but I suspect that the people who intentionally buzz riders are far outnumbered by the inattentive and negligent drivers - and they're the ones who kill more of us.Not sure about the actual numbers, but I've had one of both in the last week.

First one was intentional, I was riding to work one day last week when some high school plus aged jerk and his buddies thought it be funny to lay on the horn when they got right behind me and then swerve off the road just as they past me. Yeah, that's real funny http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/14.gif The only enjoyable part of this experience was that I caught and passed them as they sat in traffic that morning.

This past Saturday I did the final 50 mile bike ride with the boy scouts that I've been working with on their cycling merit badge. The road that we used is residential one that runs alongside the intercostal river and the speed ranges from 20 to 25 mph. It is lightly traveled and a perfect road for these novice cyclists. During the ride I was chatting with one of the boys (who was beside me closer to the shoulder) all of a sudden he yelled "watch out". This inattentive high school girl was coming towards me, chatting with her friends and listening to the radio and not paying any attention to her driving. She had crossed half way over into our lane and I narrowly managed to avoid a head on collision.

As I said, I don't know about the numbers...but both of these groups are equally dangerous to us.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Maybe "accident" was the wrong choice of words, but it certainly wasn't intentional.

The first is your point, and I agree with you on it. I certainly don't think this act was intentional. It certainly was manslaughter, however, and could and should be prosecuted.

But will it? And if not, will it be because of the institutional bias in favor of drivers compared to cyclists? Or will it be because the defendant is a law enforcement officer? Or both? That's the second issue, and both aspects of it get me wound up. We've had several cases just over the past few years here in the Capital Region where drivers who hit cyclists in exactly these same circumstances--unintentional but clearly negligent driving--got significantly lesser penalties than drivers who had committed equivalent offenses that involved other cars rather than cyclists.

We've also got a much longer list of various law officers in particular getting off the hook completely in serious traffic accidents that either injured or killed others or themselves. In the cases where they ended up killing themselves, their commanders and colleagues emphasize what a great guy and fine officer they were while leaving out the extenuating circumstances where they were driving DUI while on duty or had just spent the evening in a strip club. Where they injured or killed others, the news stories so often mention how "distraught" they are over the whole thing--a statement from "authorities" who are the officer's colleagues and/or friends and who clearly have a glaring conflict of interest. Then we never really find out whether they paid any penalty or not unless they are actually charged, since officers personnel records are confidential--at least in NY state.

Will this be another one of those situations? Will this officer be charged, as you or I would undoubtedly be if WE had done it? Or will there be no charges and no further info available and will we be left only with a statement about how "distraught" he is? It will be interesting to see . . .

BBD

[deechee]

I'm with bumblebeedave on this one. The driver should be held accountable. Period. Especially for falling asleep in the middle of the day.

A childhood friend of mine was killed by a driver who had fallen asleep at the wheel. My friend was riding home on his motorcycle and and a driver crossed the center and rammed him head on. What's unbelievable is that more than a year has passed and the police have never identified the driver, nor has that person ever tried to reach the victim's family. I understand it was a mistake, but its despicable when people don't take responsibility for their actions or even try to make amends.

[MilanoTom]

Accident implies unfortunate incident and does not assign responsibility. Crime requires proof of intent while negligence only requires the lack of reasonable attention to establish culpability. Be that as it may, what concerns me here is the overwhelming prevalence in our society to identify those who have been hurt in an "accident" as victims which already suggests that their is a guilty someone who must be punished. To me, this constitutes a circle of violence that we are seeing perpetuated all over the world. People are intent on getting their due recompense by getting even somehow with those they deem at fault for their misfortune as if that could put an end to pain. There is no end to this tableau, it is everywhere, without beginning or end. Turn on the TV around 6 and you'll see graphic evidence of just what I'm talking about. I don't know what happened on that road in California beyond what I've read here, and it is truly terrible; the families of those who lost their lives have my heartfelt sympathy. However, although he pretty obviously screwed up in the worst possible way, I seriously doubt the Deputy involved wanted to hurt anyone, anymore than did the little girl that fell off her bicycle in front of the rider who crashed his Goodrich. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fundamentalist Christian in any conventional sense but I've heard that Jesus didn't enjoin people to get even and extract "justice" but rather to forgive. No matter if your problem is as distant as the situation in the middle east or as local as a tragedy on a sunny California day, that advice seems the best way to a better world. In fact, I think its the only way.

Not so, atmo. Criminal negligence is however legislators choose to define it. While most criminal acts require some level of intent, not all do (one can be guilty of statutory rape even if one is not aware that the partner is underage). Based on the penal code section (and the penal code is criminal law) that I posted earlier, one can be guilty of vehicular manslaughter without intending to kill someone.

Civil and criminal negligence are two different concepts. To convict one of a crime, the state has to prove the elements of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. To establish civil negligence, the plaintiff must prove 1) a duty of care (as in a duty to operate a motor vehicle in a safe manner), 1) a breach of that duty (as in not operating a vehicle in a safe manner and running me over, 3) proximate cause (your breach caused my injury), and 4) damages (I suffered some injury, economic or otherwise, as the result of your breach).

Your comparison of the deputy and the little girl is simplistic at best, insulting at worst. Do you really think that there is no difference between what is expected of a little girl and a professional law enforcement officer who undergoes special driver training?

I really miss Viper on days like this.

Tom

[rinconryder]

You may be preaching to the wrong choir on this one. I don't know about your experiences, but I suspect that the people who intentionally buzz riders are far outnumbered by the inattentive and negligent drivers - and they're the ones who kill more of us.


I don't really see how I am preaching to the wrong choir here. The inattentive drivers kill more anybody's than anyone else: pedestrians, other drivers, runners, etc... Yes, inattentive and negligent drivers are a danger to me as a cyclist, but they are also a danger to me when I am crossing the street and driving to work in the morning. I am saddened by this incident and the loss of fellow cyclist's lives, but I am not outraged. I recognize the dangers inherent with the sport and I accept them, knowing full well that I could be run over one day. I get outraged when an act is intentional, especially when it is a cyclist, because then it becomes very personal and poses the issue of drivers vs. cyclists.

[rinconryder]

The first is your point, and I agree with you on it. I certainly don't think this act was intentional. It certainly was manslaughter, however, and could and should be prosecuted.

But will it? And if not, will it be because of the institutional bias in favor of drivers compared to cyclists? Or will it be because the defendant is a law enforcement officer? Or both? That's the second issue, and both aspects of it get me wound up. We've had several cases just over the past few years here in the Capital Region where drivers who hit cyclists in exactly these same circumstances--unintentional but clearly negligent driving--got significantly lesser penalties than drivers who had committed equivalent offenses that involved other cars rather than cyclists.

We've also got a much longer list of various law officers in particular getting off the hook completely in serious traffic accidents that either injured or killed others or themselves. In the cases where they ended up killing themselves, their commanders and colleagues emphasize what a great guy and fine officer they were while leaving out the extenuating circumstances where they were driving DUI while on duty or had just spent the evening in a strip club. Where they injured or killed others, the news stories so often mention how "distraught" they are over the whole thing--a statement from "authorities" who are the officer's colleagues and/or friends and who clearly have a glaring conflict of interest. Then we never really find out whether they paid any penalty or not unless they are actually charged, since officers personnel records are confidential--at least in NY state.

Will this be another one of those situations? Will this officer be charged, as you or I would undoubtedly be if WE had done it? Or will there be no charges and no further info available and will we be left only with a statement about how "distraught" he is? It will be interesting to see . . .

BBD

I couldn't agree more. This officer needs to be treated the same as anyone else regardless of position or the victims. I would hope that he is prosecuted. Rest assured that the Santa Clara District Attorney's office is noted for being particularly agressive, has prosecuted officers in the past (even when controversial) and the Mercury News (the local newspaper) is extremely vigilent when it comes to policing the police, although I have only seen this approach when an officer shoots someone, not in an incident like this.

[MilanoTom]

I don't really see how I am preaching to the wrong choir here. The inattentive drivers kill more anybody's than anyone else: pedestrians, other drivers, runners, etc... Yes, inattentive and negligent drivers are a danger to me as a cyclist, but they are also a danger to me when I am crossing the street and driving to work in the morning. I am saddened by this incident and the loss of fellow cyclist's lives, but I am not outraged. I recognize the dangers inherent with the sport and I accept them, knowing full well that I could be run over one day. I get outraged when an act is intentional, especially when it is a cyclist, because then it becomes very personal and poses the issue of drivers vs. cyclists.

I guess we differ then. I feel a good bit of outrage that so many drivers have no clue that they are often seconds and/or inches away from killing, regardless of whether the victim is a pedestian, cyclist, or another driver. Yes, I too recognize that I could be run over while riding, but I don't think the fact that it's unintentional makes it somehow only deserving of sadness. Maybe a little more outrage would lead to increased awareness and a few less dead cyclists.

Tom

[bcm119]

Heard a little more info about this on the radio this morning. Apparently the cop had a street racing conviction on his record. Also, his Dad is in The Force too. Its funny, I didn't think you could even get a job delivering pizza with such a driving record. This is all very sad.

[jimcav]

I'm with bumblebeedave on this one. The driver should be held accountable. Period. Especially for falling asleep in the middle of the day.

A childhood friend of mine was killed by a driver who had fallen asleep at the wheel. My friend was riding home on his motorcycle and and a driver crossed the center and rammed him head on. What's unbelievable is that more than a year has passed and the police have never identified the driver, nor has that person ever tried to reach the victim's family. I understand it was a mistake, but its despicable when people don't take responsibility for their actions or even try to make amends.

if they knew he was asleep--how could they not identify him?

[jimcav]

I guess we differ then. I feel a good bit of outrage that so many drivers have no clue that they are often seconds and/or inches away from killing, regardless of whether the victim is a pedestian, cyclist, or another driver. Yes, I too recognize that I could be run over while riding, but I don't think the fact that it's unintentional makes it somehow only deserving of sadness. Maybe a little more outrage would lead to increased awareness and a few less dead cyclists.

Tom
for several reasons, and not the least of which is there is a responsibility to fitness for duty for an uniformed profession--ie an awareness of requirements (alertness to patrol), plus there are lots of gadgets that prevent/limit nodding off while driving, and in many professions, limits on hours worked/sleep cycles. some combo of these would have prevented this tragedy.

I feel the same way when some SUV pulls up along my left side, as they hit the brakes to make their right turn--the same turn i am making, and it is some women talking on a cell phone while she is getting ready to turn--that has happened several times (not the same woman)--am always glad they didn't just run into me, but mostly i am pissed they aren't paying attention, properly slowing down and turning from the right hand turn lane, behind me.
jim

[Dekonick]

A bad situation all around. No winners here.

Anyone know what schedule the officer works? Days? Nights? Day/Night differential? (4 12 hour days, 4 12 hour nights, 4 off - repeat - etc...)

No excuse but often shift work plays havoc with the human body.

Sucks. :(

[Skrawny]

http://rememberingmatt.blogspot.com

There will be a memorial ride on Saturday March 22 in Napa in Kristy's honor.

[toaster]

The deputy involved will not be charged, IMHO. Many times drivers killing cyclists in cases of negligent driving are not prosecuted. The system favors the automobile over the rights of cyclists on public roads. Sorry, that's the way it seems to be.

The only way this deputy would be charged is if he killed mothers pushing babies in strollers on the sidewalk and the babies died as well.

[rustychisel]

That the deputy not be charged is revolting... community standards etc. I feel so very sorry for everyone touched by this tragedy. I think we all know of not disimilar cases where the victims are made the scapegoats...

[AmFlyer]

Don't know them, but it is truly very sad. My heart goes out to their families.

Be safe out there.

[BumbleBeeDave]

That the deputy not be charged is revolting... community standards etc. I feel so very sorry for everyone touched by this tragedy. I think we all know of not disimilar cases where the victims are made the scapegoats...

Has some official announcement been made that the deputy will not be charged? My earlier comments were that I would not be surprised if he was not, but I also feel we need to wait until all the situation has played out. It's not unusual for it to take a while before charges are filed.

BBD

[Skrawny]

"Team Roaring Mouse Cycles and Third Pillar Racing Team are holding a
joint memorial ride this Saturday March 15th, to honor the lives of
Kristy Gough and Matt Peterson, our two teammates killed on Steven's
Creek Canyon last Sunday while on a training ride. We welcome friends,
family, fellow cyclists and all those whose lives have been touched by
Matt and Kristy. Our ride will include a visit to the site of the
crash site for those to share their memories.
When:
Saturday, March 15th
Where:
Leaving from Foothill College
12345 El Monte Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Google map to location: http://tinyurl. com/2b6qvb
**We kindly request you do NOT drive out to the crash site during this
time, as we need to keep cars to a minimum in the area, given the road
conditions.
Time:
Meet at 2:30pm, ride by 3pm
Length:
30-45 minutes to the crash site. Base pace (ie, mellow). No drop.
Route:
Start @ Foothill College (Parking Lot #1, near the football stadium)
– Left on El Monte
– Right on Foothill Expressway
– Continue on Steven's Creek Canyon
– Return
Route directions via Google: http://tinyurl. com/2pc8pf
*Press are welcome to attend, however we request respect during our
ride. It would mean the most to us if press were to accompany us on
their bikes, as we are all cyclists this week.
http://rememberingm att.blogspot. com/
http://thirdpillarr acing.com
Kristy Gough & Matt Peterson Memorial Ride"

[rustychisel]

BBD - no, in fact it appears no such announcement has been made. Toaster has edited his post to reflect that.

[t. swartz]

A bad situation all around. No winners here.

Anyone know what schedule the officer works? Days? Nights? Day/Night differential? (4 12 hour days, 4 12 hour nights, 4 off - repeat - etc...)

No excuse but often shift work plays havoc with the human body.

Sucks. :(

very tragic indeed for all involved.
stress, inherent with my profession, contributes greatly to fatigue. combined with shift work, it can have lethal consequences, especially to the unsuspecting operator of a high performance police interceptor.
my thoughs and prayers are with the victims and the officer.

[Buzz]

Simplest answer: Long day on Saturday. Young guy. Up late the night before. Maybe out on the town with buds. Has to get up real early for shift. Crap. Day light savings time. Lose another hour of sleep. Go to work with a few hours of sleep. No problem, should be a quiet Sunday. So tired. Driving along a quiet winding road. Sleepy. Eye lids heavy.

Boom. Tragedy.

Saw a photo of the crash site and the corner. You can see that if the car went in a straight line and simply missed the corner it ends up right at the point of impact. I doubt he actually veered over the yellow line. Just fell asleep and continued straight as the road itself curves sharply to the right.

I have ridden that stretch of road (mainly because it is lightly travelled) and it could have been me or a friend of mine out there on a Sunday morning. Really hits home.