Bicyclist charged in accident that left child hospitalized

[Ozz]

Interesting....the cyclist broke the law, injured a child and was charged with crime....as he should have been.

It would be nice if motorists were treated the same way.

Bicyclist charged in accident that left child hospitalized (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theblotter/2010302315_criminal_charges_filed_against.html)

"A 32-year-old bicyclist accused of running over a 6-year-old boy near Pike Place Market on Friday, leaving the child hospitalized with serious facial injuries, was charged today with vehicular assault and hit and run.

Seattle police say that Rafael Araneta passed several cars and rode through a red light when he struck the child, who was in a crosswalk, court charging documents said. Araneta fell off his bike, but climbed back on and tried to ride away, police said. Witnesses chased after him and held him until police arrived, charging papers said....Police said that Araneta's bike didn't have brakes or a headlight,"

No mention as to whether the child was wearing a helmet or other safety equipment..... :rolleyes:

[SEABREEZE]

[QUOTE=Ozz]Interesting....the cyclist broke the law, injured a child and was charged with crime....as he should have been.

It would be nice if motorists were treated the same way.




Funny, I was thinking the same thing when I cliked on the topic from the general section, how motorist are never treated that way.

[rugbysecondrow]

[QUOTE=Ozz]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing when I cliked on the topic from the general section, how motorist are never treated that way.



I don't know what you mean by "Motorist are never treated that way"? You mean, if they hit somebody, nobody would write down their plate number or try to encoumber them? I don't think that is true.

[Ozz]

[QUOTE=SEABREEZE]



I don't know what you mean by "Motorist are never treated that way"? You mean, if they hit somebody, nobody would write down their plate number or try to encoumber them? I don't think that is true.
Never say "never".....

I think he / we means that actually being charged with a crime when a driver has an accident...often the stories we hear of drivers hitting cyclists end up where the driver is cited for a traffic violation, but seldom an actual crime.

Perhaps this cyclist should have said that the "sun was in his eyes" or something....he may have (unjustly) gotten off.

[rugbysecondrow]

[QUOTE=rugbysecondrow]
Never say "never".....

I think he / we means that actually being charged with a crime when a driver has an accident...often the stories we hear of drivers hitting cyclists end up where the driver is cited for a traffic violation, but seldom an actual crime.

Perhaps this cyclist should have said that the "sun was in his eyes" or something....he may have (unjustly) gotten off.


That might be the case, but I think if a driver ran a red light and hit a child, the charges would be the same. If the driver ran a red light and hit a guy on a bike, I think it would be the same also.

The lesson here should be that cyclists are not above the law. Weaving throughout traffic, running lights...that is illegal, unsafe and bad PR.

[Ozz]

[QUOTE=Ozz]


That might be the case, but I think if a driver ran a red light and hit a child, the charges would be the same. If the driver ran a red light and hit a guy on a bike, I think it would be the same also.

The lesson here should be that cyclists are not above the law. Weaving throughout traffic, running lights...that is illegal, unsafe and bad PR.
yes...but it is the ones where the driver drifts over the fog line cuz they are engaged in a phone call or trying to eat a bacon-double-bypass burger where it just seems "accidents" happen and no one is to blame.

The attitude is more along the lines of: "Well, it's a damn shame that bicyclist got caught under your wheels, but you can clearly see he is not wearing a helmet so it must be his fault he is dead. You did't spill your coffee did you?"

:rolleyes:

[rugbysecondrow]

[QUOTE=rugbysecondrow]
yes...but it is the ones where the driver drifts over the fog line cuz they are engaged in a phone call or trying to eat a bacon-double-bypass burger where it just seems "accidents" happen and no one is to blame.

The attitude is more along the lines of: "Well, it's a damn shame that bicyclist got caught under your wheels, but you can clearly see he is not wearing a helmet so it must be his fault he is dead. You did't spill your coffee did you?"

:rolleyes:

I guess I think we look at the proper lesson from each incident. It is funny how a thread started about a cyclist being a douche ended up still insulting drivers, especially the cell phone talking, double cheese eating ones, because we all know those are the only ones that hit cyclists. We gloss over the part where we, the greater "We", need to pay attention to our actions and responsibilities while riding and shift it again to a conversation about how we are right and "they" are wrong.

It is, sorry to say, a tired arguement that has won no battles, but it has created many enemies. I just think the tactics are poor and, as a rider, I don't want more drivers pissed at cyclists. I don't think labeling drivers as double cheese eating (a layered insult) is a good way to go about this.

[drewski]

I agree if cyclists want to be treated with respect we must
all be good ambassadors when sharing the roads, and follow
traffic laws to the letter of the law.

However I think this is an example of the inherent bias there exists
against cyclists. Note the way it mentions the cyclist was not wearing a helmet. I realize this event occured in the UK but this kind of injustice
also happens in our country. The driver got off with 0 jail time.

REASON:
“But the case before us is a matter of justice. We’ve considered our guidelines and have determined this was a momentary lapse of concentration.

Can you imagine using this defense to justify killing someone at
construction site or any other area of daily endeavor?
Sorry your honor I was distracted and I was not aware there was a cyclist
on the right of my car.




No prison for driver who caused death of Hereford cyclist, Chris

The Hereford Times: No prison for driver who caused death of Hereford cyclist, Christopher Staunton

7:00am Friday 20th November 2009

A MOTORIST who caused the death of an elderly Hereford cyclist will not be sent to prison.

Magistrates accepted that Rebecca Nicholls suffered a “momentary lapse of concentration” when she struck Christopher Staunton on Holme Lacy Road in July.

The 24-year-old, from Woking, Surrey, was sentenced at Hereford Magistrates last week after she admitted causing death by driving without due care and attention.

Mr Staunton, aged 80 and from Redhill, was not wearing a helmet and suffered fatal head injuries after the collision near a roundabout.

Prosecutor Max Bennett told a previous hearing that Nicholls did not see the cyclist and was heard saying “what have I done?” to witnesses after the accident.

Magistrates heard a family tribute last week, describing Mr Staunton as a fit man who preferred cycling to driving.

Nicholls was fined £2,500 and disqualified from driving for 18 months. She must also pay costs of £85 and a £15 victim surcharge.

Hereford magistrate Nick O’Sullivan said to Mr Staunton’s family: “The bench is extremely sorry for you to find yourself in these most unfortunate circumstances.

“But the case before us is a matter of justice. We’ve considered our guidelines and have determined this was a momentary lapse of concentration.”


Also look at this link. Its a report on what needs to be done to make the US
safer for cyclists and pedestrians.


http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/AJPHfromJacobsen.pdf

[SEABREEZE]

[QUOTE=rugbysecondrow]
Never say "never".....

I think he / we means that actually being charged with a crime when a driver has an accident...often the stories we hear of drivers hitting cyclists end up where the driver is cited for a traffic violation, but seldom an actual crime.

Perhaps this cyclist should have said that the "sun was in his eyes" or something....he may have (unjustly) gotten off.

Thank You OZZ, thats what I exactly meant, although I didnt exprees it correctly

Rugby I stand corrected

[Ozz]

[QUOTE=Ozz]

I guess I think we look at the proper lesson from each incident. ...We gloss over the part where we, the greater "We", need to pay attention to our actions and responsibilities while riding and shift it again to a conversation about how we are right and "they" are wrong.

It is, sorry to say, a tired arguement that has won no battles, but it has created many enemies. I just think the tactics are poor and, as a rider, I don't want more drivers pissed at cyclists. I don't think labeling drivers as double cheese eating (a layered insult) is a good way to go about this.
You are right and I am pretty sure we are in agreement...."cell phone talking / cheese burger eating" is just a more colorful way of saying "distracted and making poor choices."

Both parties need to work on getting along on the road.

:beer:

[Charles M]

If the jackass hit my kid I would hope he got charged and wouldnt give a flying fu** about how cars are treated when they do the same to cyclists...

That said, we just had a big story where Dr Dickhead in so cal got charged.


I'm not for anyone getting away with being an asshole. Especially not cyclists. I prefer not to be associated with bike riders like that.

[Kirk007]

Anyone who either drives or rides through the intersection at Pike Ave. and First Ave is on due notice that it is typically a cluster **** with many pedestrians and cars going every which way. So we have someone weaving through cars, running a red light on a bike with no brakes and no lights.

Hmmm, how many times a day have I seen that behaviour in Seattle and Eugene and I'm sure it happens a lot of other places. Some riders are a menace to themselves and others plain and simple. At this time of year you wouldn't believe the number of folks on bikes riding on rainy oregon nights, without lights, without reflective material, blowing through stop signs, on poorly lit roads where it is already difficult to see. Every time I pass one I mutter darwin and thank the gods that be that I saw them and that they didn't go down in front of me.

There are a lot of irresponsible folks riding bikes; I wouldn't call them cyclists. Sounds like an appropriate charging decision based on the facts stated and one that I hope is spread around and reverberates in these communities. This type of behaviour is unacceptable and to the extent it is used to "justify" aggressive driving or a disregard by authorities for cyclists' safety (not condoning or arguing that is in any way shape or form appropriate but lets be real, were dealing with humans and human behaviour), then this type of riding increases the risk for all of us.

[BengeBoy]

Anyone who either drives or rides through the intersection at Pike Ave. and First Ave is on due notice that it is typically a cluster **** with many pedestrians and cars going every which way. So we have someone weaving through cars, running a red light on a bike with no brakes and no lights.
+1

I ride through that intersection a couple of times a month. It's a mess - especially because many of the pedestrians are tourists making their way to or from the Pike Place Market.

Anyone riding or driving carelessly at that intersection is asking for trouble.

I'm happy the boy was not hurt worse, and hope the cyclist gets the justice he deserves.