Jets assistant coach Greg Knapp dead after bike crash

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by Spdntrxi

^ I thought it was reported he's 22

this is what i read, though it was a preliminary report.

According to 9News in Denver, agent Jeff Sperbeck confirmed Knapp was badly injured following an accident in California. CBS2’s Otis Livingston reported the incident happened at around 2:45 p.m. on Saturday, adding the teenage driver was reportedly texting at the time of the accident.

[dalava]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

I thought the perp was a teen-ager. Regardless, the age of the driver is ultimately a number. The younger they are, the more sympathy they will engender. (Along with some other variables)

The point is: it’s not considered a crime. The family of the perp will inevitably play up the totality of that individuals life, and point out it can happen to almost anyone.

And, unfortunately, they’re right.

How many us, despite our anger at what happened, and our status as vulnerable cyclists, haven’t so much as even glanced at our phones recently while driving? I can’t make that claim. Now switch “glancing at the phone” with “taking a swig of booze” while driving. There’s the problem.

There was another "accident" near Altoona that a few cyclists got killed by a 16yr old driver at 4am in the morning.

It's so sad these news coming at us more frequently.

[duff_duffy]

This story is so sad.

Please read “A Deadly Wandering” if you have your phone on while driving (or even visible). Not sure of circunstances around this accident but so many are caused by distractions caused by in car technology.

[redir]

They will definitely play it up as he was a good kid and loved everyone and was on the football team and blah blah... Remember Brock Turner? 'He was a swimming star and had his whole life ahead of him.'

I don't know what a punishment would be for this foolish and poor decision should be but it's GOT to be more than a slap on the wrist. I try to look at myself in others shoes and if that was my wife.... I'm not sure I could control myself. I would seek out maximum penalties.

[Johnnysmooth]

Originally Posted by gasman

Car baiting ??? What the heck ??? This is way over the line, not everyone has access to dirt/gravel. I can get to mtn/ dirt biking but it's a good 30 minute drive.


I'm giving you a two week time out.

Thank you for giving the time out - that was an insane statement.
Unfortunately, the US is such a car-centric culture that folks in cars often believe they just own the road - all of it.
When I first started commuting by bike in early 80's it was truly a war zone. Can't even begin to count how many times I was almost side swiped, had things thrown at me, car ashtrays emptied in my face and folks yelling, get on sidewalk you idiot.
That was then.
Today as I commute, it is not nearly as bad as that. Folks are becoming more accustomed to bikes on road and more likely to yield. Is it anything like what I experienced in Vienna AT when I lived there in 2014-15? Not even close as in Austria, everyone rides bikes and the culture is very accepting of bikes on the road, even those ridden by grandmothers as they ride home from the market.
Hopefully, this country will get to that point and it is trending in that direction despite tragic accidents such as this one.

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

And, unfortunately, they’re right.

How many us, despite our anger at what happened, and our status as vulnerable cyclists, haven’t so much as even glanced at our phones recently while driving? I can’t make that claim.

Despite really wanting a used LandCruiser, one of the things that turned me off, and sent me towards a new SUV, was the change in both safety features and AV in cars in the last 5 years or so.

With CarPlay/Android Auto, a driver has less reason to interact directly with their phone. Everything is voice control or steering wheel buttons. I plug my phone in and leave it screen down in the center console.

Add lane-keeping/lane-centering and hopefully, I'm even more protected from myself.

Anyway, not disagreeing with you, only pointing out that we can push legislation for more safety features in cars and help reduce these incidents.

[FlashUNC]

Start with strict liability for fault in any bike/car collision and work from there. Only legislation that hits drivers (and insurance companies) in their wallet will change any behavior.

[prototoast]

You're right. I try really hard not to text and drive, but I do use my phone for navigation, and that's still a potential distraction. But the world is full of potential distractions--distracted drivers did not begin with the invention of the cell phone.

Also, I think phones are unfairly blamed here. Phones without cars are very rarely fatal. Cars without phones are still frequently fatal.

We have the technology to make cars slower and smaller. Non-commercial driver's licenses should only cover vehicles up to 1,000 lbs with a maximum speed of 30 mph. People could text nonstop and fatalities would still plummet.

It's crazy that the government mandated airbags in cars before they mandated speed governors (and where they exist, they are often set comically high). Slower is safer.

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

I thought the perp was a teen-ager. Regardless, the age of the driver is ultimately a number. The younger they are, the more sympathy they will engender. (Along with some other variables)

The point is: it’s not considered a crime. The family of the perp will inevitably play up the totality of that individuals life, and point out it can happen to almost anyone.

And, unfortunately, they’re right.

How many us, despite our anger at what happened, and our status as vulnerable cyclists, haven’t so much as even glanced at our phones recently while driving? I can’t make that claim. Now switch “glancing at the phone” with “taking a swig of booze” while driving. There’s the problem.

[tommyrod74]

Originally Posted by prototoast

You're right. I try really hard not to text and drive, but I do use my phone for navigation, and that's still a potential distraction. But the world is full of potential distractions--distracted drivers did not begin with the invention of the cell phone.

Also, I think phones are unfairly blamed here. Phones without cars are very rarely fatal. Cars without phones are still frequently fatal.

We have the technology to make cars slower and smaller. Non-commercial driver's licenses should only cover vehicles up to 1,000 lbs with a maximum speed of 30 mph. People could text nonstop and fatalities would still plummet.

It's crazy that the government mandated airbags in cars before they mandated speed governors (and where they exist, they are often set comically high). Slower is safer.

If you are trying to convince me that limiting car speed would allow people to text while driving safely, gotta call that a swing and a miss. I doubt I’m alone in this case, either.

It’s not like we can’t do both – limit car speeds as well as eliminate the ability to text while driving. It’s not a binary choice.

I wonder how fast the texting teenager in this case was driving? Would it have been non-fatal if they had been limited to 40 mph? Pretty sure the car wins in that case as well.

[Ozz]

Originally Posted by prototoast

Y...We have the technology to make cars slower and smaller. Non-commercial driver's licenses should only cover vehicles up to 1,000 lbs with a maximum speed of 30 mph. People could text nonstop and fatalities would still plummet.....

I get where you are going here, and don't necessarily disagree. But I would bet that most collisions between cars and bikes occur at speeds less than 30 mph (well, maybe 35-40 mph).

Slower is safer for collisions between others cars, but for bikes, anything above 5 mph can be fatal!

I don't hate the idea of needing special license endorsements for driving larger, faster, vehicles.

Getting MADD to include distracted driving/texting in their mission sounds like a great idea.....

[GregL]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

Start with strict liability for fault in any bike/car collision and work from there. Only legislation that hits drivers (and insurance companies) in their wallet will change any behavior.

^^^This^^^ Everything else is just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. We need a full-on press like MADD did against drunk driving. All vulnerable road users need much stronger legal protection and associated penalties for drivers breaking the laws. Stop posting on internet forums and instead put your time into writing to ALL your legislators. I have the e-mail and postal addresses for my state senator and assembly person saved in my contacts. I write them every time I learn of a bicycle collision (caused by a vehicle) in NY state.

Greg

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by tommyrod74

If you are trying to convince me that limiting car speed would allow people to text while driving safely, gotta call that a swing and a miss. I doubt I’m alone in this case, either.

It’s not like we can’t do both – limit car speeds as well as eliminate the ability to text while driving. It’s not a binary choice.

I wonder how fast the texting teenager in this case was driving? Would it have been non-fatal if they had been limited to 40 mph? Pretty sure the car wins in that case as well.

I'm not advocating for texting and driving, I'm saying that slowing things down is the best way to make them safer. At slower speeds, the impact from a collision is much less dangerous, but also at slower speeds, reaction time is much greater, so distractions are less likely to lead to incidents.

And in this particular case, I don't know how fast the driver was going, but the road has a 50 mph speed limit.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by Ozz

I get where you are going here, and don't necessarily disagree. But I would bet that most collisions between cars and bikes occur at speeds less than 30 mph (well, maybe 35-40 mph).

Slower is safer for collisions between others cars, but for bikes, anything above 5 mph can be fatal!

"Can be fatal" is true, but the probabilities of collisions being fatal are definitely not the same between 5mph and 30mph or 30 mph and 60 mph.

This particular incident occurred in a 50 mph zone (though admittedly I don't know the speed of the particular driver). A car going 30 mph has only 36% of the kinetic energy of a car going 50. Mr Knapp was hospitalized for several days before he died after the collision. Is it that hard to imagine that if the driver had been going 30 mph, maybe Mr Knapp still ends up in the hospital, but his injuries aren't fatal with 64% less energy in the collision.

And that's presuming the collision still occurs. If the driver is doing 30 instead of 50, he has 70% more time to react to potentially avoid Mr Knapp entirely.

[glepore]

Originally Posted by GregL

^^^This^^^ Everything else is just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. We need a full-on press like MADD did against drunk driving. All vulnerable road users need much stronger legal protection and associated penalties for drivers breaking the laws. Stop posting on internet forums and instead put your time into writing to ALL your legislators. I have the e-mail and postal addresses for my state senator and assembly person saved in my contacts. I write them every time I learn of a bicycle collision (caused by a vehicle) in NY state.

Greg

The FCC needs to step in. Both my Senators have been contacted. We should all do the same.

[GregL]

Originally Posted by glepore

The FCC needs to step in. Both my Senators have been contacted. We should all do the same.

Thank you, that's a great suggestion. I suggest also pushing for change from the Department of Transportation (DOT), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). The IIHS is not a government agency, but the safer roads become for all users, the less the insurance industry has to pay out.

Greg