Sigh...unfortunate verdict

[chuckroast]

This was a fatal bike vs car accident from last summer. Longview Lake is a popular riding spot in the rural KC area. A grandfather and his 14YO granddaughter were struck and killed on a lightly traveled 4 lane road and the acquital came down yesterday. I wasn't in the courtroom and didn't hear the evidence but on the surface it seems like an unfortunate verdict.

http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/708333.html

[William]

"Force of habit...it was his driving style"?????

He was speeding, on a four lane road, with the left lane completely clear, and admits to seeing the riders well in advance?!?!?!


That's fracked!!! I'm sorry for all involved....but aquitted?

Un Effin beliveable.




William

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . the verdict may be correct on the specified charges. There may indeed be no LAW that requires drivers to move into the left lane to give vehicles on the shoulder more room EXCEPT for law enforcement vehicles. But it is, nevertheless, total common sense for drivers to do so. I've been bothered by this myself while riding on four lanes roads, particularly on Route 9 near here. Four lane road, wide shoulder, but so many vehicles come so close to me in the right lane, even when the left lane is completely clear and they easily could have moved over to give that extra margin of safety.

Additionally, I rode this Longview Lake loop in KC less than a month ago while out there. It's perfect for me when I'm there--almost exactly 10 mile lap around the lake, about a two mile ride from the Bicycle Shack where I get my rental. That road is about as wide open as you could ever imagine. Four lanes with median and almost full lane shoulder. No trees close to the road, totally unobstructed views. Go to Google Maps and look at it in Street View. It's a four lane parkway type road deliberately built around this local reservoir.

He hit them because he didn't want to bother to move over. He may have been legally right not to have to do so, but I hope the Gault family sues his @ss off for negligence. I'm betting he would have been convicted on a slightly lesser charge. To me he was definitely negligent in not moving over to meet the safety hazard he obviously saw coming.

BBD

[Chris]

This seems like a horrible accident. In this case though, I just don't know that more lives need to be ruined. Certainly, he could have been safer and moved into another lane to avoid an accident if they moved into his lane like they are alleged to have done, but I don't know that the poor guy was anywhere near as culpable as some of these other road rage scenarios that have been discussed lately. Having accidently taken two lives and having to live with that the rest of his life is probably punishment enough on this one. The sad part is that it could have been avoided. I am sure this guy spends his days wishing he had just moved over.

[Bill Bove]

Would he have moved over if there was a suitcase that had fallen off a roofrack in the lane? Would he have slowed down if there was unleashed dog darting in and out of traffic? Why do motorists fear hitting an empty trash can that has rolled into the traffic lane more than they do hitting me?

[Charles M]

that is an EXTREMELY good last point...

[Lifelover]

If this guy needs to go to jail than the guilty party in every single auto accident needs to go to jail. Regardless if injuries.

Cycling is a risk.

Clearly the guy F'd up and people died because if it. I suspect the knowledge of that will live with him for the rest of his life.

[goonster]

Originally Posted by Bill Bove

Would he have moved over if there was a suitcase that had fallen off a roofrack in the lane?

Nothing was in the lane when the driver approached them. Witnesses corroborated the driver's testimony that the cyclists swerved in front of the truck.

Drivers have a responsibility to safely pass cyclists, but cyclists have a responsibility not to swerve in front of traffic. If a cyclist doesn't take the lane, a driver is not obligated to change lanes. That's why it's so important to take the lane when you expect debris or potholes at the edge of the road. None of us were there. It's a tragedy for all involved, but I don't see evidence of criminal negligence.

[BumpyintheBurgh]

Originally Posted by Chris

This seems like a horrible accident. In this case though, I just don't know that more lives need to be ruined. Certainly, he could have been safer and moved into another lane to avoid an accident if they moved into his lane like they are alleged to have done, but I don't know that the poor guy was anywhere near as culpable as some of these other road rage scenarios that have been discussed lately. Having accidently taken two lives and having to live with that the rest of his life is probably punishment enough on this one. The sad part is that it could have been avoided. I am sure this guy spends his days wishing he had just moved over.

Two dead! Probably punishment enough..... Amazing conclusion!

[Chris]

Originally Posted by BumpyintheBurgh

Two dead! Probably punishment enough..... Amazing conclusion!

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Do we start punishing the survivors of all accidents even if they are not at fault? If you think I am minimizing the loss, you have misunderstood my statement. The point is that this is a tragic accident from all accounts. We need to be very careful not to demonize every driver who has an accident like this. Did you read the report? It seems clear that the cyclists themselves may have been at fault. We as a group certainly are not infallible. I hope you or anyone on this board never has to live with the consequences of a split second accident in which you are involved resulting in the loss of life. To me, that would be more than any court could hand down.

[redir]

According to the article there were witnesses who saw the cyclists move in front of the truck. If they were in a shoulder lane that was almost as wide as a road lane the guy probably thought everything was cool. The cyclist screwed up period. It's tragic but it happens. Some people over react and want to stone to death a motorist. simply because their was a car/bike accident does not make the motorist guilty.

And yeah if it was a car/car accident it would end the same way.

[BumpyintheBurgh]

Originally Posted by Chris

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Do we start punishing the survivors of all accidents even if they are not at fault? If you think I am minimizing the loss, you have misunderstood my statement. The point is that this is a tragic accident from all accounts. We need to be very careful not to demonize every driver who has an accident like this. Did you read the report? It seems clear that the cyclists themselves may have been at fault. We as a group certainly are not infallible. I hope you or anyone on this board never has to live with the consequences of a split second accident in which you are involved resulting in the loss of life. To me, that would be more than any court could hand down.

If the guy was speeding and runs into someone, and the police estimate that he was, then in my book that is reckless. If he had been going the speed limit, would he have been able to stop or swerve in time to miss them, regardless of where the riders were.

[redir]

Originally Posted by BumpyintheBurgh

If the guy was speeding and runs into someone, and the police estimate that he was, then in my book that is reckless. If he had been going the speed limit, would he have been able to stop or swerve in time to miss them, regardless of where the riders were.

That is a good point. But 9 over isn't reckless speeding but none the less speeding. Of course they didn't really talk about how the police calculated the speed and the margin of error their in.

None the less though on every bike related forum I visit when some one post's a car/bike accident many posters instantly criminalize the driver. This one was found innocent by a jury of 12 peers.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by BumpyintheBurgh

If the guy was speeding and runs into someone, and the police estimate that he was, then in my book that is reckless. If he had been going the speed limit, would he have been able to stop or swerve in time to miss them, regardless of where the riders were.

How would you have the guy executed? Would lethal injection be too civil of a punishment for you in order to exact the appropriate revenge?

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . the driver was aquitted by a jury of 12 people on that particular charge. That doesn't mean he wasn't guilty of a lesser charge. It would not be the first time a guilty--or somewhat guilty--person was let off because the prosecutor overcharged and couldn't make the case stick.

I found the following portion of the story particularly interesting . . .

<<The jury foreman said deliberations were divided at times, and that jurors discussed a lesser charge, but came to the unanimous decision on acquittal. When asked what they relied on to reach that decision, she said: “The evidence that we had.”>>

The jurors discussed a lesser charge, but it's not made clear if, under Missouri law, they had the option of finding him guilty of a lesser charge. If they had no choice--if they could consider only the evidence they had as it appled to that particular charge and that one only, then they may have had no choice. But given the tenor of the quote, it seems to me there's a good chance that at least some members of the jury felt he was guilty to some degree.

The following portion of the story is also telling to me . . .

<<Perhaps lost amid two days of testimony from eyewitnesses and traffic officers, from accident photos and autopsy reports, was a simple exchange between Stansell the prosecutor and the defendant Johnson.
“Do you know what ‘share the road’ means?” she asked.
“Yes,” he answered.
More than once, Johnson was asked why he didn’t move over into the clear left lane. Force of habit, he replied. It was, he said, his driving style.>>

His "driving style?" What the hell does THAT mean? That he won't go out of his way to drive safely or defensively any more the the absolute minimum required by law? Seems to me it's just common sense to move over in the left lane for ANY potential obstacle on the shoulder if you have the empty left lane to move into. I do it all the time. Many other people--apparently this guy included--don't bother. That implies to me he doesn't really care or is totally unthinking about the safety of pedestrians or bicycles or cars on the shoulder--unless they're cops.

Lastly, I've ridden this EXACT stretch of pavement many times while in KC. Here's a Google street view shot looking north on Raytown Rd. That's Harry Truman Drive just barely visible up there on the left. It "T"'s at Raytown Rd. Everyone I've ridden this loop with out there does so clockwise. If the two victims were, that would mean they were heading north on the shoulder of Raytown, which would put them coming into this photo from the right on that far shoulder. The road is WIDE open--totally unobstructed views.

The only extenuating factor I could think of that would go in the driver's favor is that the shoulder along that stretch is in bad shape in places, which has obliged me to swerve at times myself while riding it. It's also the stretch that always seems to have some road kill laying along there. So it's feasible to me that the grandfather may have indeed swerved without checking behind to avoid a pothole, tar snakes, or piece of roadkill, his granddaughter blindly followed him--and it cost them both their lives. but to me, even that action doesn't exonerate the driver of all negligence. Responsible driving, to me, means taking stock of all potential hazards by the driver. That includes other vehicles that may change their direction or speed at any time.

BBD