Woman braindead after being hit by ciclist riding in car lane

[glenn1]

Why would going fast enough to kill someone on a bike be any different than going fast enough to kill someone in a car? Sounds like singling out of bicyclists for persecution to me. From your mass times velocity argument, someone in a car should go much slower than cyclists to offset their higher mass, and someone in a truck should be barely moving.

Why is it persecution? Again, you have to be travelling at a unsafely high rate of speed to kill someone when you hit them on a bike, which is exactly why we should prosecute when it happens. You have to be going at an extremely slow rate of speed not to maim or kill someone when you hit them driving a car which routinely goes faster than a bike in almost all cases. Just the fact that only 2 people have been killed by bicyclists in the past few years shows how unusual for a death to happen and is why a legal case of gross negligence can be made when it does.

Again, I'm not saying to prosecute bikers who accidentally run into people and cause minor injuries but rather those who kill someone. I highly doubt you're arguing we should just give bikers carte blanche to kill people just because car drivers also kill people.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

If you are unable to stop in time to avoid someone in a crosswalk you are going too fast.

Really? So if someone jaywalks across a 55 mph street not paying attention to traffic, it's still the driver that's at fault when the jaywalker killed?

 

[senseamp]

Why is it persecution? Again, you have to be travelling at a unsafely high rate of speed to kill someone when you hit them on a bike, which is exactly why we should prosecute when it happens. You have to be going at an extremely slow rate of speed not to maim or kill someone when you hit them driving a car which routinely goes faster than a bike in almost all cases. Just the fact that only 2 people have been killed by bicyclists in the past few years shows how unusual for a death to happen and is why a legal case of gross negligence can be made when it does.

Again, I'm not saying to prosecute bikers who accidentally run into people and cause minor injuries but rather those who kill someone. I highly doubt you're arguing we should just give bikers carte blanche to kill people just because car drivers also kill people.

You have to be traveling at an unsafely high speed at any vehicle to kill someone, by definition, regardless of vehicle. If it was a safe speed, there wouldn't be dead people. The unsafe speed is higher for cyclists than cars, due to lower mass. Just because cars routinely travel at an unsafely high speed for pedestrians, and bikers only do so rarely should not make bikers targets for extra prosecution. If anything, it should make drivers targets, since targeting them will reduce hundreds of deaths vs almost none for bikers.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Exactly how fast do you need to be going to kill a 59 year old woman?

I'm guessing she fell and hit her head. So, just fast enough to knock a person over.

She didn't die on impact...

 

[highland145]

I'm guessing she fell and hit her head. So, just fast enough to knock a person over.

She didn't die on impact...

Some years back, a lady at the bank had a heart attack and collapsed. Her head hitting the curb is what killed her. No bike involved. Just gravity.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Some years back, a lady at the bank had a heart attack and collapsed. Her head hitting the curb is what killed her. No bike involved. Just gravity.

Shitty the way things go. Gravity kills, and should be legislated as such.

 

[senseamp]

Shitty the way things go. Gravity kills, and should be legislated as such.

And also spelled "graviti" with an "i" instead of "y".

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Some years back, a lady at the bank had a heart attack and collapsed. Her head hitting the curb is what killed her. No bike involved. Just gravity.

There have been criminals convicted of giving people heart attacks during robberies.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Shitty the way things go. Gravity kills, and should be legislated as such.

But then only criminals will have the gravity!

 

[SpatiallyAware]

You have to be traveling at an unsafely high speed at any vehicle to kill someone, by definition, regardless of vehicle. If it was a safe speed, there wouldn't be dead people. The unsafe speed is higher for cyclists than cars, due to lower mass. Just because cars routinely travel at an unsafely high speed for pedestrians, and bikers only do so rarely should not make bikers targets for extra prosecution. If anything, it should make drivers targets, since targeting them will reduce hundreds of deaths vs almost none for bikers.

Unsafe speed is highly subjective.

 

[highland145]

There have been criminals convicted of giving people heart attacks during robberies.

That's stupid unless they injected butter or air into the vic's blood stream.

Edit: Maybe not so stupid but still..

A defendant kidnaps an elderly woman (violating Penal Code 207 PC, California's kidnapping law) for ransom. He does not inflict any physical harm or force on her . . . but in her fear she suffers a heart attack and dies. This defendant also may be charged with murder under the felony-murder rule.5

 

[realibrad]

There seems to be a lot of assumptions about the biker. I could be walking, bump into someone, who hits their head on the ground and dies. High speed could have been a factor, but it is not necessary to cause death.

Also, from what I read, there were lights for the bikes and for the pedestrians. If the woman walked when the pedestrian light was red, she does not have the right of way.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

good god, are you really incapable of spelling cyclist correctly?

 

[Orignal Earl]

good god, are you really incapable of spelling cyclist correctly?

I looked that up right away, apparently it is acceptable

 

[CLite]

It’s obvious that Central park is for recreational leisurely activities if you consider the below link Bradley provided from Central park that pedestrians always have right of way and the fact that they shut down the west drive except for rush hour. http://www.centralparknyc.org/things-to-see-and-do/attractions/bicycling.html

A car going 55 mph can run over a jaywalker who jumps in front of them because the car is traveling on a road meant for transportation.

The west drive during non-rush hour timeslots is meant for leisurely activities, hence banning cars and the clear rules that pedestrians always have right of way, especially at crosswalks. It is not meant people traveling at a fast clip and assuming they always have right of way versus pedestrians, even if the light is green.

Bicyclists regain their right-of-way transportation rules when traveling in bike lanes on roads meant for transportation. If a jay-walker gets plowed jumping in front of them on one of those roads it's the jaywalkers fault. Clearly Central Park is choosing to designate West drive for recreation off-peak and therefore shutting down the road to vehicle traffic and also clearly stating pedestrians always have right of way, hence the bicycle guy is at fault here.

No need to paint all bicyclists as assholes, but it's also a stretch to defend the guy here.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

There seems to be a lot of assumptions about the biker. I could be walking, bump into someone, who hits their head on the ground and dies. High speed could have been a factor, but it is not necessary to cause death.

Also, from what I read, there were lights for the bikes and for the pedestrians. If the woman walked when the pedestrian light was red, she does not have the right of way.

BINGO!!!!!!

/thread

 

[senseamp]

It’s obvious that Central park is for recreational leisurely activities if you consider the below link Bradley provided from Central park that pedestrians always have right of way and the fact that they shut down the west drive except for rush hour. http://www.centralparknyc.org/things-to-see-and-do/attractions/bicycling.html

A car going 55 mph can run over a jaywalker who jumps in front of them because the car is traveling on a road meant for transportation.

The west drive during non-rush hour timeslots is meant for leisurely activities, hence banning cars and the clear rules that pedestrians always have right of way, especially at crosswalks. It is not meant people traveling at a fast clip and assuming they always have right of way versus pedestrians, even if the light is green.

Bicyclists regain their right-of-way transportation rules when traveling in bike lanes on roads meant for transportation. If a jay-walker gets plowed jumping in front of them on one of those roads it's the jaywalkers fault. Clearly Central Park is choosing to designate West drive for recreation off-peak and therefore shutting down the road to vehicle traffic and also clearly stating pedestrians always have right of way, hence the bicycle guy is at fault here.

No need to paint all bicyclists as assholes, but it's also a stretch to defend the guy here.

Having right of way means you can make yourself visible and when a biker sees you, he should stop if it's still safe to do so. It doesn't mean you can just walk into a biker's path without looking and expect him to deal with it. If you do that, you could end up dead. Then people are going to argue on forums about whether you had right of way or not, but you'll still be dead.

 

[glenn1]

There seems to be a lot of assumptions about the biker. I could be walking, bump into someone, who hits their head on the ground and dies. High speed could have been a factor, but it is not necessary to cause death.

Also, from what I read, there were lights for the bikes and for the pedestrians. If the woman walked when the pedestrian light was red, she does not have the right of way.

Or it's equally as likely she died from mass trauma by being hit at a high rate of speed by the bicyclist. If the cause of death really was head trauma from an awkward fall I wouldn't support prosecution, but would be astounded if the pro-bikers would just shrug their shoulders and go "meh" if a high-speed crash into the woman was the cause of death.

And it's already been established earlier that the park rules give absolute right-of-way to pedestrians during the time the collison occured. Whether she had a red light is completely irrelevant.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So why have lights if pedestrians always have the right of way?

 

[Brainonska511]

So why have lights if pedestrians always have the right of way?

At certain times of the day, cars are allowed in Central Park, hence the lights. But to have traffic rules with respect to the right-of-way effectively changing at different times of the day creates confusion and the possibility of unsafe situations arising. If they just let the standard rules apply for right of way at all times, it would at least clear up any confusion as to who can go when.

Even with normal right-of-way rules, there's lots of possibilities for accidents, but for some reason, we always assume condition 1 (the list is from here):

1. Cyclist hits pedestrian in crosswalk (cyclist's fault)
2. Cyclist hits pedestrian in crosswalk (pedestrian's fault)
3. Cyclist hits pedestrian not in crosswalk (cyclist's fault)
4. Cyclist hits pedestrian not in crosswalk (pedestrian's fault)
5. Cyclist hits runner who cuts into the road from the running lane (usually runner's fault but not always)
6. Cyclist falls off bike alone (break out the training wheels!)
7. Crash during bike races (also read as: Cat 5 racing)

Plenty of people ride bikes at normal speeds in the loop of the park, but they'll still have to contend with pedestrians who blindly jaywalk at and not-at crosswalk.

 

[CLite]

So why have lights if pedestrians always have the right of way?

For 8-10am rush hour traffic. Although I think they should switch the lights to flashing yellow during off-hours if they really abide by the pedestrians are always right rule.

Having right of way means you can make yourself visible and when a biker sees you, he should stop if it's still safe to do so. It doesn't mean you can just walk into a biker's path without looking and expect him to deal with it. If you do that, you could end up dead. Then people are going to argue on forums about whether you had right of way or not, but you'll still be dead.

No Shit?

You nor I know who had more visibility, was acting more oblivious or more reckless. I was pointing out that the right-of-ways on this road are different than a regular road for transportation and thus the car/pedestrian analogies are not applicable.

*edit* I did say the guy is at fault and that was based on the accounts of 30mph+ on GPS and eye witness account of high speed and rapid lane changes. If the true story came out that this lady was hiding behind a tree and spooked the guy I would hold him harmless.

 

[dphantom]

So why have lights if pedestrians always have the right of way?

in many places, lights or no lights, pedestrians always have the right of way in a cross walk.

Still, as a pedestrian, I always look first before walking in to traffic. Cars/trucks are easy to see. A bicycle, maybe not so much.

 

[senseamp]

For 8-10am rush hour traffic. Although I think they should switch the lights to flashing yellow during off-hours if they really abide by the pedestrians are always right rule.



No Shit?

You nor I know who had more visibility, was acting more oblivious or more reckless. I was pointing out that the right-of-ways on this road are different than a regular road for transportation and thus the car/pedestrian analogies are not applicable.

*edit* I did say the guy is at fault and that was based on the accounts of 30mph+ on GPS and eye witness account of high speed and rapid lane changes. If the true story came out that this lady was hiding behind a tree and spooked the guy I would hold him harmless.

30mph+ is not from this accident, but another ride. And it's not on a calibrated police radar, but on a phone app. It's not even good enough evidence for a speeding ticket, much less any criminal charges, where the standard is beyond reasonable doubt. Using his speed from a different ride on a gps app to estimate speed he was going during this incident is not beyond reasonable doubt, it's beyond reason.
As far as all the other stuff, fine, her estate can sue him, he can sue her estate, and let civil courts figure it out based on evidence or lack there of. There is no need for the government to get involved here.

 

[bradley]

Man says Central Park cyclist nearly ran him over, too
http://nypost.com/2014/09/23/man-says-central-park-cyclist-nearly-ran-him-over-too/

An Upper East Side man said he was nearly killed in a crosswalk by the same cyclist who last week ran over Connecticut mom Jillian Tarlov in Central Park.

Jim Kelly, 66, told The Post he encountered Jason Marshall at about 7:40 a.m. June 26 as he went to get coffee on East 79th Street.

The retired Wall Street trader was about to cross First Avenue at a walk signal when, he said, he was buzzed by Marshall.

“I’m telling you, this guy was booking like you couldn’t believe,” Kelly said Monday. “He kept yelling really loud ‘Get out of the way!’ ”

Kelly got the message loud and clear.

“It was like, ‘Get out of the way or you’re going to get killed,’ ” he said.

“I had to jump backwards. He missed me by like two inches. You could see the arrogance on this guy. He must have been doing 35 miles per hour, on an incline! I’ve never seen someone go that fast in my life.”

Marshall’s lawyer declined to comment on Kelly’s allegations.

Kelly added: “The guy didn’t break his stride, kept his head down, didn’t stop pedaling. He acted like he was in some kind of competitive race. He didn’t even try to swerve out of my way. He would have crashed into me if I hadn’t stepped back.”

Kelly said he saw Marshall again a couple of months later.

“He was booking. I said to myself, ‘There’s that speed demon again.’ You can’t forget a guy like that. The beard, the glasses, the helmet, the dreadlocks, it’s him.”

“I’m just glad to be alive.”

 

[senseamp]

Man says Central Park cyclist nearly ran him over, too
http://nypost.com/2014/09/23/man-says-central-park-cyclist-nearly-ran-him-over-too/

Hide yo wife, hide yo kids, they are biking by everyone in here.

NY Post is on a roll with this story:

Front page news over and over, like OJ on a bike.