Charity cyclist killed by driver looking at phone: Any charges?

[Jersey Boss]

I find that more 4 wheel and more motor vehicle operators violating rules of the road than I do two wheel, motorized or not.

[Pete]

Not that I in any way condone any excuse by the driver, but this is why if there isn't a bike lane, then the dang things shouldn't be on the road....the road made for CARS! You can claim all day that you're legally protected and that it's your right to be on the road all you want, but at the end of the day.....the car wins and the bike loses. And in some cases, that means you lose your life. There's no moral high ground when you're dead. I deal with bikers on Sooner and Douglas quite often, and they're in areas where there is no shoulder to drive on, yet the city has designated it a "bike route". If you're going to do that OKC, then put a freaking bike land in there!!!!! The road was made for cars, and the car shouldn't have to swerve to go around an object (like a bike) on the road...which was made for cars.

Motorist and cyclists have been peacefully coexisting on European roads for decades. And most those roads are way more narrow, hilly and winding than anything you'll ever see in Oklahoma. And the same can be said in California, where I've ridden thousands of miles on my bike on every type of road imaginable.

The big difference is that in those places you don't have the Entitled Motorist Syndrome: "the car shouldn't have to swerve to go around an object (like a bike) on the road".

That type of attitude and thinking is what is dangerous and attempts to completely shift responsibility away from the motorist.

[SoonerDave]

Motorist and cyclists have been peacefully coexisting on European roads for decades. And most those roads are way more narrow, hilly and winding than anything you'll ever see in Oklahoma. And the same can be said in California, where I've ridden thousands of miles on my bike on every type of road imaginable.

The big difference is that in those places you don't have the Entitled Motorist Syndrome: "the car shouldn't have to swerve to go around an object (like a bike) on the road".

That type of attitude and thinking is what is dangerous and attempts to completely shift responsibility away from the motorist.

With all due respect, Pete, I understand where you're coming from completely, but the "entitlement" syndrome as it is phrased is a bit inflammatory - the roads do exist for the primary purpose of motorized vehicles, don't they? I mean, I am not at all suggesting there's an *excuse* for reckless driver behavior, but I do have to admit to my own sense of frustration at the idea that there should be a sense of equanimity between fundamentally dissimilar types of vehicles on the same kind of road. There's a reason some kinds of motorbikes aren't "street legal," a reason why things like Segways (as I understand it) are forbidden on streets in some places, etc.

I guess its just that the inherent notion that a bike and a two-ton car are equal is, well, bothersome. They aren't, and for reasons that have nothing to do with "entitlement." That's a physical mismatch the bike always loses. Yes, the vehicle driver has ultimate responsibility to avoid the bikes, but I think there is an important burden on that bike rider to make him or herself as visible as possible.

Let me say, again, this is a general notion separate entirely from the specific issue of *this* driver and *this* bike, where it's nearly impossible for me to fathom an exposition of the facts that would absolve the driver of responsibility.

I will never forget as a kid a friend of mine and I opted to ride from my house up to a Putt Putt course about three or four miles north of my house on an *extremely* busy street. I never began to fathom the size and speed difference between myself on a bike and a moving car until I got *on the road*, and as I started through the intersection at S. Western at the I-240 underpass where my feet slid off the pedals, I thought, "my gosh, if I fall, I'm going to get killed," and it would have been no one's fault but my own. I was an *idiot* for doing what I was doing, and I never tried it again.

[Jersey Boss]

Motorist and cyclists have been peacefully coexisting on European roads for decades. And most those roads are way more narrow, hilly and winding than anything you'll ever see in Oklahoma. And the same can be said in California, where I've ridden thousands of miles on my bike on every type of road imaginable.

The big difference is that in those places you don't have the Entitled Motorist Syndrome: "the car shouldn't have to swerve to go around an object (like a bike) on the road".

That type of attitude and thinking is what is dangerous and attempts to completely shift responsibility away from the motorist.

Great post Pete on laying the excuses to waste. Can't wait to see the excuses of why Oklahoma is so unique in the inability to respect cyclists. The same "EMS" is exhibited in city crosswalks daily.

[traxx]

When I'm driving my car, I don't expect other motorists to see me or know or even care that I'm there. I drive defensively because I've seen what other motorists do. If I have to drive this defensively in a moderately sized car and get cut off because another motorists doesn't see me there, imagine how much more invisible I would be on a bicycle.

I've seen people in golf carts and 4 wheelers get pulled over and ticketed on city streets because those vehicles are illegal. What I've read is that those vehicles are illegal on most roads because of the issue of safety. I've never understood why these vehicles that are larger than a bicycle are considered unsafe for city streets but bicycles are not.

I'm not making excuses here or shifting responsibility away from motorists. I own a bicycle and ride regularly. And I know that I have as much right to ride down NW Expwy as a GMC Yukon XL. But I just don't feel like taking that chance. I think that nearly all of these accidents can be avoided if two modes of transportation with such dissimilar size and speed are made to go on their own thoroughfares rather than sharing one. Not every motorists is always going to be paying attention. Not every motorists is going to use the signal to let others know their intentions. Despite laws to the contrary, some will still be texting. As long as bikes and cars share the same road, these wrecks will happen no matter how many laws you make.

[jerrywall]

Some of this same logic/thinking could be applied to keeping non-trucks off of highways...

[hoya]

In this case it would not be hard as the driver admitted guilt.

Per the bolded part, Title 47, Chapter 11, Sec. 901b-
The operator of every vehicle, while driving, shall devote their full time and attention to such driving.

No law enforcement officer shall issue a citation under this section unless the law enforcement officer observes that the operator of the vehicle is involved in an accident or observes the operator of the vehicle driving in such a manner that poses an articulable danger to other persons on the roadway that is not otherwise specified in statute

As for the billboard example, yeah the state does do that, but it does not mitigate careless driving. Bars are allowed to put in parking lots, but you can't mitigate a DWI with that argument.

Well, I haven't seen the actual quote from the driver. Perhaps she said "I was driving down the road, responding to a text, not paying a damn bit of attention, and then I heard a thump". If that's the case, then sure. But I don't know what the exact situation was.

DUIs are a great example. It is perfectly legal for me to go to a bar, drink a few beers, get in my car, and drive around. It is not illegal to drink and then drive. It is illegal to drive while intoxicated. As long as my BAC stays below a set level, I haven't broken the law.

I'm not talking about careless driving. I'm saying that "full time and attention" allows for someone to deal with the normal distractions of operating a motor vehicle. If I'm adjusting my sun-visor or looking at a street sign, if I look down to change the AC setting or get a toy out of the floorboard, and I cause an accident, I may be civilly liable. But I don't think a jury is going to convict me of a crime, even if somebody dies.

Bicyclists need to take into account that a driver who has the sun in his eyes is a lethal threat to them.

[kevinpate]

Well, now that you mention it ... a driver who has the sun in his eyes can be a lethal threat to all other roadway users

[stick47]

I can't drive my vehicle to work without entering a roadway but I can get all the physical benefit that a bike offers without leaving my home. Bottom line, bicycles and roads is not a good mix and fails the logic test.

[stick47]

Motorist and cyclists have been peacefully coexisting on European roads for decades. And most those roads are way more narrow

and the size of the automobiles over there?

[Jersey Boss]

and the size of the automobiles over there?

While they might not have the p/u and suv's they certainly have your full compliment of European and Asian cars. Europe also uses buses and trucks to transport goods. More importantly it is the attitude that is significantly different, not gvw.

[traxx]

While they might not have the p/u and suv's they certainly have your full compliment of European and Asian cars. Europe also uses buses and trucks to transport goods. More importantly it is the attitude that is significantly different, not gvw.

I've been to Europe and I don't recall many if any bikes traveling on the high traffic roads. Maybe some of the smaller side roads, but not the main thoroughfares. I also watched Top Gear until they fired Jeremy, and it seems they have the same problem in Britain that we have here. They even had a few episodes where they addressed that bicycles and motor vehicles sharing the same roads is dangerous. TG also visited many other European cities. It seemed from watching, that in those cities the places where you'd see cyclists was in the older parts of the city where the passages were too small for cars or in the town squares where autos weren't allowed. There were some episodes where they would have a race and Hammond would be on a bicycle in a European city and he was literally taking his life in his hands by sharing the road with motor vehicles.

Maybe you're right and I'm completely mistaken about European cities and bicycles. But from my observation it seems that they have similar issues that we have here.

[ctchandler]

Traxx,
This isn't really a fair reply to your post, but take a look at Amsterdam. they are definitely the exception. They cater to bikers, they have their own lane on the sidewalk, and as a pedestrian, if you get hit in that lane by a biker, you are in the wrong. They even have bicycle multi level parking garages. Of course, with the good comes the bad, they also have bicycles rotting and rusting everywhere. Also, I think Great Britain is pretty good. I have seen a lot of bikers riding around in the busy streets of London. I don't really remember that much about bikes in Ireland or anywhere else I've been.
C. T.

[Jersey Boss]

http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html

U.S. cyclists are three more likely to be killed than German cyclists and six times more than Dutch cyclists, whether compared per-trip or per-distance traveled. (Reuters, Aug. 28, 2003, by Maggie Fox)

Saftey in numbers. Worldwide, the greater the concentration of cyclists, the lower the fatality rate. That is, the more cyclists, the safer it is to cycle. By converse, the fewer cyclists, the more dangerous it is to cycle. This is a main reason why cyclists oppose helmet laws, because they're shown to reduce the number of cyclists, and that makes cycling more dangerous for those who remain (whether they wear a helmet or not). The Safety in Numbers principle was proved even within this country, as NYC has a similar rate of cycling fatalities per capita compared to the rest of the country, but nearly four times as many people bike or walk to work in NYC compared to the rest of the U.S. (Bicyclist Fatalities and Serious Injuries in New York City PDF, 1996-2005)

I know the numbers are a few years back, but have nothing to indicate they are not still valid.

Sarah Morris still has not been charged for this killing that happened on 7-31.