RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


Chicago: SUV Driver Trial Update(15 posts)

Chicago: SUV Driver Trial Updaterollo tommassi
Nov 30, 2001 12:44 PM
On April 26, 1999, a 28 year old man named Thomas McBride was riding his bicycle in to work when he was run over from behind by a driver.

The cycle community here is following this with much anticipation. Was it first degree murder? Or just an 'accident'....

Read here for the trial reports (scroll midway down page for the "What's New" section)
http://www.chicagocriticalmass.org
HORRIFYING, DISGUSTING and the scumbag will only get ...cyclinseth
Nov 30, 2001 1:44 PM
20-60 years IF convicted? That's adding insult to injury. My opinions on the death penalty and tourture are getting harder and harder to defend by the day.

If this was an accident, then why did the guy go speeding away from the scene of the accident. And does it really matter if this was an accident?

So by the same reasoning, I can walk down 5th Ave in NYC blasting off my shotgun and if anybody happens to get in the way then is it just an accident?
What you described is manslaughterkenyee
Nov 30, 2001 2:22 PM
Unless you aimed at someone. The difference is intent. They're trying to make it seem like the guy didn't intend to do it to get him less time.

You wouldn't be allowed to own one there legally anyways. They were all confiscated long ago.
Pretty horrifying story.MrCelloBoy
Nov 30, 2001 1:56 PM
I think the driver should be found guilty of a homocide.
I have to wonder if this cyclist would have been run over if he hadn't verbally harassed the driver.
We have to be careful who we confront these daysKristin
Nov 30, 2001 2:41 PM
Do you find that its increasingly difficult to turn a blind eye on others arrogant or ignorant behaviors. I'll admit that I find it difficult. Why is that? Why does my blood boil so much more quickly these days? And, so it seems, most others around me. America has become infected with anger. The attitudes which make me believe that, "I am right," and, "I deserve..." are contageous.

Last month, I was watching an interview with the National Transportation Safety somebody-or-other. The interviewer mentioned list of driver saftey recommendations that was published in the 80's. On that list, was a recommendation to "tap your brakes" as a warning when a driver is following too closely behind your car. Mr. NTS quickly acknowledged that those recommendations are out of date. He also explained that it is no longer recommended that drivers "tap their brakes" as this can ignite anger in the other driver.
We have to be careful who we confront these daysMe Dot Org
Dec 3, 2001 11:00 AM
I'm not exactly sure of all of the causes, but I sure see the symptoms. There is a 'lowest common denominator' which seems to say that because rage is deeply felt, it must be 'valid' and therefore somehow good. Rage is something that the media can manipulate. While pundits decry its rise, shock radio and television feed it.

Where does it all come from? I think (in very general terms) it comes from a sense of alienation and powerlessness in our culture.

I get emails from my step-sister, who is defintely on one side of the political spectrum. (As to not bring the left/right debate into this, I will not say which side). Her emails are full of self-righteous indignation as to how awful the other side is, based upon what she reads. Unfortunately, what she reads is horribly inaccurate.

Passion (sometimes displaced) seems to be winning over logic...
rage, deeply felt, is "valid?"guido
Dec 3, 2001 2:19 PM
The downside of touchy-feely, new age pop culture. Expressing one's feelings is healthy, good. Holding them back is unhealthy, bad. So now everybody breaks into tears on national TV when describing their misfortunes, even men who in another time were admired as strong, in control of their emotions. We see not only bereaved housewives but government officials, even policemen, breaking into tears describing the horrific events of the day. Hell, John Wayne never cried. Real men never cry, at least on national TV. We used to think controlling emotions was a major part of growing up. Yes, the media highlights tears, emotional outbursts. It's always what grabs the audience, rather than reasoned, dispassionate discourse.
We have to be careful who we confront these daysMe Dot Org
Dec 3, 2001 3:41 PM
I'm not exactly sure of all of the causes, but I sure see the symptoms. There is a 'lowest common denominator' which seems to say that because rage is deeply felt, it must be 'valid' and therefore somehow good. Rage is something that the media can manipulate. While pundits decry its rise, shock radio and television feed it.

Where does it all come from? I think (in very general terms) it comes from a sense of alienation and powerlessness in our culture.

I get emails from my step-sister, who is defintely on one side of the political spectrum. (As to not bring the left/right debate into this, I will not say which side). Her emails are full of self-righteous indignation as to how awful the other side is, based upon what she reads. Unfortunately, what she reads is horribly inaccurate.

Passion (sometimes displaced) seems to be winning over logic...
Wow...scarykenyee
Nov 30, 2001 2:20 PM
Guess that's what happens when a nut uses a 2 ton weapon on your body. :-P

Reading some of the comments, I can't understand why one witness recanted his story. The other witness driving the other way didn't say anything about the biker goading the driver as the driver claimed.

Having the driver get out to yank the bike out from under his car made him guilty of hit and run already. I don't see a choice but for the jury to convict him so I don't see what the worry is about. The only question is what to convict him of...1st or 2nd degree murder. It's definitely not manslaughter...
Last time I checkedDr. Pack Meat
Nov 30, 2001 2:44 PM
It's still illegal to kill somebody whether they're taunting you or not, I don't see how that can make a difference. If the biker was taunting the driver it seems even more unlikely that the driver could claim that he hit him accidentally, it's not like he didn't notice the biker. Speaking from experience with messengers, if there was a chance that the biker was taunting the driver than he probably was but this does not excuse the driver.
Last time I checkedMrCelloBoy
Nov 30, 2001 4:00 PM
I hear you and agree, but if death can be avoided I think it's worth chilling out rather than reacting in a case like this.
Didn't mean to imply thatkenyee
Nov 30, 2001 4:41 PM
Sorry. What I meant was if the other driver saw it, the driver may not have been lying about it. I think the driver made that part of it up and was thinking of a way to prove it.

You're right about messengers and even some college kids. Cops should ticket bad behavior or the person doing the bad behavior thinks they can keep doing it, as Kristin said...
Sadly he will only get second degree murderspookyload
Nov 30, 2001 4:29 PM
It is pretty clear to me that the driver was reacting to the verbal exchange. That would bring emotion into play, and that my friends is 2nd degree murder. We here in Florida just convicted a 12 year old for shooting his teacher in the face in the classroom. He left the school and got a gun, came back and shot him. He only got 2nd degree murder. The emotional reaction is the thing they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
Sadly he will only get second degree murdercyclaholic
Nov 30, 2001 10:09 PM
This case is so popular due to its description in the very good book "The Immortal Class", written by Travis Hugh Culley. The very strong CM of Chicago needs to be commended for bringing this issue to a national audience.

I read all of the very good reports, and I am not optimistic. The state's best witness is obviously giving very confusing testimony. Though you can never know what a jury will do, it is established theory that you don't want to confuse a jury unless you are a defendant.

If the reports I've read are fairly accurate accounts, it would appear that a 2nd degree murder conviction would be a great result for the victim of this crime. Don't know about IL law, but I would bet that any conviction will be one of manslaughter. But I don't even know if that's an option for this jury.

Thank God that there were witnesses, no matter how strange, to this crime. The sad truth is that any one of us can be run over deliberately at any time and, sans witnesses, it would be classified as an "accident".
HmmmmKristin
Dec 2, 2001 9:06 PM
I've been reading Dan Korn's reports. The points he raised at the end of the 11/30 post were insightful. I wonder why the witnesses weren't asked about how fast they perceived the bike to be traveling. Plenty of questions were asked about the drivers speed, but not the cyclists. And also, there were no witnesses to speak to about what sort of riding skills Tom McBride had. If you can slap the hood of a moving SUV, you've got some kinda skill. Messangers avoid accidents all day long. Wasn't Tom skilled at getting out of tight spots. I'd think one would have to "try" harder to hit a messanger than a recreational rider? Why was all this ignored? Would it not have been allowed? Or is there no one in that courtroom with the perspective of a cyclist?