'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 )

Former Miss USA kills cyclist(68 posts)

Former Miss USA kills cyclistafrican
Oct 13, 2003 5:51 AM
Does Clear Channel do this reporting?Humma Hah
Oct 13, 2003 5:56 AM
The cyclist "was outside the crosswalk." Well, I should HOPE so! Bicycles are vehicles, and bicyclists are not pedestrians. Looks like the reporter is trying to pin the blame on the cyclist.
Oct 13, 2003 6:07 AM
Yeah, wtf, you have to have your bike in a crosswalk. Sounds like Miss USA (former) is to blame, get some sunglasses so you can see honey.
Heather was Miss America, not Miss USA, and she'sOldEdScott
Oct 13, 2003 6:48 AM
the farthest thing from an airhead you can get. She's so bright I was shocked she was named Miss America, but she did extraordinary advocacy for homeless veterans, and continues to. She's first-rate in every way.

This was, simply, a horrible accident (I live near Louisville). I know that bad intersection, and I was also out riding at the very moment this happened. The angle/brightness of the sun at 6:20 was scaring the bejeesus out of me. I couldn't see, riding west, and I know drivers overtaking me couldn't see. It was a very nervewracking ride.

At that intersection, if the victim were walking her comfort bike across the road anywhere BUT the crosswalk, Heather would never have seen her. This is apparently what happened.
Ed, why would you even sympathize her?cyclopathic
Oct 13, 2003 2:47 PM
don't you think girl who got killed deserves more sympathy?
married to a Democrat state officialDougSloan
Oct 13, 2003 7:39 PM
Her husband is the Lt. Governor of Kentucky. Below, Ed notes that he is unpopular. Ironically, he's in the business of saving lives, an M.D. He's done an official statement:

Here's the family:

Looks like in Kentucky the Lt. Governor is elected along with the Governor. That might explain his being in office despite unpopularity:
Mainly because I loathe mob mentality,OldEdScott
Oct 14, 2003 5:01 AM
the brainless 'string 'em up and ask questions (maybe) later' reflex that too many posters here have displayed.

I do know her, and I do admire her greatly. She is an absolutely top-notch individual. I know through mutual friends that she is devastated by this, and that too is important to me. If roadie self-absobtion is so all consuming that we can ONLY have compassion for the victim, well, let me out of the roadie club.

I do know her husband, and don't care for him. Doug, I'm utterly appalled that you would drag politics into this by insinuation.
Democrat.. Republican.. who cares??cyclopathic
Oct 14, 2003 5:22 AM

I know that you see all through black and white prism, you have Rush Limbaugh on your radio dail and have signed G. Gordon Liddy pictures etc etc, but for a moment, could you be a human for a change?

There's a human (who also happen to be white middle age female cyclist) killed, and no beauty pigeon or politically motivated BS is gonna bring her to life.

And you and I know that it could be us next time.

ride safe, CP
what I'm saying is opposite of "black and white"DougSloan
Oct 14, 2003 6:32 AM
No, those defending the driver are portraying this as black and white, defending her, and seemingly placing no blame with her on the basis of her character. Character has nothing to do with moments of inattentive driving. I never said she was solely responsible, but she is signficantly responsible (in a comparative fault sense, I think she would bear at least 50%).

I dragged the political information into this because people were questioning why Ed would be zealously defending this lady, something I've never seen him do for another driver killing a cyclist. It's out of character, as far as I can tell. We all know the Ed is Democratic campaign consultant or employee (never really understood exactly what). All I'm saying is that would be at least a plausible explanation for the out of character defense.

Heck, yes, I defend Rush Limbaugh, even through his troubling times. Part of that may be out of character for me, but I darn well admit the bias; however, as with Ed and this lady, apparently, it's not so much the political tie, but I know him personally, too. We should defend our friends.

Nonetheless, people should be held accountable for their actions when they injure or kill others, beauty queen or not.

It is not out of character for me, a liberal DemocratOldEdScott
Oct 14, 2003 6:51 AM
political consultant, to rail against lynchings. I've been doing that since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, thank you very much. I do not like lynch mobs.

If you want to say Heather bears some responsibility in this, fine. Is it CRIMINAL responsibility? Well, the cops say no. I can perfectly well accomodate a rational discussion of what level of responsibility she DOES bear, which you've done, albeit with annoying side excursions that call people's motives into question for politics or 'beauty queen' status.

What I can NOT tolerate is the utter speculative or outright false crap that was spewed by some here: About SUVs, cell phones, messing with the baby in the back seat, speeding, not having a green arrow light, being declared guilty of involuntary manslaughter at the very least, driving way down the road shoving the cyclist's crumpled body ahead of her like a snowplow before bothering to stop to see what she'd hit etc etc etc etc etc.

It sounded just like a lynch mob in Alabama in 1962, and I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. Not a bit uncharacteristic, and I wouldn't think surprising.
agree in partDougSloan
Oct 14, 2003 7:19 AM
I agree that lynch mobs are bad, whether in Alabama in 1962 or on the internet in 2003. I never claimed criminal responsibility, nor speculated (beyond what I expressly described as a reasonable inference) about the facts. Also there is a huge difference between a lynch mob for the purpose of killing a black person person purely because of his color, and blaming someone for killing someone else, having nothing to do with her color, creed, nationality, etc. The former is inherently evil; the latter is more like excited over reaction, particularly in light of the Clear Channel events recently.

What did seem to be out of character was what appeared to be a total defense of her responsibility, near to the point of blaming the cyclist totally. No acknowledgement of her having any responsibility. If anything, Liberals/Democrats usually come to the defense of the "little guy," the weaker person, etc. Not to mention the fact the victim was cyclist.

No, I don't agree with all the stuff about criminal responsibility or inferring all sorts of incriminating facts, and to that extent you were perfectly right to call people on it.

Reasonable, thanks, and nowOldEdScott
Oct 14, 2003 7:22 AM
I'm going back to the non-cycling board, where the arguments are less bruising!
O.K. how many...Dwayne Barry
Oct 13, 2003 6:07 AM
43 year old female cyclists do you know that are so hard-core they don't wear helmets.

From the scant information provided I would bet she is only a "cyclist" in the very broadest sense, and probably was in no way behaving as a vehicle (as she should have been) at the time of the accident. She was probably in a place where one would expect a jaywalking pedestrian to be (like crossing the street other than right at the corner), thus the report that she was outside the cross-walk.
not to mention.....rufus
Oct 13, 2003 6:25 AM
they said the driver had the green light at the time.

i'm guessing, that like so many casual cyclists i see, the woman got off her bike and was walking it across the street, like a pedestrian, when she was struck.
and she wasn't wearing a helmet...wspokes
Oct 13, 2003 6:24 AM
Why doesn't the reporter just add..."officials find the accident was probably due to the cyclists riding outside the (PEDESTRIAN) crosswalk without a helmet and thus we find she was probably asking for it..."

Sometimes I wonder about these reports. Report objectively!! Let us all face it...when the RAAM rider got killed...I don't believe anyone went up in arms at all the truckdrivers out there because a trucker hit the guy...he was tired and turned in front of the vehicle...even we can be why aren't these reports. The cyclist had a green light and was riding down the road when this lady had a failure to yield due to her "not seeing because of the sun". End story. No real blame on either side. just the truth.
the driver had the green light.rufus
Oct 13, 2003 6:27 AM
so much for objectivity.
If I were riding ahead of a car...dzrider
Oct 13, 2003 6:37 AM
and had a green light I would go through the intersection outside a crosswalk. A car gaining on me could easily make a right turn and hit me. That would be the driver's fault.

Another rider, stopped on the sidewalk at the intersection, could start crossing on the green light. This would effectively be pulling out (or stepping out)in front of the moving car and the rider's fault.

From the report I read, there's no way of knowing which of these happened. The first problem with the report seems to me to be lack of clarity rather than lack of objectivity. The second seems to me that it's only reported because of the celebrity of the driver.
Was the driver..wspokes
Oct 13, 2003 7:27 AM
I agree with the above...was the driver making a right or left when the sun was in her eyes as she turned? What time of day? Which direction was she heading. The cyclist and the driver, both, could have had a green light. Lack of clarity is now very evident. Still sad...and the fact that the only reason we are hearing the story at all...celebrity status...kind of.
You'll never seepitt83
Oct 13, 2003 6:30 AM
Man dies of a heart attack. He was last seen supersizing his fast food meal and ordering a cone for dessert. Thats' in bad taste, agreed?

Then why is it OK to report about someone who is wearing / not wearing a helmet.

'Splain it please.
It's the same as when they reportirregardless
Oct 13, 2003 6:52 AM
that a car driver or passenger was or was not wearing a seatbelt. It shows they may have contributed to their own injuries by not taking proper precautions.
Oh for Pete's sake. It's a totally legitimate fact the report.OldEdScott
Oct 13, 2003 6:58 AM
What's the first thing you ask when you hear a cyclist was killed or injured? I bet you wonder if they wore a helmet.

It's not part of some conspiracy against cyclists to report relevant facts. Roadies are so PRICKLY.

BTW, here's a local news story, w/a little more detail than CNN:
Sorry. Link here:OldEdScott
Oct 13, 2003 6:58 AM
well I guess......african
Oct 13, 2003 7:03 AM
she won't be the Friday podium girl.

One thing though, woman on bike vs woman in big fat Lincoln suv..... suv wins everytime.
my favorite NS part:DougSloan
Oct 13, 2003 9:29 AM
"Neither Henry, nor her 3-month-old daughter, Taylor, who was in the back seat, was injured."

Well, no s***! 6,000 pounds vs. 200 pounds (if that).

true like that was the most important thing.....african
Oct 13, 2003 9:50 AM
heaven forbid a former miss usa/america (whatever) gets a broken nose....
and that's what countscyclopathic
Oct 13, 2003 9:51 AM
who cares as long as "Neither Henry, nor her 3-month-old daughter, Taylor, who was in the back seat, was injured."
It would have been better ifOldEdScott
Oct 13, 2003 10:02 AM
the b!tch and her little rugrat WERE hurt. They would have been, if there was justice in this world, eh?
a Navigator. how ironic. nmrufus
Oct 13, 2003 7:19 AM
From what I gather...biknben
Oct 13, 2003 7:26 AM
The vehicle and the bicycle were traveling in down the road in opposite directions. The vehicle turned left into the cyclist. They both had a green light. The sun was behind the rider and in the driver's eyes.

I'm dealing with this on a daily basis on my way home from work. I'd rather have the sun behind me but you have to be defensive when you see cars coming towards signaling a turn.

The cyclist was JRA. I gather she was on the edge of the road, riding with the flow of traffic. The driver is at fault. Sure, she was blinded, but she still has to drive appropriately for the circumstances. The crosswalk has nothing to do with anything. A summons could be issued for "Careless Driving".
shouldn't drive if you can't see where you're going nmDougSloan
Oct 13, 2003 9:31 AM
and put that cell phone aside nmcyclopathic
Oct 13, 2003 9:33 AM
You have no indication whatsoever that she wasOldEdScott
Oct 13, 2003 9:36 AM
using a cell phone. Sheesh.
and you think she is gonna confess?? nmcyclopathic
Oct 13, 2003 9:46 AM
Wow, the criminal/court system should hire youOldEdScott
Oct 13, 2003 9:59 AM
to pre-judge all its cases. We could really save time and expense on police investigations and jury trials, given your paranormal powers!
have you ever heard of involuntary manslaughter?cyclopathic
Oct 13, 2003 10:21 AM
If she drove in conditions she couldn't see, (and she admits it) it is her fault. Same way I'd be guilty if you'd painted over my windshield and I'd drive.

She cannot claim self-defense, she killed, and she is at fault. There's nothing to judge about: it is an involuntary manslaughter, 2 to 10 years, depending on circumstances and state law. But watch she will get off. Why not? she is probably better person then OJ.
Yeah, the second she was blinded, she should haveOldEdScott
Oct 13, 2003 9:35 AM
come to a screeching halt. I'm sure the 77-car pileup rear-ending into her wouldn't have hurt a soul.

maybe not screeching haltDougSloan
Oct 13, 2003 9:44 AM
Not an extreme response. She should have (I don't think we can tell from the story) at least slowed to a near stop. Or, and again we don't know, she could have anticipated the sun and used her visor or sunglasses, I don't know.

All I know is that if everyone who hits someone can escape responsibility by saying "the sun was in my eyes" or "I didn't see him" I'd probably not ever ride a bike on the road again.

Now, wait a minute, she was making a left turn ...Humma Hah
Oct 13, 2003 11:35 AM
... with a green light but evidently not a green turn arrow, so she is very much REQUIRED to stop for oncoming traffic, and traffic behind her should be prepared to stop. Approaching an intersection like that in a manner that you would be UNABLE to stop safely is unsafe and illegal. And turning left across oncoming lanes without being able to see, is similarly unsafe, and if you hit anyone, you're at fault.

Of course, as a cyclist, you don't want your tombstone to read "I had the right-of-way."
Oct 13, 2003 2:40 PM
if you look at the picture, bike and car is pretty far from intersection. IF she did hit her at intersection she must have dragged her for some distance. I cannot imagine carring so much speed through the corner to push her in daily driving.
I don't know--as a general proposition, I think it's right, butdjg
Oct 13, 2003 1:24 PM
it really seems that this might be one of those situations around--or even outside--the boundaries of any reasonable rule we might draw here. Any accidental traffic death is sad. And by and large I agree that drivers ought to pull off the road when visibility becomes so bad that they cannot see what's in the roadway. But people cannot be expected to stop or pull off the road instantly and the story seems to suggest that she turned into blinding sunlight and a cyclist who couldn't have been observed to be in that pathway a moment before. I could be wrong about the details--I'm just reading the story in the link here. But if the driver's incapacitation and the arrival of the cyclist came together almost simultaneously, then it seems to me that this may be an accident more than anything else.
yeah but people who buy SUVscyclopathic
Oct 13, 2003 2:58 PM
do it for safety, their own safety at everyone else expence.

I have heard 2 stories of 3-year old kids killed, once from a guy who did it, and another time from a brother of a guy who did it. They all involved full size trucks/SUVs. Now, there might be more killed by cars, but don't you agree that when you get into huge vehicle, your visibility goes down?
No Cyclo, I don't agree with that statement...russw19
Oct 13, 2003 5:48 PM
Not trying to get into a flame fest here, but no, I don't agree that when you get into a huge vehicle your visibility suffers. That is a BS blanket statement. Now, visibility may be affected by individual vehicle designs, but your blanket statement is simply you trying to push your anti-SUV agenda.

I have first hand knowledge of your being wrong. Let me explain. First, I am 6 feet tall exactly. When I am seated in my Honda Accord my head is 4 1/2 feet above the ground. When I was seated in my Range Rover my head was 7 1/2 feet above the ground. That greatly enhances my visibility of my surroundings. A Honda Accord, an average mid size and very common car has an exterior height of 57.7 inches, or slightly under 5 feet. In my own Accord, I can not see over and therefore around that vehicle. In my Range Rover I could. Next I suppose you would argue the size of the vehicle I am in makes a difference to how much I can see. Wrong. The individual vehicle's own blind spots are the limiting factors. Because I sit higher in a SUV and they generaly have larger mirrors, my field of vision is actually greater than that of a mid-sized sedan. I sit higher so I see more over my own hood, and the large flat (as opposed to the angled inward) rear window allows me to see more of the traffic lane directly behind me. SUV's are not inherently aerodynamic vehicles, so larger mirrors on the sides often accompanys them. Whereas oversized mirrors on a sedan come at a penalty to an otherwise aerodynamic car.. the mirrors are smaller limiting the rearward field of vision. You act like you are trying to compare a semi-truck to a Honda Civic. Sure, a Semi has low visability, but that's not what the consumer market is buying up right now. It's SUV's and the demographic that is rising the highest of new SUV owners is the "soccer mom" demographic.

I also have to take issue with the thought you seem to be on that SUV's account for more accidents than mid-size sedans. That's also false. But the statistic is also skewed in that more mid-sized sedans are on the road than SUV's. but the percentage of those drivers involved is close enough that there is no evidence as to which is safer. (Check with your insurance company about that one or the DOT, as that's where I got that from.) Meaning that you are just as likely to get into an accident driving a sedan or SUV. Neither is inherently more dangerous. However the one huge glaring stat about SUV's is simple physics. The survivability of an impact of an accident is greatly decreased if you are hit by an SUV as opposed to a sedan. But that is simply because a 2400 lbs car traveling at 40 mph carries much less inertia than a 6500 lbs SUV going the same speed.

Again, this is not meant to be a flame, but you are obviously pushing an anti-SUV agenda here. At least be open and up front about your motives for trying to claim SUV's as the next coming of Satan. They are not anywhere near as evil as you are trying to make them out to be. Gas mileage aside that is. But then that is the one and only reason I sold mine. Gas. Plain and simple. But it was a safer vehicle for me and my family to travel in than what I currently drive.

Russ: No Cyclo, I don't agree with that statement...Pierre_
Oct 13, 2003 8:29 PM
.... but when I sit in my honda accord, with my line of sight at 4 1/2 feet above the ground, I can not see what's going on on the road, because of all the 7 1/2 ft tall tint-glassed boxes around me. Don't get me wrong, I do recognize, that the visibility FROM your Rover is great. However, this is only because you are looking OVER the roofs of the other traffic. This approach to insure YOUR safety is rather selfish and inconsiderate.
That is the stupiest thing ever! Think about what you just said!russw19
Oct 13, 2003 8:54 PM
Pierre, do you wear your seatbelt? Is that for you or the guy in the car that may hit you? Do you wear it so you don't become a projectile and kill someone else, or do you wear it to keep yourself alive? Do you wear your bicycle helmet? Pretty selfish of you to look out for yourself, huh! Are you going to pay for my family to live if I am killed being in a small car? No! So where am I being selfish? That's about the stupidest thing I have ever heard! Don't take care of yourself, you may actually live! Do you advocate against defensive driving classes? Because they are all about keeping the driver alive, not the guy in the other lane.

And on a completely other note... if you can't see what's going on on the road from your Honda Accord, you need to do one of two things, stop driving immediately before you kill someone, or get another car. But don't try to blame that on SUV's on the road. Remember, long before SUV's were pick-up trucks, buses, vans, cargo vans, UPS trucks, jeeps, police paddy wagons, hell even station wagons for that matter!

Damn all those stupid selfish people out there making it so that the Honda Accord is not the ideal vehicle. They should all be taken off the road and we should only be able to drive Hondas! Good thing I got rid of my Rover for an Accord last year.

Russ, Russ, you're angrycyclopathic
Oct 14, 2003 5:42 AM
because you know you're wrong.

yes you can see farther from your SUV, but you don't see a squad in close proximity. I was brushed by SUVs on several occasions, /saved by good reflexes, bushes and soft ditch/ and the truth is they never saw me riding 2 feet off the side. Put a 3-year old 2 feet off your front bumper and tell me how well you see him/her. Or go to underground garage and try to park in compact cars only spot.

and yes, there're trucks, buses, vans, cargo vans, UPS trucks, jeeps, police paddy wagons, RVs etc etc. Sin RVs most of them are driven by much more experienced then your average soccer mom drivers. It is not easy to get CDL.
No Cyclo, I don't agree with that jimbo
Oct 14, 2003 7:46 AM
But it was a safer vehicle for me and my family to travel in than what I currently drive.

This is patently untrue. If you get into the driver's seat of an SUV you are significantly more likely to die in an accident than if you get into the seat of a smaller car? This is statistical fact.

The reason is that you are more likely to get into an accident in the first place. You have less manouverability (misspelled, sorry), less ability to brake, and are much more likely to roll over. Add to that the fact that SUV drivers (as a whole, not individually) do not drive as safely, because of the fact that they >feel< safer and you have a recipe in which you are less safe in an SUV than in a car.

Yes, you may be a safe driver in an SUV, so your statement may be true, but SUV's are NOT safer vehicles.

SUV's are NOT saferss jimbo
Oct 14, 2003 7:49 AM
But it was a safer vehicle for me and my family to travel in than what I currently drive.

This is patently untrue. If you get into the driver's seat of an SUV you are significantly more likely to die in an accident than if you get into the seat of a smaller car? This is statistical fact.

The reason is that you are more likely to get into an accident in the first place. You have less manouverability (misspelled, sorry), less ability to brake, and are much more likely to roll over. Add to that the fact that SUV drivers (as a whole, not individually) do not drive as safely, because of the fact that they >feel< safer and you have a recipe in which you are less safe in an SUV than in a car.

Yes, you may be a safe driver in an SUV, so your statement may be true, but SUV's are NOT safer vehicles.

any references for those claims? nmDougSloan
Oct 14, 2003 9:01 AM
I'm not sure that the SUV issues were significant here.djg
Oct 14, 2003 10:35 AM
I'm not offering a general defense of SUVs--which I'm not crazy about for various reasons--but I don't know that it really mattered in this individual case. Again, I know nothing about the accident that wasn't posted here (directly or via links), but it seems that a driver in a car might well have been blinded too under these circumstances and that a car too might well have caused the fatality.
Wow, a local report with details...wspokes
Oct 13, 2003 7:35 AM
Now this explains things far better than the big network CheesyNN. There are quite a few more details here and definitely a better written report. Sad story...
I got nailed once under similar circumstances ...Humma Hah
Oct 13, 2003 9:09 AM
... I was going straight, with the green. Ancient car turned left into me from the opposite lane, also on a green. Lady was tending to her kid, in the front seat (so long ago it was not considered child abuse). Distracted driving. Her fault. Fortunately the speed was low and I only received a couple of bruises and a dinged fender.

I was 15. I am now 50. I still distrust drivers turning left. I still distrust drivers, in general.

Drivers dealing with blinding sun should understand that you're not supposed to drive when you're blind. Bad things happen. I guess, maybe, if you're in a Navigator, you're not scared enough of the consequences?
wife of Lt. Governor.. should we say more?cyclopathic
Oct 13, 2003 9:14 AM
yeah, and if you're 5'1" and get in Navigator, it is hard to see, huh?
Yes we should.OldEdScott
Oct 13, 2003 9:33 AM
If your implication is she's getting special treatment because of Steve Henry, you should know he's an extrememly unpopular fellow who will be out of office in a couple of months, with 90 percent of the population saying good riddance. I doubt he has any juice whatsoever with the police, especially when someone was killed.

Heather had her baby in the back seat. Call me naive, but I doubt she was driving like a drunken redneck in a pickup truck out to run pansy cyclists off the road. She was going home to supper, in heavy traffic, and turned directly into a blinding sun, and a cyclist happened to be in exactly the wrong place, maybe doing exactly the wrong thing.

I'm amazed at the motives being ascribed here, by people who have no earthly idea what really happened. It is a BAD, BAD intersection. I would NEVER attempt to negotiate it, and I have 35+ years of riding under my belt.
have you looked at the picture?cyclopathic
Oct 13, 2003 9:44 AM
now tell me:
- how far bicycle is from intersection?
- what kind of collision would damage front wheel and kill cyclist?

with respect to being Lt Gov, I'd be surprised if this ever goes past grand jury. Gee I wonder why


PS and yes she is guilty by the fact she bought big SUV. Bad intersection or good, I doubt she is tall enough to see well from driver seat. She was probably speeding a bit, taling on cell phone and/or to her kid, a bit of sun in her eyes, should we say more?
Have you ever driven a Navigator?russw19
Oct 13, 2003 10:15 AM
I am not jumping in on either side of the fence on the who is at fault issue, but I have experience driving both a SUV and a compact car. Until a year ago I drove a Range Rover. I now drive a Honda Accord and before the Rover drove a Mazda RX-7. I could see much much better out of the Rover than either the Mazda or the Honda. You sit so much higher, more upright and have a larger field of vision in an SUV. That is one of the biggest reasons that they are gaining so much popularity among the "soccer mom" crowd.

CP, are you 5'1"? Do you know how much of an advantage smaller people have in an SUV as opposed to a compact car? I doubt it. Or you wouldn't be spewing out that line of garbage. If you think she's guilty solely because you have an agenda against SUV's that's another story... but you admitted to that too. Why don't you just jump full ahead in your speculation and say she was drunk off whiskey and high on meth. You have made about every other judgement about her... maybe she is also having an affair with the chief of police and the DA to keep from being charged? Should we get Linda Trip to call her and tape it? Maybe the reporter left out the fact that Marion Barry was in the back seat hiding under a blanket with Rae Carruth! Now that's a conspiracy theory....

I did..cyclopathic
Oct 13, 2003 10:38 AM
and my wife is 5'1" decided it is too big for her to see out and drive safely. Now call Linda Trip (who btw lives not that far from me) and report that to her.
all these assumptions..........rufus
Oct 13, 2003 1:23 PM
and not a thing to indicate she was doing any of this.
Oct 13, 2003 2:34 PM
that's what most people do when they drive, at least around here. THere're a few more: playing with radio, reading news paper, watching TV, and putting up make up. Last is the wrose; at least when guys shave, they don't take eyes off the road.

Judging by the time (6:20) most likely she just picked up kid from day care and was going home or shopping. Likelihood of her making a call to set up dinner, talking to girlfriend, hubby or chatting with child is pretty high. Typical soccer mom driving soccer mom mobile trying to juggle 20 things at once.

There's nothing wrong in doing it, 'till people get killed due to your negligence. Or maybe there's not a thing to indicate she killed anybody. Cyclist just happen to drop dead in the middle of the road.

Sorry I have more sympathy to girl who got killed even if she wasn't Miss America. She is dead, and no "I am sorry" "I haven't seen" "I'll be better next time" or "this is just an accident" will bring her back.
again, you don't know.rufus
Oct 13, 2003 3:17 PM
you're just assuming, you're automatically lumping this one driver in with a stereotypical crowd, and blindly leaping to the conclusion that she had to have been doing something wrong for this accident to happen. sometimes, accidents are just that, accidents.

perhaps the cyclist did something wrong to cause this. perhaps the blame is even on both sides. no one really knows. yet, you choose to blame the vehicle driver. in your eyes, the car driver is always wrong.
have you looked at the picture?cyclopathic
Oct 13, 2003 3:49 PM
the 'gator is pretty far from intersection. If the accident happened at intersection (as article suggests) driver had to be pretty inattentive to drag victim for several hundred feet.

Second, look at front wheel and ask yourself how could it have been damaged? What kind of collision had it been in?

And last, people who buy SUVs buy them for reason. What would be your reaction if I'd drive Abraham tank on streets and squish a couple SUVs? Oh, sorry officer, I haven't seen them.
what are you talking about?!Pierre_
Oct 13, 2003 8:17 PM
You mean to say that just because the intersection is 'dangerous' noone should cross the road there? This is absurd.

Yes, it is reasonable to ask, how do the authorities know that the driver had a green light? In most cases, other drivers will witness on the side of the driver at fault.

"No charges are filed." This is an indication by athorities to all the drivers who may not like to share the road, to start mowing us down at their discression.

On the toppic of the driving with the child in the back seat. I agree, she was not driving like a maniac (although, your comparison with a redneck in a pick-up I find distasteful). However, like most mothers, her attention had to have been split between the road and the baby. That's why such wrecks happen.
Oct 14, 2003 7:37 AM
I'm a drunken redneck myself, and I drive a 1979 Ford F-150 pickup. I know what I'm talking about. Now leave me alone, I'm scratching my lottery tickets.
Why is everyone arguing about the crosswalk thing?Kristin
Oct 13, 2003 7:10 AM
No one has enough info to debate this. Based on both the articles I've read (CNN and the one OldEd posted), I can't tell if the woman was riding on the street with traffic or trying to cross the street. Its just not specific enough. So what the heck are you all debating about?!? If someone has read something that gives better detials, please share it. Geez.
Local TV has said she was 'crossing' the street,OldEdScott
Oct 13, 2003 7:23 AM
but not in the crosswalk. It's the front wheel of the bike that's smashed, which I guess is consistent with that type of accident.

The no-helmet/comfort bike aspect (and the fact that the local roadie clique doesn't know her) has most local cyclists figuring she was walking her bike across the (four-lane) road. It's hard to imagine she was trying to RIDE across it, if she wasn't in the intersection itself or in the crosswalk.

FWIW, not just me but several folks I've spoken to (cyclists and drivers alike) have recounted horror stories about how insanely bright the sun was last evening between 6 and 6:30. Sometimes we forget how even careful motorists can become unintentional threats when the sun is slanted low and we're riding into the sunset.
I hear ya, this is a difficult time of year to rideKristin
Oct 13, 2003 7:48 AM
Thanks for the additional info.
Well, that's kinda the point, isn't it ...Humma Hah
Oct 13, 2003 9:00 AM
... the reporter is kinda picky about the facts. We are NOT told if the bike and driver were going the same direction, opposite directions and the bike was going against traffic, if the bike was crossing perpendicular to the car. Don't know if the cyclist was walking or riding.

We know the bike rider had no helmet (I don't defend this, but it's no excuse for the driver). We don't know if the driver was wearing a seat belt.

We know the sun was bright. In my experience, that's pretty often true, and often a cause of accidents, but I believe it is the driver's responsibility not to let it CAUSE an accident.

The things the cyclist did wrong are a good cautionary tale for all of us. Good. But far more benefit could be gleaned if it were also treated as a cautionary tale for motorists ... there are bikes out there, on the road with you, and also pedestrians. Look where you're going, especially while turning.
Get REAL!Pierre_
Oct 13, 2003 2:32 PM
True that. The "i didn't see her" line calls for a rude reply when you think of someone misusing 6000 pounds of a vehicle in the city limits. This is as pathetic as it gets. The hood line of the Navigator is above the roofline of my car! Get f@c%ing real! The incurred responsibility of driving something like that is not understood by all the buttheads who buy them "to be safe". Whooosh...

Have you noticed that the visibility has diminished on the roads? All the gigant boxes 7 feet tall rolling around with the tint glass as if I care what's inside.

Have a safe ride.
Self righteous indignity rings hollow...baylor
Oct 13, 2003 8:57 PM
and no, I don't drive an SUV. I drive a VW. I'm sure a Navigator could squash me like a bug.

But this over simplified righteous indignation about how she MUST have done something wrong sounds like post hoc justification for mob mentality!

If she didn't break the law/say or do something awful/be under the influence... then let's just bash her vehicle choice! It must be MURDER!!!

Grow Up!