Posted on 09/12/2005 10:11:00 AM PDT by paltz
A bicyclist was charged with manslaughter after he ran through a stop sign and struck and killed a 71-year-old woman, police said Monday.
Jean Calder died at Good Samaritan Hospital after she was struck Friday night as she crossed a street at an unmarked crosswalk, Corvallis police Capt. Ron Noble said.
Christopher A. Lightning, 51, was charged with manslaughter and reckless driving.
"A car and a bicycle are both vehicles and if they are operated in a way that could be criminal, then charges are filed equally in both situations," Noble said. "He was going right through a stop sign."
Lightning was being housed in Benton County jail with bail set at $57,500. He will be given a court-appointed lawyer at his arraignment in Benton County.
I don't know about where you live, but riding abreast is legal for motorcycles and bicycles here. I've been on group rides (motorcycle) where we've riden 60 bikes CHP style for hundreds of miles.
Wrong, bicycles have a right to LANE just as you do. You just have to wait for a safe and legal opportunity to pass, as you would any other type of vehicle moving slower than you. Bicycles aren't relegated to the shoulder.
2. The shell-heads in question have many alternative places to enjoy their "sport" that do not interfere with normal commerce or travel.
You don't get it do you. They have the same right to the road you do. If I decide to take my bicycle to the store, I'll take the roads that go to the store. Period.
Absurd laws.
I doubt your story.
A sobor horse would'nt bump people off the sidewalk no matter how drunk the rider was. To say nothing of knocking over displays. I smell a lying cop.
It may be a sport for the people you mention, but I ride my bicycle to work. In other words, cycling for me is a part of "normal commerce or travel."
I agree and I think I am going to get one of those bells on my mountain bike. It may look uncool to have one of those things on bike, but who cares.
You would still be superior to, and dangerous to, pedestrians. What are we doing to do about that? Wouldn't we have incidents of Path Rage? :-)
There is no evidence of it in this article, so it may not apply in this case; but, a lot of men who have lost their license due a drunk driving conviction are riding bikes to get to the tavern.
I family friend lost the right to ride a bicycle after being arrested for drunk driving a bike. He was put in jail after the arrest for riding drunk when he was forbidden to ride bikes.
In that particular case yes. Some roads are just not bikeable.
The pedestrians have no right to interfere with the normal commerce and travel on the bike paths! They're a danger with their garish "walking shoes." They don't obey the traffic laws. They come into my town, even though they don't pay taxes here, and they WALK AROUND. They should be forced onto special "walking paths."
I don't think he's arguing their rights. Whether they have the right or not, he contends it's simply dangerous for bicyclists to be on his roads.
Take the deceased in the article. The fact that she had the right to be in the non-crosswalk didn't keep her from getting killed.
I think a bell is a great idea! There are some bicyclists here who use them, and when I'm walking on the sidewalk or even hiking on a trail and a biker "jingles" behind me instead of tearing by, I really appreciate it.
But he's the one making it dangerous. It's like firing your gun randomly in all directions, then blaming the person you accidentally hit for being in a dangerous spot.
That's true, there is a lack of clarity in laws relating to bikes. I guess what bicyclists should remember is that they're heavier and faster than pedestrians, and can potentially hurt them; and that they're lighter and smaller than cars and can easily get hurt. I guess it's basically down to common sense and courtesy.
BTW, I do like a bell or some kind of warning when a bicyclist comes up behind me on a sidewalk. Bikes are very quiet, and if a pedestrian moves even slightly to the side without knowing the bicyclist is behind him, the results can be pretty bad.
He's probably of the opinion that they're the ones making it dangerous, or at least partially to blame.
The old lady crossed the street in the dark where there was no crosswalk. Sure, she had the right of way and the cyclist should have stopped for the stop sign. But, did she assume a stop sign is all it takes to stop traffic, or that all traffic has headlights and/or makes noise?
Really? Because if bicycles are "vehicles" most jurisdictions do not allow two vehicles to share a lane.
2. It doesn't matter how many wide. In an 11' wide lane, a single bike will take up 5-6' by the time you allow for a safe passing distance. That means, unless your vehicle is only 5' wide, you're gonna have to slow down, wait for traffic to clear, and make a safe pass. In other words, 1, 2, or 10 wide, you're gonna have to wait for oncoming traffic to clear.
OK, now you're just being silly. If I'm on a two-lane road with 11-foot lanes and there's one bicycle on the side I can ease over the centreline a bit and still leave enough room for an oncoming car to get by in a pinch. If they're taking up the whole damned lane then I have to use the entire opposing lane. Which might not be practical on some roads. You expect that car drivers should stay behind a group of slow moving bicycles for miles until a good passing zone presents itself, if one exists?
Are you sure it's legal, and not just accepted practice?
We have those here. They are called sidewalks. Sometimes bikes infringe on them. Cars, too!
Absolutely postive that it's legal.
A lying cop and a couple dozen or so pedestrians? Do you believe a bull could tip-toe quietly through a china shop? What is difficult to believe about a horse walking down a sidewalk that an evening dinner and bar crowd are trying to negotiate at the same time? The people are going to get displaced before the horse does and with less than 3 feet of sidewalk in most places (very old town) people are either ducking into stores or they wind up in the street.
Currently, there is a guy in Kentucky that has been arrested twice in the last year for DUI while on horseback and his case is.. or recently went through the judicial process. I don't know what the outcome was (if the case has wrapped up yet) but I'm sure you can google up that info. The incident that came to my mind happened 20+ years ago so I don't recall what the outcome turned out to be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.