Ore. Bicyclist Charged With Manslaughter

breitbart.com ^ | 9/12/05

[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.

[L98Fiero]

"We have people in our town that ride bikes, but they are not stupid enough to ride on the county roads, and they are not arrogant enough to imagine that the world revolves around them"

Oh, the hypocricy in that statement. Pot, meet kettle.

[Glenmerle]

I saw a bicyclist actually stop at the stop sign.

Did you have a camera with you? :-)

[martin_fierro]

Chris Lightning

A none-too bright Lightning named Chris
did cycle in ignorant bliss;
he hadn't a plan
to run down a man;
His style was more Hit-a-Miss.

[-YYZ-]

I think your post makes some good points.

If you only drive and never bicycle, you tend to be oblivious to the realities of riding a bicycle on public roads. Like the fact that stopping at every stop sign kills your momentum, momentum that you have to build again with your own effort, not just by depressing the accelerator slightly (really makes you wonder about the laziness of those who blow stop signs and such in their cars).

I used to be one of the "bikes should not be on sidewalks" guys, too. But having gotten out riding (just for fun) again this year, I quickly realized that many roads just are not bicycle-friendly, and you're taking your life in your hands to ride along the side of them. Of course pedestrians have the right of way, but sometimes it's the best place for bicyclists, too.

My point? I don't think expecting bicycles to follow to the letter every rule of the road made for much heavier and faster motor vehicles is reasonable. Bicyclists usually just aren't moving that fast, and when you do get some speed up you don't want to kill your momentum by stopping if you don't have to.

BTW, I also ride a motorcycle. If everyone had to spend some time every year on bicycles and motorcycles I think there would be much better awareness of other road users and more consideration for other road users, also. Actually, that goes for pedestrians, too - many of us have little experience walking the sidewalks and streets that we drive and share with pedestrians every day.

[biblewonk]

I hate people who say hate all the time too.

[Calvin Locke]

I was listening to a NH legislator last year. He was trying undo a bill to be able to charge bike riders with OUI.

His reasoning is that it's safer overall to encourage drinkers to take bicycles, rather than 1 ton+ automobiles.

If the police are going to be able to charge you for being drunk on a bike with the same reprecussions as motor
vehicle (loss of license, etc), what's the point of not driving?

[TWohlford]

"Thirdly, and this is real important-you don't have one freakin' clue about the twits that use the AUTOMOBILE roads in my county and where most of them come from. Hint: Not my county or my state. Fact: These people are a menace. There are many bike paths that they could use, some very near, yet they persist on riding on roads that are NOT DESIGNED TO HANDLE BIKE TRAFFIC." Legally... and this is important here... these are NOT "automobile" roads. Cyclists have the same legal right as any other slow traffic, including horse buggies, tractors, etc. Worse yet, according to the Uniform Vehicle Code (meaning this is the law in all 50 states), cyclists get the entire lane if they need it. The law states, "As close to the right as is practical." "And this final note; We have people in our town that ride bikes, but they are not stupid enough to ride on the county roads, " If your local cyclists rode on the roads then they would soon train the motorists. And quite frankly, there is nothing better to ride on than country roads, give or take road rage from people who have a self-righteous attitude (shoe fits, wear it!). "Additionally, they don't drive their cars or motorcycles on the bike paths." See the law, dude. If you don't like it then change it.

[livius]

Yes indeed. Actually, it doesn't seem to bother the bicyclists much, but it makes my knuckles white on the steering wheel!

[garyhope]

I've had 4 bicycles stolen. 2 in LA and 2 in SF.

I like bikes and riding, but there are a lot of smug, self-righteous, holier than thou, fascist bikers out there that try and antagonize motorists.

I wish there were bike paths from one end of the country to the other so bikes and cars were separated. Then we could be happy.

[TWohlford]

"My point? I don't think expecting bicycles to follow to the letter every rule of the road made for much heavier and faster motor vehicles is reasonable. Bicyclists usually just aren't moving that fast, and when you do get some speed up you don't want to kill your momentum by stopping if you don't have to."

There is a vast difference between rolling a stop sign in a lightly-traveled area (where you can see for miles), and the crap I see cyclists doing on a regular basis: wrong way, no stopping, etc etc etc.

I've begged the local cops to give 'em tickets.

[livius]

Lights are just a minor irritation to most bicyclists. I get annoyed because they seem to follow absolutely no known rules of the road. Either be a pedestrian or be a vehicle - but bicyclists try to be both.

[TWohlford]

"I get annoyed because they seem to follow absolutely no known rules of the road. Either be a pedestrian or be a vehicle - but bicyclists try to be both."

That's the bad point... cyclists are ruled as both by the Uniform Vehicle Code. If you ride on a sidewalk then you're a pedestrian, and if you ride on the road you're a vehicle.

Unfortunately, many cyclists weren't trained to obey laws, or even what the laws might be that apply to them.

[-YYZ-]

Worse yet, according to the Uniform Vehicle Code (meaning this is the law in all 50 states), cyclists get the entire lane if they need it. The law states, "As close to the right as is practical."

That brings to mind another issue - bicyclists riding 2 or 3 (or more) abreast. Since bicyclists are subject to and given certain rights by the law, they should probably also abide by the law which almost every jurisdiction has saying that two vehicles may not share a lane except while passing - California being the exception, as lane-splitting is not expicitly illegal there. A group of bicyclists together should be riding single-file, I'm sure. Not so hard to get around on a narrow road that way.

[w1andsodidwe]

My point? I don't think expecting bicycles to follow to the letter every rule of the road made for much heavier and faster motor vehicles is reasonable. Bicyclists usually just aren't moving that fast, and when you do get some speed up you don't want to kill your momentum by stopping if you don't have to.

Right!!! Better that they kill some poor pedestrian, or cause a car to injury them. I personally would not be able to live with myself if I hit a bicyclist, but come on, either obey the traffic laws or get off the street.

[-YYZ-]

Oh, I agree. I just think we should cut them a little slack when we see them breaking the letter of the law but not riding in a reckless manner.

[mikrofon]

Chris looks like a good candidate for Geico bicycle insurance...

[biblewonk]

Our small town is invaded every weekend by hoards of spandex-clad, volvo-driving twits who DON'T live in or around our town, who could care less about what we think, and who are a constant danger to me and my neighbors who have to avoid them while we go about our business. They ride in the road, often refusing to move right. That causes people to have to pass. More than once, I have had these people swerve in front of me. Luckily, I am used to their arrogance and stupidity, so I normally avoid them. Someday, one of them is going to get me or one of my neighbors killed trying to avoid them.

Who cares what they wear? Your idea of caring what you think probably includes getting rid of their bicycles and you've already show what you think of their cloths so why should they care what you think. Ever try to share the road with someone that doesn't consider you to deserve to be on it? I thought not. It's much safer for a biker to take the whole lane and force you to actually pass correctly. More power to them.

Our roads, like it or not were not built for bikes.

Proving my point about how rotten it is to try and share the road with cars.

[wideawake]

I don't know too many people who head out to the bar saying: "I'll take my bike, because I intend to get too drunk to drive a car."

Additionally, it's much easier to operate a car while drunk than a bicycle - in a car you don't have to pedal or maintain your balance.

Drunks shouldn't be driving home, and they shouldn't be bicycling home either. They should be taking cabs.

[End Times Sentinel]

 bike on the sidewalks

I should point out that I'm in (South) Philadelphia and the laws here stipulate you keep it on the street if you're over six, so you needn't worry about me visiting your town and doing a "Night Train" lane on you.  I'm sure laws vary from locale to locale.

The worst offenders are the illegals who've recently infested the neighborhood.  I guess it's some cultural thing where it's so funny to go whizzing by my kids at 25mph.

Owl_Eagle

(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,

 it was probably sarcasm)

[alarm rider]

"We have people in our town that ride bikes, but they are not stupid enough to ride on the county roads, and they are not arrogant enough to imagine that the world revolves around them. Oh, the hypocricy in that statement. Pot, meet kettle."


Apparently, there are some here who are just not getting it, so let me boil this down.

1. The roads in question have no shoulders-the lanes are just barely big enough for the average car, they are two-lane roads and were not built with bicycles in mind. They were built for and by motorists. Again-THE ROADS ARE NOT BUILT FOR BICYCLES-BICYCLES ON THESE ROADS ARE DANGEROUS, NOT ONLY FOR THE BIKERS, BUT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO AVOID THEM.

2. The shell-heads in question have many alternative places to enjoy their "sport" that do not interfere with normal commerce or travel.

3. We are talking about a group of people here who could care less about the problems they cause to the people who have to use the roads. They are arrogant, stupid, careless and clueless. They show it in everyway possible.

4. The people in question DO NOT live nearby. They are not involved with the citizens of our little town. The locals know the score, and so they don't place themselves or others in danger.

5. It's only a matter of time before someone gets hurt or killed because these people will not stay off roads that are not meant for them. I hope it's not one of my neighbors, but having seen what I have seen these past years, it is more often the motorists who have to avoid the bikes than the other way around.

If that's pot-meets kettle, then so be it. It's our problem every single solitary weekend from April through November, and it requires that the bikers stay on the bike paths, and not on our roads. They are a menace and an accident waiting to happen.