1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
Kreb (Forum Supporter)
Kreb (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
9/28/21 12:22 p.m.

In reply to Toyman01 + Sized and :

What I "know" is that six cyclists were hit. It strains credulity to suggest that it wasn't largely the truckers fault.  As for the rest of what I said, I prefaced it with "what it sounds like", which is an admission that I do not in fact know for sure.   

Driven5
Driven5 UltraDork
9/28/21 12:29 p.m.
Toyman01 + Sized and said:

We have one side of the story. While there is a good chance the truck driver was being a dick, do we know he was breaking the law?

I know we're talking about Texas here, but presumably they do also have laws about reckless driving, reckless endangerment, criminal negligence, and vehicular assault.

Toyman01 + Sized and
Toyman01 + Sized and MegaDork
9/28/21 12:37 p.m.
Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Toyman01 + Sized and :

It strains credulity to suggest that it wasn't largely the truckers fault.

Having seen the common behavior of both road cyclists and coal rollers, my personal prejudice suggests both of them were idiots and both of them were at fault. They should both be punished and have their toys taken away. Since I don't actually know the facts I choose to keep my prejudice to myself and not call for blood on social media. The world would be a better place if more people would do that. 

 

Toyman01 + Sized and
Toyman01 + Sized and MegaDork
9/28/21 12:41 p.m.
Driven5 said:
Toyman01 + Sized and said:

We have one side of the story. While there is a good chance the truck driver was being a dick, do we know he was breaking the law?

Presumably things like reckless driving, reckless endangerment, criminal negligence, and vehicular assault are laws in most states.

So based on a Japolink article, you know for a fact that the truck driver is guilty of all of those? Or have you read something other than the posted article? I'd be interested in reading it if so. 

 

 

wae
wae UberDork
9/28/21 1:09 p.m.

That article does absolutely give the impression that the truck driver was acting with pure evil and malice and intentionally drove over six people while also trying to harass the larger group.  But there's a lot of bias in there.  Let's not forget that we're talking about a kid here with a not-fully-formed brain and a whole lotta truck underneath him.  I know that when I was that age it is only because God watches over fools and drunks that I was never in the news (by name, at least) for doing something stupid.  There were plenty of times where I exercised really poor judgement and it's a miracle that nobody got hurt or worse.  And I'm sure that every single person calling for this kid's head has had at least one of those times in their past.  I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a criminal investigation here, but there is space between negligence and overt acts and should be taken into account.  Unless the investigation shows that the kid really was trying to run down cyclists, in which case maybe trying as an adult makes sense.

Rons
Rons GRM+ Memberand HalfDork
9/28/21 1:10 p.m.

In reply to Toyman01 + Sized and :

 Posts above assume facts in evidence. Some facts from a case in BC - Sunday am driver comes up on a group of cyclists on River Road in Richmond BC between Westminster Highway and No. 6 Road. River Rd winds along the North Arm of the Fraser River. The vehicle struck and killed one cyclist.

Edit remove conjecture and add newspaper article

https://www.timescolonist.com/news/b-c/driver-who-killed-richmond-cyclist-given-one-year-ban-1-800-fine-1.23304890

jeffpdesign
jeffpdesign New Reader
9/28/21 1:14 p.m.

It looks like it was a 4-lane highway. When I see a slower vehicle in the right lane, I move over to the left lane to pass. I assume its my fault to rear end the slower vehicle(s) bicycle or Miata.  

pres589 (djronnebaum)
pres589 (djronnebaum) UltimaDork
9/28/21 1:23 p.m.

In before the lock, with an honest opinion; the kid is a terrorist.  It fits the definition of terrorism.  The first thing he seems to have asked is if he was going to jail when he got out of the truck.  This was harrasment gone beyond what he had intended.

Tom1200
Tom1200 UltraDork
9/28/21 1:50 p.m.

The problem here is we don't know all the facts: 

Yes on the surface it appears the truck driver should be charged but there a are a couple of things to consider.

I looked this up. Texas 551.103C you may ride two abreast as long as you don't impede traffic. Were the riders violating this rule? (We don't know)

Did the kid violate any laws; speeding, inattentive driving? (We don't know)

Once upon a time I was an avid cyclist and one of the things the community is bad at is taking responsibility for it's behavior.

On the surface it appears that the driver should be charged but again we do not know all the facts.

Did cyclists try to impede the truck because they were mad that he was being a douche? At the same time was the kid, as suggested looking in the mirror and laughing so he failed to see he was going to run down the cyclists?

All total speculation because we don't know all of the facts yet. 

 

 

Toyman01 + Sized and
Toyman01 + Sized and MegaDork
9/28/21 1:52 p.m.
jeffpdesign said:

It looks like it was a 4-lane highway. When I see a slower vehicle in the right lane, I move over to the left lane to pass. I assume its my fault to rear end the slower vehicle(s) bicycle or Miata.  

 In case you missed it earlier.

Quoting myself:  I have personally had road cyclists attempt to swerve in front of me to stop me from passing them on two-lane roads with no other traffic in sight. As I was fully in the other lane, if I had hit him it would have been his fault. Instead of passing him with 12' of clearance, I passed him at less than 2' at 60 mph, and the bow wave coming off my enclosed trailer blew him off the road and into the ditch. 

As did I when passing the cyclist I blew off the road into the ditch. Is it my fault he crashed? If he had come on across in front of me would it be my fault if I hit him? Actions like this are why I always run a dash camera. Not all the idiots are in cars. 

While I agree there is a fair chance the driver of the truck is the likely responsible party, I'll let the courts decide the truth based on the facts of the case instead of making a knee-jerk statement on social media. 

Welcome to the court of public opinion where everyone is guilty and  evidence doesn't matter - Drew Carey Whose Line - quickmeme

Driven5
Driven5 UltraDork
9/28/21 2:13 p.m.
Toyman01 + Sized and said:

So based on a Japolink article, you know for a fact that the truck driver is guilty of all of those? Or have you read something other than the posted article? I'd be interested in reading it if so. 

All I'm saying is that regardless of what happened between the coal rolling and the impact with the cyclists, the singular simple act alone of coal rolling the cyclists is substantial evidence of already having broken multiple laws, with additional levels of severity tacked on due to the end result being serious injury. That's not to say it isn't possible that the cyclists share some blame in escalating the final way the sequence of events unfolded, or perhaps even broke laws themselves, but does nothing to change that all indications are the the truck driver could easily be considered having broken multiple laws based only on the known portion of the sequence of events.

Reckless driving: Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. (A truck coal rolling cyclists)

Reckless endangerment: Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. (A truck coal rolling cyclists)

Criminal negligence: Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. (A truck coal rolling cyclists)

Vehicular assault: A person is guilty of vehicular assault if he or she operates or drives any vehicle:

(a) In a reckless manner and causes substantial bodily harm to another; or (A truck coal rolling cyclists with the end result being running into/over them)

(b) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, as defined, and causes substantial bodily harm to another; or

(c) With disregard for the safety of others and causes substantial bodily harm to another. (A truck coal rolling cyclists with the end result being running into/over them)

If you have read anything disputing that he ever coal rolled them though, I'd love to read it.

Toyman01 + Sized and
Toyman01 + Sized and MegaDork
9/28/21 2:58 p.m.

In reply to Driven5 :

Again you are stating suppositions as fact. 

You don't have any more information than I do but you are willing to throw down a guilty verdict based on a short, poorly written article. I sincerely hope you aren't a judge. You would make a great reporter though. laugh

Tom1200
Tom1200 UltraDork
9/28/21 3:14 p.m.

In reply to Driven5 :

So I will admit to being a bit contrary on this but how is coal rolling in and of itself reckless. One can coal roll someone by simply accelerating briskly, which in and off itself is not necessarily reckless.

Driving like a douche can be done in a completely legal manner.

 

Toyman01 + Sized and
Toyman01 + Sized and MegaDork
9/28/21 3:32 p.m.

So after spending the last 20 minutes looking for more information, I still can't tell you if the boy is guilty or not. There are zero facts available and only one possibly biased statement from a cyclist that was riding in a different group that was passed safely.

There are lots of news articles that are obviously more interested in sensationalism than facts though, so the "news" is staying true to form. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that most of us are spouting the same information.

I will wait for the local PD to finish their investigation.

codrus (Forum Supporter)
codrus (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
9/28/21 3:33 p.m.
Tom1200 said:

So I will admit to being a bit contrary on this but how is coal rolling in and of itself reckless. One can coal roll someone by simply accelerating briskly, which in and off itself is not necessarily reckless.

If you've got an LB7 that needs injectors it'll do that just by accelerating gently after it's been idling for a while...

The fact that the driver of the truck wasn't arrested at the scene suggests to me that it wasn't the open-and-shut case that the Jalopnik article seems to imply.

wheelsmithy (Joe-with-an-L)
wheelsmithy (Joe-with-an-L) GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
9/28/21 4:06 p.m.

 

84FSP
84FSP UltraDork
9/28/21 4:24 p.m.

Overall it is just sad - a dumb kid made a tragic mistake and some cyclists (unclear on anything in regards to their safety/intelligence of behavior) got seriously hurt.  I'm just glad no one was killed.  A 6K lb truck accelerating vs anything is a recipe for disaster.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
9/28/21 4:45 p.m.
wae said:

That article does absolutely give the impression that the truck driver was acting with pure evil and malice and intentionally drove over six people while also trying to harass the larger group.  But there's a lot of bias in there.  Let's not forget that we're talking about a kid here with a not-fully-formed brain and a whole lotta truck underneath him.  I know that when I was that age it is only because God watches over fools and drunks that I was never in the news (by name, at least) for doing something stupid.  There were plenty of times where I exercised really poor judgement and it's a miracle that nobody got hurt or worse.  And I'm sure that every single person calling for this kid's head has had at least one of those times in their past.  I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a criminal investigation here, but there is space between negligence and overt acts and should be taken into account.  Unless the investigation shows that the kid really was trying to run down cyclists, in which case maybe trying as an adult makes sense.

On the other hand, it is also a state where people had been known to shoot at cyclists on the road, IIRC.

 

It is easy to jump to conclusions before the facts are presented when there is a precedence of ill behavior.  That's human nature talking out our pattern-seeking-brain's asses.

jeffpdesign
jeffpdesign New Reader
9/28/21 5:02 p.m.

In reply to Toyman01 + Sized and :

We agree on cameras! Yay! I have a rear facing one on my roadbike. It's illegal in my state for a car to be closer than 36" when they pass me. And yes, it's legal for me to take a full lane.

Also, maybe you missed, it, but I never said anyone was guilty or innocent. Just that I pass on the left. 

Driven5
Driven5 UltraDork
9/28/21 5:59 p.m.

In reply to Toyman01 + Sized and :

I stated nothing more as 'fact' than you, as I have no real expectation of the guilt determining black-and-white 'facts' you seem to be looking for in situations like this. For instance, what you call a potentially biased statement by a cyclist that was passed safely, others would just as rightfully call your own potential bias discrediting an eye witness account from a cyclist that narrowly escaped serious injury. Which is more 'factual' is entirely open to interpretation of the the available evidence. 

 

In reply to Tom1200 :

A truck rolling coal is not in and of itself reckless. A truck rolling coal in close proximity to pedestrians, cyclists, and/or other motorists is.

preach (fs)
preach (fs) GRM+ Memberand Dork
9/28/21 6:09 p.m.
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

The fact that the driver of the truck wasn't arrested at the scene suggests to me that it wasn't the open-and-shut case that the Jalopnik article seems to imply.

This. Yet, he is 16.

All around a E36 M3ty story.

outasite
outasite HalfDork
9/28/21 6:15 p.m.

In reply to Tyler H (Forum Supporter) :

After riding on highways for 15 years I switched to bike trails in the early 2000s. Distracted drivers escalated with accelerated cell phone usage.

Tom1200
Tom1200 UltraDork
9/28/21 6:19 p.m.
Driven5 said:

In reply to Tom1200 :

A truck rolling coal is not in and of itself reckless. A truck rolling coal in close proximity to pedestrians, cyclists, and/or other motorists is.

I was speaking from a legal sense.

Driven5
Driven5 UltraDork
9/28/21 6:43 p.m.

In reply to Tom1200 :

So was I. 

Floating Doc (Forum Supporter)
Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
9/28/21 7:35 p.m.

Severe injury doesn't appear to be in question.  Nor is the intention of the driver to harass the people he hit, most especially if it's true that he made multiple passes.
 

Yet we're going to get into a dispute over whether the victims deserved to be hit by a truck based on unrelated personal experience with people on bikes. 
 

If that's your perspective on this, go ahead. Just don't expect me to agree with you. 
 

 

1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
Our Preferred Partners
8GTP41l3WICIx9mrm09PrGG74Dp16b6ht0LBJI9fXamjNvRakATrSqLXMhdkEEPF