BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

THIS IS NOT RIGHT!

Not even criminal negligence? Amazing.

The DA must believe (and perhaps they're right), that a "reasonable person" would not conclude that not watching where you're going could expose unknown victims to harm. Because, you know, a "reasonable person" would assume that everyone on or near the roadways is surrounded by a ton of steel and foam.

So. We have some sort of legal closure in both this case and the Mt Lebanon woman, and in both cases it's a slap on the wrist.

And a slap in the face to us.

So now it's time to go after and get the laws changed so DA's and LEO's can take serious action in these cases. Illinois did it this year - "Under the new law, drivers who intimidate cyclists could face a year in prison and fined $2,500. It goes into effect January 1st."

http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=43018

So what Mike Manko told us about working slow and not making a public deal about it was just another politician lying to our faces.

What's next are they going to add cyclist to the hunting season calendar? sure it's 500$ for the hunting permit but you don't have to worry about size limits. you can even bag a little one We don't care.

Yes that last bit was supposed to over the top and nasty. I'm really pissed off right now.

Is anyone actually surprised? (sigh)

I'm not surprised in the least.

I can't say I'm surprised either but it's still ridiculous.

I guess if you see a car is going to hit you, your best option is to shoot the driver in self-defense? Of course that only helps if you see them first. Or maybe as long as you're playing with your shoe you can shoot a driver at any time?

Salty - there was a Monroeville case where a driver did, indeed, try to hit a cyclist and the cyclist wounded him with a pistol. The cyclist went to jail for a few years - IIRC, he's still in prison.

Three things jump out at me:

First: "We would not be able to sustain our burden based on the facts." -- This does not sound like "lying in our faces." That sounds like legal reality: it comes down to what they can PROVE.

Second: "Having a 17-year-old kid thrown in jail for an accident is not what we want. Don wouldn't want that either." -- This does sound like the family did not want prosecution, which is what I had heard from neighbors who know flip-flop boy's family.

Third: "Prosecutors said the driver, now 18, could face a summary offense of careless driving with unintentional death." -- sounds like lesser charges, probably with a lower threshold of proof. (Which also sounds like exactly what happened: careless driving with unintentional death.) Sounds like that may result in SOME type of consequence (obviously, I'm not an attorney).

Boils down to lack of ability to PROVE + victim's family disinclined to push for prosecution = lack of charges. But, DA may yet pursue the summary offense = stay tuned.

Doesn't make any of us safer. Doesn't make operators of vehicles more mindful of cyclists. Doesn't mean its quite time for torches and pitchforks.

what a bunch of bullshit. stu, you're totally right about both cases. when i heard about the mt lebanon jogger, i was way pissed that he was out of jail and back and school.

the rulings in both of those cases so far have just said to everyone that matters as serious as these are NOT actually taken seriously. if you're not behind a wheel, then it's not a big deal if you get hurt or killed.

i was GONNA ride my bike today but i'm not so sure about that. weather is nice and for some reason that seems to make people drive faster and more carelessly. i know now that if something happens to me and my fetus while i am riding or walking, there will be no consequences. is there something i don't know? it seems like less and less appropriate punishment is handed out. we see it in the news with these two cases. i see it in stores and restaurants... parents just let their kids do whatever and make up excuses for their bad behavior or ignore it. they raise little snots that get away with everything because there is no punishment.

I don't believe the flip flop story. I have worn flip flops for over 50 years and never had that happen to me once. What kind of flip flops were they that they got stuck? Prove to me the flip flops got stuck.( Personally, I thought they weren't allowed to wear flip flops in school. It was that way in my school district) And even if it was true, you should pay for the loss of life in some manner. It destroys an entire family.

This does sound like the family did not want prosecution,

The reason there is criminal law is because we recognize that these are crimes against society, not just against the victim or his estate. Otherwise we would only need civil law.

Or to put it another way, the driver and Don's family are not the only ones with a stake in this outcome.

Personally, I don't think jail is the place for traffic violators in general...however that doesn't mean that there would be no consequences.

License should be suspended for waaay longer than just 3 years. Should only be able to get it back after mastering an intensive drivers ed course. Maybe 10 years.

Steep community service + fines

I would really like to see comprehensive programming instituted where he would have to do a lot of volunteering with organizations that deal with traffic safety, children who have lost a parent or parents, drunk driving, just the whole thing so he would have an awareness of how far reaching his carelessness is.

This experience and it's consequences should become a part of him. Something that he will think of often and will shape him as a person. NOT something that he can for the most part just walk away from and bury in his past as he starts driving again at 21.

I think a good punishment would be for the young man to do about 500 hours community service with someone like bike pittsburgh. I agree that I dont think jail is the proper punishment. Education is.

Kathi, personally I think the flip-flop should have been a smoking gun. Whether it's true or not, the kid was dumb enough to admit he wasn't watching the road while he ran over and killed someone. It's negligent homicide, case closed - except apparently not...

There is no good punishment for taking someone's life.

Time to advocate for reform in the laws governing vehicles in the commonwealth.

Based on the moderate consensus here, we're looking for reform of summary offenses. With all the moaning around the state regarding overcrowded jails, this issue could be low hanging fruit for legislators looking for a feel-good, reform oriented, money saving, tough on crime vote.

Forget fines for killing people, put them to work through community service projects. Allegheny County is already working on such a program, right? Sounds like something the families might appreciate more than the 'eye-for-an-eye' option.

Ooo... gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there sloaps. The commonwealth needs money, I say up the fines for killing people. Given the age and (admittedly assumed) educational pursuits of the two drivers involved here, I think $25k is not unreasonable. It's just the cost of another year in college. Have a structured payback schedule like a loan, let the state charge reasonable interest based on assets or lack thereof (cha-ching). That can be the fine that keeps on teaching for years to come, unlike a college education, where the student stops learning after only 4 years.

While we're at it, why not restructure the fines to increase annually with some government recognized standard of living / inflation increase? That way what seems reasonable and steep in the 2010's stays reasonable and steep for years to come and doesn't become fodder for internet rage, like 1970's fines have become.

But I also think that community service is where the real learning will take place, and more is needed, so I totally agree with you there too.

The fine is punishment and revenue. The community service provides the "No, really, you will learn this lesson _good_."

@Lyle - Agreed. However, the wishes of the family of the victim are often taken into account at the various stages of the process - to charge or not, sentencing, etc. It is not always the determining factor, and the state (DA, judge) always has the final say, but the families wishes are one factor.

I guess a hole in the system in this case is, who represents cyclists? Clearly we as a group are an aggrieved party here - moreso than in the case of a car v. car case, right? Nobody needs to stand up for the other motorists. But because it was car v. bike, the result impacts all other cyclists.

So, how do we reform that? Who could speak for the cyclists in the process. I still hold out hope that the DA will exercise the summary offense against flip-flop boy, and the ride to the DA last month will not have been in vain. If nothing comes of that, then clearly that type of outreach will have been ineffectual.

I hope as many of you come to DuBois as possible.

I have just spoken to another TV station and they are going to try to cover the event, if there aren't any major catastrophes or fatalities. Nonetheless, we can shoot video and pictures and they will put it on the air. So that makes two TV stations up there.( WJAC and WTAJ) They both will also be doing preinterviews. If time permits, they will air the information on the Saturday news.I talked with the news anchor that called this morning and relayed the inequity of bike fatalities /accidents. I used the information that you posted on dropping a wrapper or passing a red flashing school bus. It just so happens her husband is a cyclist and she is a runner. I also told her that drivers are not automatically given blood alcohol/drug tests when there is a death such as Don Parker's or my brother's accident.Did they do one on flip flop boy??? They didn't do one on

Scott Sago.I also mentioned drowsy driving, which she never heard about.

I also called Channel 4 and they will try to put it on if pictures or video are taken.

They suggested that I call Paul Van Osdol or Jim Parsons, who are investigative reporters, who just might want to look into how cyclists are treated.

The trouble with me .....is that while I am very ill and can't do much, my head still wants to be active...........and I can type and send emails.

Kathi, that's not a trouble with you, that is awesome Thank you for putting your precious energy to such good use.

Thank-you!! If I am stuck at home, then I need to feel like I am doing something positive and still contributing to society. I think one has to deal with the circumstances they are in and go from there. If I can do some good by typing and emailing, then that is the avenue I must utilize at this point in time. I can accomplish what others don't have the time to do because of their

business and daily schedules. I like this phrase by MLK .... Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere........ So with that in mind, I try to determine what I can do with the cards I am dealt.

Although I see some of you feel the family is not pushing for a stronger conviction. Understand our hands were tied because of him being under age. Unfortunately for us when you are under 18 you are protected by law. I don't agree with this but that is the law. Even filing a wrong full death suit solves nothing at his age. All it will do from what I have been told is prevent him from buying anything in his name. Sure this would inconvenience him but nothing more. He would just purchase any large items in his family or spouses name.

What needs to be done is better laws passed to protect the innocent, stronger conviction to those who break the laws. And less crooked lawmen lining their pocket protecting the guilty.

@Aleen Mary, I agree with everything you say.

You have suffered a loss and have had the fortitude to come to terms with it. I can only wish that I can display such forbearance should a similar tragedy befall my own family.

But the biking community is in need of some actual closure on this event. (The judicial system has decided to not provide it, for what appear to be sensible reasons.) Don Parker is yours, but by virtue of his cycling he is also ours.

You have to understand that bikers see this as a direct attack on their continuing safety: is it really ok to kill someone just because they're on a bike? Many of us wonder about this every morning when we get on the bike to go to work. Why do we have to think about this, over and over, every day? It's not right.

The killer is no longer a child, he is of age. Why has he not stepped forward and offered a public apology? How can you kill another human being and be silent about it?

Is the driver being punished at all? Is he still allowed to drive?

@Tabby: This experience and it's consequences should become a part of him. Something that he will think of often...

I have no doubt that it will, but that's not my concern.

The justice system is considered to have three related objectives: Retribution, Rehabilitation, and Deterrence. I think it wildly fails at Rehabilitation, and I have philosophical objections to Retribution, but I am very concerned about Deterrence.

After a wonderful mind clearing ride on Sunday, I have come to the following conclusion. Based on available evidence, i.e. 2 experienced cyclists, riding carefully and legally, being killed in the area in the past year, and as far as I know, no helmetless hipsters being killed, riding safely and legally is a poor course of action for staying alive. So my recommendation is, be an asshole out there, it is better to be visible, demanding a place on the road, and pissing people off, than allow yourself to be invisible and be killed. It's the new American mantra - the assholes get their way.

Lyle, system failing miserably at deterrence as well.

Who knows if he is being puninished or not. Seems those in charge and investigating say what you want to hear and do damn well what they please. Remember flip flop boy lived in Fox Chapel and where does the DA live??? Right Fox Chapel. Sounds a little fishy to me.

Did you guys not see that he IS getting points on

his license?

...sorry

I think responsibility is far more effective than punishment. The victim had three children. I think if the driver was forced to enter into a life-long "sentence" of being involved with the kids (e.g. mentoring, spending time, coaching their soccer games), then the education will truly begin. I'm not sure why such a "Christian" based government/society is so quick to lock up (and away) those that brake the rules; it seems far more productive to learn from our mistakes. But then again, privatized prisons are big business.

Points off his license. So he can still drive with no further instruction. That's smart.

Hate to rant here, but...

People go to jail, get medicated, etc., etc., because it's quicker, less cumbersome and allows people to detach themselves from extremely difficult situations.

Nobody likes getting 'hurt', and we've crafted a civilization based on avoiding the extreme highs and lows - for better or worse.

Couple that with a nation founded on low voter turnout, and viola!

After being intentionally squeezed into a parked van on Butler St in Lawrenceville on Saturday morning, I admit I reacted poorly and became an asshole. I took the entire lane at a leisurely speed, intentionally pushing passing motorists completely into oncoming traffic (if there was any, otherwise they passed just fine, in the other lane). I got honked at, screamed at, revved at, everything short of bumped or intentionally hit. It's my goddamned lane, you can have it when I'm done with it.

Funny, other than wondering if someone was going to shoot me or pull over and beat the crap out of me, I felt completely safe - any "accident" would have had at least a dozen witnesses and taken place at MY pace - 10-25 mph.

The place I felt most vulnerable? On the shoulder of ARB. Even if I edge into the lane (which I have to do for debris), or take the whole lane (HA! even I don't have the balls for that) people go too fast, don't look up, veer a little, I'm dead. Just like Don.

Unless people are given a reason to look up and pay attention, they will not do so - there's over 100 years of distracted drivers proof of that. Thus we need to either become so numerous we are universally watched for, or the penalties are both so harsh and well known that we are watched for.

How many more of us need to die before somebody else realizes there's a problem?

(Non-sarcastic question)

Does anyone know how many cyclists have been killed in PA so far this year?

And how many drivers were brought up on charges? (Either real or bs [ie: points]).

Been discussing this a lot lately and I'd like to have my facts straight.

Unfortunately the wheels of justice move way too slow.

I wonder if these idiots behind the wheel of a couple ton killing machine realize the danger they put the bicyclist into as they speed along.

I'm not surprised about the final verdict from the DA's office regarding the 'facts'; but that doesn't mean it makes any of it right....

I'm with ejwme and nevlin on this: for this young ass-whipe to pay more than $500 stinking dollars on fees, and for him to do over 500hrs of community service at High Schools and Bike-Related activities.

Gotta say,..... I'm in the middle of getting again very pissed-off at this, or very sad..... and I think that sadness is winning this time. This whole debacle only does a disservice to cyclist's rights and safety on the road. So far weather you are under age or not, flip-flops or not, under the influence or not, if you kill a cyclist or a pedestrian in your car, you're free to go.....

Not only is the system deficient, it seems to protect their stupidity by protecting the guilty.....

What a shame....

@ejwme How many more of us need to die before somebody else realizes there's a problem?

Virtually all media in his country is supported by the auto industry. This includes PBS which gets money from the Ford Foundation and various oil concerns.

As a consequence, the car-related carnage will always be underreported.

In September 2001, there were about as many people that died in terrorist acts as there were that died in car accidents.

Anyone who's taken Josephine st down to SS from Arlington can tell you that there's really no safe place to be passed on that street, as it's too curvy and winding. Yet, this morning, a car tried to pass me several times (without success). I wish people would use their god damned brains - if I'm in the middle of the lane, I feel completely unsafe allowing you to pass right now, and I will move to the shoulder when it's a bit safer.

Ever have someone try to pass you when you're going down a hill that has a stop sign at the bottom? I looked the driver in the face and said "That IS NOT safe." I'd hope that most drivers are as sensible as this guy was and would back off.

Sorry for the mini rant, but I just got out of a conversation with my roommate who means well, but doesn't understand somethings - "Maybe riding on the sidewalk should be allowed, because then fewer cyclists would be hit by cars." That might be true, but it would take way too long to commute, and pedestrians would be the ones in danger at that point.

Anyway, I'd also like the know some statistics on careless drivers/charges/etc.

Even filing a wrong full death suit solves nothing at his age. All it will do from what I have been told is prevent him from buying anything in his name. Sure this would inconvenience him but nothing more. He would just purchase any large items in his family or spouses name.

So if you file a civil case against the driver for wrongful death, it means nothing since he, personally, may have no assets in his name (beyond any car insurance payouts)? They aren't allowed to garnish future wages or anything like that, since the kid is 17? If that is the case, our legal system needs serious reform, for both criminal and civil courts.

Hiking Perrymont to get to my bus this morning, I noticed that a neighbor's fence got taken out in the last 36 hours by someone who ran off the road on a curve. Had I been going the same way as traffic, on a bike, or walking to my bus as I was doing right at that moment, I would have been killed.

How often do accidents NOT happen (aside from things like busted fences) because someone is not paying attention, and/or going too fast on a curve?

What's worse, I've nearly been taken out several times directly opposite this broken fence, on the INSIDE curve, because motorists take that curve so tightly.

I think the only reason Don Parker/Dr. Varacallo events don't happen more is because there are so few people brave/stupid enough, like me, to actually TRY to walk/bike along these roads. (Both of those incidents occurred in suburban territory.)

Things might be getting better in urban areas, but out here in the suburbs, it's still pure hell.

@bikeygirl, etc.: I don't think this is the FINAL ruling from the DA: "Prosecutors said the driver, now 18, could face a summary offense of careless driving with unintentional death."

Stu - I agree. Both concentration of cyclists and slower traffic serve as protection in the city. Slow(ish) motion rage may not be fun, but it's not blind distraction at high speeds.

I always forget that the polite and happy novelty "Hey, a cyclist!" that I get mostly on suburban roads can just as easily be a shocked and incredulous "What did I just hit, a cyclist?!"

The difference is the angle of the drivers' head for a split second, nothing more.

ALMKLM - What I meant by "lying to our faces" was when we were told "don't expect anything soon as we usually move slow on these things and if we do move on it dont expect it to be made public".

from the don parker memorial ride thread

"- The DA's office only received the case in the last "10 days or two weeks or so", and is still investigating. The local LEO and County police may have completed their investigations, but the DA's office has only begun looking into it. He emphasized how slow the legal process works.

- If the driver was issued a ticket, that is a summary offense issued by the local LEO's and has no bearing on the DA's investigation.

- He could not comment on the status of the investigation, but he said that when the decision to press charges or not is made, it probably won't be well publicized. He did invite the community to check in every few weeks or so for a status update. There is a feedback link on the DA's office's website that will go directly to Mr. Manko."

from jhoffman

bold marks were added by me.

{added as an afterthought)

we just need tshirts saying

Yeah im an A%%hole

deal with it

that we can all wear as we take the lane and force people to realize we are out there.

@stu - no doubt about it being hell in the suburbs. when i lived up there, I rode my bike to north park once and that was enough for me.

this reminds me of dr. foran - who was killed by a car near north park in 2005, although i don't know the specifics and there's not too much on the net about it. do you know any more details?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rider-killed-in-pennsylvania

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05227/554191-122.stm

@rubberfactory - i absolutely do not believe riding on the sidewalk is safer. the problem is when you come to an intersection you'll be more difficult to see and more susceptible to having a car turn into you. plus you're in conflict with all of those pedestrians who definitely don't expect you to be there and aren't looking for you, and the speed differential between you and them is similar to that between you and a car.

I also don't believe that it is. I'm not sure where I was going with that. Something about people who mean well, but can't be swayed.

So if you file a civil case against the driver for wrongful death, it means nothing since he, personally, may have no assets in his name (beyond any car insurance payouts)? They aren't allowed to garnish future wages or anything like that, since the kid is 17? If that is the case, our legal system needs serious reform, for both criminal and civil courts.

if driving is a privilege and not a right, and minors are not to be held responsible for their actions, then minors should not be allowed the privilege of driving. anyone who operates an automobile should be just as responsible as anyone else who operates one. that minors might not be considered as responsible means to me that they're not ready for the responsibility.

abbreviated version: that's bullsh*-.

^+1 Well put HV.

here's an idea - he's a minor, so his parents are responsible for him, right? Garnish his parents' wages and assets. Maybe some additional parenting will take place if it the responsibility is financially explained.

Ugh. I've been away from the computer for the past few days and I'm just finding out about this now.

What a shame. I completely agree with HV, it should matter his age--old enough to drive is old enough to be accountable.

I have been talking with Dan W about registering FOC as a non-profit, with one of the the ultimate goals, offering a scholarship to high school students through an essay/project contest about safe and responsible road use under Don Parker's name (with approval from his family of course).

I kind of feel like law enforcement has shown us that very little can be done about Don's death. To me, that means all we can do now is make the future better--what better way than to change the future but to go to the youth?

I think making FoC into a 501c3 would be a great next step since it's already been so successful at gathering people together for the fun of cycling.

Thanks, Tabby!

I am excited to get moving on it, but I am also in midst of starting a new business... We will see how fast this can be done.

I think there is a lot that can be done to bring some positivity out of this whole thing.

I haven't done the nonprofit thing before, but I'd be willing to help out if I can. I do work with nonprofits a lot and have sometimes seen the process of actually getting the status take a long time, but again as an outsider I'm not sure where exactly the holdup has been.

If you are interested I may be able to get you in touch with some of my friends (a pastor of my church) who has experience in setting up a not for profit.

If nothing else he can send you in the right direction.

I thought I had interesting points to make but I don't.

Be careful out there.

I emailed Mike Manko to see if he could provide any further information. This is his response:

"In its simplest terms, while the actions of the driver in this accident

were certainly careless, and he will be cited for careless driving, they

did not rise to the level of wrecklessness and negligence that would

permit us to charge him criminally. I know that in your mind and in the

minds of Don's other friends and supporters, the actions were wreckless

and negligent, but there is a different, and much higher standard that

we as prosecutors have to meet when dealing with a set of facts such as

this.

We have an ethical obligation to only move forward with a case if we

believe that we can achieve a conviction. There would be no way to

achieve a conviction in this situation based on the facts involved and

any criminal charges that we filed would be dismissed before they ever

got to trial.

I'm sure my answer is of little comfort to your group, but that's the

best way I can explain it."

so... What circumstances or evidence was missing? If he'd hit a school bus, or a child waiting at a bus stop, charges then? How many dead people in a single incident is required to reach that "higher standard"? Or how far over the speed limit does someone have to drive? How far off the road do they have to veer? How high a BAL? How heavy the machinery operated? Would a professional truck driver have been charged? Or if the kid were asleep at the wheel? What was missing?

I'm just curious where this theoretical limit is, because I can't for the life of me think of where it would be. At least he admitted that motorists who kill cyclists are treated to a different standard. The rest of his non-answer is as useful as a broken muddy stick, and about as placating as a broken muddy stick as well.

Hopefully the cars on the road respect Mr. Manko as a prosecutor with higher standards, and don't treat him like a cyclist. I only wish we could all afford such treatment.

Wow @ ej, perfect.

The word he wanted to use there was "reckless". "Wreckless" refers to the absence of wrecks, not the situation we had here.

Sounds like we need to reform the repercussions to "careless driving" so it stings when you're cited for it.

Currently, it's up to 90 days in jail and 3 points.

Key phrase: "There would be no way to

achieve a conviction in this situation based on the facts involved and any criminal charges that we filed would be dismissed before they ever got to trial."

All the rhetorical what-ifs don't apply here. If they can't prove it, it doesn't matter.

Is it justice? No. Is it fair? Probably not. But it's reality. And in my humble opinion, it's not about bicycles. If flip-flop boy had hit a car and that driver had died, it would be the same deal. The fact that Don Parker was on a bike is beside the point here.

I think is "flip-flop" boy hit a 10yo kid at a bus stop and killed him it would be different.

Though, it's all rhetorical.

I absolutely agree with this point, Hidden Variable: "if driving is a privilege and not a right, and minors are not to be held responsible for their actions, then minors should not be allowed the privilege of driving. anyone who operates an automobile should be just as responsible as anyone else who operates one. that minors might not be considered as responsible means to me that they're not ready for the responsibility."

==HiddenVariable: "if driving is a privilege and not a right, and minors are not to be held responsible for their actions, then minors should not be allowed the privilege of driving."

Well said.

My personal view is that I'm not looking for prison time for flip-flop boy. I don't think that serves the public interest well. What I am looking for is a serious, long-term ban on his ability to operate motor vehicles. He has clearly demonstrated that he, personally, cannot be trusted with one. Period. This isn't even about punishing him. It's about protecting everyone else from him.

An OK response by Mike Manko. Bottom line is the laws need to change.

If he was in his yard shooting a gun and his flip flop distracted him causing him to shoot someone in the head..

What do you think would happen then?

It's a direct parallel

If in a lawn chair, manslaughter. If on a bike, no charges.

What if it were a bike cop?

Here's the statute on reckless driving:

http://www.paticket.com/75_PA_C_S_3736.html

And here's the one for careless driving:

http://www.paticket.com/75_PA_C_S_3714.html

I agree that given the current law, a charge of reckless driving probably wouldn't hold up.

Also, while I agree that a minor who drives should be held to the same standards as an adult, it seems the kid's age wasn't relevant to the prosecutor's decision not to pursue criminal charges.

It looks to me like the situation with a gun would be similar. Wikipedia's article on manslaughter says the least serious type "occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability." Merely wearing flip-flops while holding a gun might not be a sufficient degree of negligence.

"You can kill anyone you'd like as long as you have a stupid excuse & it looks like an accident". It's an unsinkable defense.

Nick D.....Bossanova

If you are planning on setting up a scholarship in Don's name you might want to contact the Allegheny Alliance Church in the North Side Don belonged to. He was and elder there and they might want to assist in helping set such a scholarship up.

So they are saying there is no evidence to support reckless driving? Where's the evidence to support cautious, attentive, careful driving?

Seems to me like there's a lack of evidence on both sides, save THE DEATH OF A MAN AT THE HANDS OF THE DRIVER. MR. PARKER IS THE EVIDENCE. Unfortunately he can't stand up in court as such, apparently. Apparently being on a bicycle on the shoulder is akin to jumping without warning into speeding traffic in the eyes of the law - Unavoidable. Tragic. Whoopsy.

I'm sorry, I just can't find a way to explain myself without being so blunt. I'm afraid this will just result in my degenerating into making ruder and more inflammatory comments, so I'm pulling out of the discussion.

I do not see ANYTHING acceptable about Mr. Manko's response, but if I'm the only one, I'll shut the hell up.

Meanwhile, Reed Bates gets charged with reckless driving, pays a fine and serves jail time for riding his bicycle in the road. And he didn't kill anyone. Didn't even maim them, not even a tiny bit.

Mind you, that was TX but TX is a lot more like Pgh than Cambridge is.

@ejwme You are certainly not the only one. I've been quiet on this topic since the second memorial ride, but I am profoundly disappointed by the response.

My disappointment, though, is more focused on the system rather than Mr. Manko or the DA. Their response of careless driving fits based on the current definitions, but those definitions are flat out wrong.

(It certainly would show a bit more concern over the situation if Mr. Manko had at least proofread his email, though.)

"Merely wearing flip-flops while holding a gun might not be a sufficient degree of negligence."

But it was the willful decision to attend to the flip flops while continuing to fire the gun that was the problem.

If I continued to fire a rapid fire weapon at a shooting range in a controlled and repsponsible manner then decided to adjust my flip flop while still firing, spraying bullets off to the side and killing others in the area..... it would be my willful decison to continue firing (or driving in case you miss my point) that caused the death of anonther person who was safe before my willful decision.

I realize I take my life in my hands when I ride on roadways, and continue to hope the drivers around me are paying attention. I also hope that if they are not, and I am killed or injured as a result of their decison to operate ther vehicle in a reckless manner, that they will be dealt with in a swift and just manner. And not just chalking my up to death or injury to another instance of mere driver carelessness.

Littering is careless (I believe a $300 fine) while operating a motor vehicle (or firing an automatic weapon) and deciding to ignore which direction it takes for a brief period of time is reckless and negligent.

Sure, but perhaps this was more like tripping on your flip-flops while holding a gun, and it goes off as you fall.

We don't know exactly how the flip-flop problem led to the crash. Is it possible he tried to move his foot to decelerate, felt it wasn't moving because it was stuck somehow, and looked down to fix the problem? Perhaps the flip-flop issue meant he wasn't in full control of the car at that point.

If that were the case, he screwed up by wearing the flip-flops, but didn't willfully continue driving right at the moment of the accident.

Remember, for criminal matters the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt". To get a conviction on the "he willfully kept driving once he noticed the problem, and that was reckless" theory, the prosecutor has to show that the accident couldn't have happened as above. He'd have to show that the driver really was in control of the car at that moment, despite the flip-flops. Maybe he can't prove that.

I've never believed the flip-flop story. Texting, or some such is more plausible. Either way Don is gone, and justice has not been served. Same in Mt. Lebonon, DuBoise...

Did he have a sandal over his eyes? Stuck in his steering column? Lodged in the part of is brain controlling motor functions? I would find it hard to prove his DIDN'T have control of the car.

I rather like helen's analogy.

A motor vehicle is a deadly weapon. Maybe this is the point that is lost on prosecutors, LEOs and legislators. At any point along a roadway, you endanger someone the instant that your attention is drawn elsewhere, for whatever reason.

That busted fence on Perrymont the other morning continues to haunt me. I'm on that road, walking or biking, twice a day. When's my turn?

re: "I would find it hard to prove his DIDN'T have control of the car."

Well, there are only 2 options, a. he didn't have control of the car and hit the man as a result of negligent driving or b. He did have control of the car and he hit him intentionally. I don't think anyone claimed a mechanical failure. You only need to prove one. What did I miss?

Was there a drug / alcohol test done?How about a hari analysis?? That can ever be done now. We all know wealthy kids have money to buy drugs/alcohol. That is common knowledge..........was he tested??

Maybe this all make sense to the police, but to me it doesn't. Flip flop error does not make sense to me.

Just a couple of simple questions:

a) how many cyclists must die by 'stupid ass drivers' for the law to change?

b) how can one/me/us try to get better-responsive laws that protect cyclists, and that broaden what should definitely be considered careless/reckless driving?

I'm so upset at this, a part of me wants to do some 'guerrilla style' shaming on this issue, but that would only hurt our cause.... arghhhhhh

@bikeygirl - a) only one if the cyclist has insurance,

b) be willing to buy vehicle operator insurance.

I hate being the "devil's" advocate but lobbyists control legislation - professionally. Cyclists need power (ahem... money) in order to achieve change.

Sorry, what does having insurance have to do with cyclists getting killed?

a) I have auto insurance and if someone hits and kills me, their insurance pays, and my underinsured motorist coverage pays the wrongful death claim by my heirs. I guess if insurance companies pay out enough of these claims, they might advocate for stronger laws to protect cyclists, but I don't really anticipate that happening. "Bike insurance" probably isn't going to be much different, if that is what you are talking about. Many more motorists are killed every year in cars... insurance companies seem content with raising rates, rather than trying to change laws.

b) I already have a driver's license to operate a vehicle, would there be a bicycle endorsement on that?

Give more money to the advocacy organizations already in place. They can use that money to hire lobbyists and advocate for stronger laws.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is an independent, nonprofit, scientific, and educational organization dedicated to reducing the losses — deaths, injuries, and property damage — from crashes on the nation's highways.

The Highway Loss Data Institute shares and supports this mission through scientific studies of insurance data representing the human and economic losses resulting from the ownership and operation of different types of vehicles and by publishing insurance loss results by vehicle make and model.

Both organizations are wholly supported by these auto insurers.

It sounds like their goal is to make drivers safe; but it is also clear that an additional benefit to that is they pay out less money.

Therefore, they protect their insured.

And this is just one group. Imagine the ones that lobby for mandatory seat belt use and air-bags being standard.

Someone on another thread mentioned getting cyclists elected to public office. Start paying attention to how bills get created and come to be laws. You might not be the candidate or future elected official, but you just might be part of a staff or advisory team.

In most states (PA included) your auto insurance protects you from injury from other automobiles while you are a pedestrian or cyclist. Even if you aren't insured, the driver that hits you is most likely insured, and their insurance almost always loses money in that scenario. It seems it would be in their best (financial) interest to protect the vulnerable road users as well.

I guess I should have just stated my point. The number of policy paying automobile drivers farrrrrr outweighs the number of "non-paying" cyclists. This is an industry that is fueled by numbers. The safer they can make driving appear, the more people will drive.

If the penalties for these accidents get higher and higher on the criminal side, the payouts on the civil side will get higher and higher. I would think they would try to control that.

But I have been wrong before.

@ morningsider It sounds like their goal is to make drivers safe; but it is also clear that an additional benefit to that is they pay out less money.

If it is supported by insurance money, you can count on the "additional benefit" being the driving force.

As morningsider points out in another post, the insurance agenda is to minimise payouts. That is not the same as saving lives.

More bike riders means less car drivers and hence fewer deaths, yes. But also fewer auto insurance customers. Which side do you think the insurance companies would choose?

I'm guessing the insurance companies are not our friends.

It would seem that if the insurance companies had serious motivation to reduce deaths, they would be opposed the auto companies loading up cars with massive entertainment systems, in car computers, whatever. I have not heard of this being the case.

more expensive car = more expensive insurance

I don't think they actually care about reducing deaths. If driving got too safe, people wouldn't feel the need to buy insurance. Yeah, there's a law, but not in every state, and even then, people skimp. What they want to reduce is any unpredictability of who will be responsible for outrageous settlements. If they can accurately predict who is going to cost them money, they can charge for it. (To within the limits of political acceptability, anyway -- which suggests they probably have a motive to reduce the variability of risky driving.)

Again, I don't want to explicitly slander an entire industry, nor do I pretend to know exactly what their intentions or goals are. I was merely pointing out that they have the power because they represent a huge number of people that pay them money every month for the privilege of driving. In order to change the system, cyclists need that kind of representation. Honestly, if cyclists were putting up that kind of money, we would have our own infrastructure and we could make our own laws.

Um, wouldn't the Parker Family have to file a claim against flip-flop boy's auto insurance?

They don't even want him prosecuted.

Did they ever check to see if he was texting/talking at the time of the accident?

Just a hunch, the LEO in Indiana Twp no more did that than the LEO in Sandy Twp checked sobriety. Not that it mattered. It's not illegal (yet).

No one of the Parker family said they didn't want him not to be punished in some way. According to the law they would not charge him with any thing more than carless driving which incures at the most a five hundred fine and points on the license.The magistrate would be the one to decide this. As long as the person pleaded guilty there would not be any opportuity for the family to come face to face with him. Knowing that they didn't find him guilty of any thing more than careless driving I would have liked to see him lose his license until he was at least 21. What you would like and what the law will do are intirely two different things. Apparently though it looks like he is going scott free. Do I like this?? Absolutely not but my hands are tied.

As far as an insurance settlement, that had to take place between my daughter-in-law's attorney and the insurance company.

I understand there was no cell phone on the site of the accident, if there was one and he ditched it who know.

The way I see it if by some chance there is someone you hate and while they are walking along the road "accidently" swerve and hit them then say you blacked out for a moment, sneezed, or some other silly excuse and you can get off scott free and eliminate that person you dislike so much. Of course being under age seems to be a good excuse too.

Pathetic. This kid should never drive again, and should have to bike to school/work! I really wish the DA's office would stand up. "Couldn't sustain their burden of proof"? WTF do they mean.

@Aleen Mary.... this whole situation is just NOT fair

Perhaps we should check with Kathi regarding her conversation with her PA state representative Anthony DeLuca no believing that drivers can go scott-free of charges after killing someone on their bike.... this trend SHOULD not continue anywhere, and we should at least voice our concerns in this State.

http://bike-pgh.org/bbpress/topic/anthony-deluca-doesnt-believe#post-50984