LJWorld.com weblogs Rolling along

Posted by Andrew Hartsock November 17, 2008 at 7:56 a.m.

Grappling with the aftermath of cyclist's death

"No Justice in Douglas County," blared the Kansas Cycling News Web site."This is (expletive) outrageous," one cyclist posted to the Lawrence Bicycle Club's electronic mailing list.Reaction was swift and overwhelmingly negative - at least from the cycling community - to District Attorney Charles Branson's announcement Friday that criminal charges would not be filed against a motorist who allegedly struck and killed a Douglas County sheriff's lieutenant who was riding his bicycle.Quick recap: Back on June 28, Lt. David Dillon was struck and killed from behind as he was riding his bicycle between Lawrence and Eudora in the 1900 section of North 1400 Road (Old K-10) by a car driven by 21-year-old Kyle Van Meter, according to the Kansas Highway Patrol.In a news release, Branson said Van Meter admitted to being distracted by his radio and told authorities he did not see Dillon until he hit him.A highway patrol report said Van Meter, of Eudora, also was distracted by his cell phone.But Branson decided not to file charges against Van Meter, and, at first, my knee jerked as quickly as those who found the decision (expletive) outrageous.But the more I thought about it this weekend - and I thought about it a lot, fittingly just about every time I was on the bike - the more I softened.One the one hand, sure, it's galling a man can - however unintentionally - kill another with a car and suffer no legal consequences except for being cited for his traffic offenses.Legally, I've come to learn, Branson's hands were tied. The courts have established that mere negligence is not reason enough for a driver to be held criminally liable for the death of another. So while negligence may have been involved in this case, it apparently wasn't enough to warrant criminal charges. It's not a bias against bikes; case law on the subject has plenty of examples of car-on-car incidents.But even before I learned that, I found myself wondering if a long jail term would do anybody any good in this case.I've ridden my bike on that road many times, in large part because it's long, straight and flat and visibility is excellent. In other words, as a cyclist, I feel safe there.When I first heard of the accident, my first thought was, "That could have been me."But as I turned the latest development over in my mind over the weekend, I couldn't help but think I could have been the driver, too.Distracted by the radio? That's why they're in cars in the first place. Music and talk radio never made anyone a better driver.Distracted by a cell phone? I might be the only person I know who actually has pulled over to have a conversation on the phone, but I've also chatted as I've driven. And I'm not alone. I frequently count the number of drivers on their cells as they drive past me at intersections. Generally, the result is that half are on their phones.And if it's not cell phones and radios, it's meals or newspapers or makeup or : you get the idea. Everybody gets distracted by something, but fortunately the kind of accident that happened in June was a rarity.Should the driver have been put through the penal wringer? I honestly don't know.I think he could become an outstanding resource in the battle against distracted driving. Imagine the impact he could have if he had been sentenced to hours of community services, say, speaking to driver's ed courses about the dangers of distracted driving. There still could be a civil suit, too, so it's not accurate to say he'll escape without any kind of punishment.This weekend, as I mourned the death of a man I'd never met, I couldn't suppress a little sympathy for the man who killed him.

Comments

LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

  1. MeAndFannieLou (anonymous) says…

    Mr. Hartsock, you're a lot more charitable than I am. Driving is such an enormous responsibility, and people in general take it far too lightly. Sure, I'm occasionally distracted when I'm driving, as you say, but if I cause anyone injury, property damage, or heaven forbid, worse, I expect to pay the consequences. Heck, Ramona Morgan was "distracted" by the gangsters in her imagination and she didn't get off. That said, I don't think that prison time is necessarily the most appropriate recourse, especially in cases of negligence. Community service, temporaty suspension of driving privilege, maybe a hefty fine and/or retribution to the victim/victim's family, all seem appropriate.

  2. nobody1793 (anonymous) says…

    If the driver in this case had killed another motorist in the same situation, would there be the same level of outrage? Or a little grandmother in a crosswalk? Clearly all three situations would carry tremendously different levels of emotional response to the outside observer but an equally tragic outcome for the families involved. Likewise the cases involving the road construction worker and the head-on collisions on K10 evoke different emotions. I don't know the answer. It comes down to what the role of law should be: punishment, deterrance, correction, revenge, or some combination of all of them.

  3. JackRipper (anonymous) says…

    Why would we expect someone just being distracted getting hit with anything harder when you can be seriously over intoxicated and kill someone in your car and not be sent to do time. Happened many times in this area.

  4. MeAndFannieLou (anonymous) says…

    Nobody1793,Yes, I'm just as "outraged" (I feel more frustration than rage) when a motorist kills another motorist, for the reason I've stated above. I would just like to see us, as a society, start taking driving a lot more seriously. We've been too cavalier about it for too long.

  5. grimpeur (anonymous) says…

    MaFL and Jack,You got that right: http://www.kansas.com/news/story/5986...

  6. Roundup_Logan (anonymous) says…

    Well, it's a tragedy that anyone gets killed. But I'm also of the mindset that bicyclists that ride their bikes were cars drive are taking an extreme risk in their hands. That's why taxpayers have been spending thousands of dollars to accomodate the growing number of bicyclists to build bike trails. I believe there's one along side the Clinton Parkway in Lawrence. To me roads are meant for motorized vehichles. Period. In my younger days, I was taught to ride my bike on the opposite side of the road so I could see oncoming traffic. And never would I have dreamed riding my bike down a major state highway like they seem to do today. The majority of bike riders I come upon these days have little regard to whats coming up behind them and they ride out in the middle of the road just like a vehicle. Doesn't justify hitting them with a vehicle, but it puts both parties at odds with each other. I see a lot of riders on county roads with lots of hills where speed limits are 45/55 miles an hour. If I do the math right, I don't think a bicyclist can pedal that fast. So I'd say they should ride against the traffic and when they see a car coming, they should pull to the shoulder. Might make them want to seek out one of those wonderful bike trails and make the roads a lot safer for the motorists.

  7. JackRipper (anonymous) says…

    Wow Roundup, that is brilliant since our money goes to building and building more roads but doubt if you'll find many trails that will take you anywhere other then sightseeing. Bike transportation is one of the components that needs to be balanced into a new transportation plan for the country. And if you want the road to be safer for motorist you might want to start with the motorist since as we have seen many times even on a split multi lane road there are still fatalities and you might also want to get it out of your head that roads are not going to have obstacles in the first place. It isn't a race track so you will have to slow down and not think the speed limit is a speed you lock onto and it should be smooth sailing from there.

  8. Roundup_Logan (anonymous) says…

    Well JackRipper, I haven't seen too many people showing up for work in spandex pants so your argument that it's a form of basic transportation doesn't hold weight. At least not on the backroads of the USA. I don't see people commutting from Olathe to Lawrence to get to work on their bikes. I don't see someone going to the grocery store on their bikes. The majority of the cyclists I've come upon seem to be "sight seeing" and doing the "look at me I'm in my spandex pants" routine. And the motorists are the ones that pay the taxes. If cyclists want to ride their bikes on the highways, then they should have to get a tag, pay taxes and registration fees, and then there should be good old fashion laws that govern how they ride on the roads.

  9. JackRipper (anonymous) says…

    Ah well you know you might if people weren't so afraid to ride in the traffic. I agree most that you do see in the country are about being pretend racers and sometimes intentionally being jerks but to say biking isn't an option is to ignore that many are afraid to ride on the roads. It is entirely possible to bike from Olathe to Lawrence in a time frame that is reasonable, read biking sites where you'll find people who really do do it as a daily commute. And the part about the motorist paying for the road is bull. It isn't a road built by free enterprise where you actually pay for the cost of that road but instead a government program where money is taken from people consuming oil so it is based on a stupid premises to begin with. Now the government can do it any number of ways instead with tolls or just out of the general fund but it exists because that is how it was set up to exist! If we did start biking more we would also improve our help. Why is it that the two of the biggest problems we are dealing with, oil supplies and health not answered with simple solutions?

  10. Roundup_Logan (anonymous) says…

    JackRipper - hey I'm all for alternative means of transportation. Unfortunately, the infastructure we have now doesn't bode well for putting cyclists on roads where cars are big and speed limits are fast. My comment about registration would give cyclists some sence of responsibility while on the road. When I drive the backroads in the summer, I'm on constant lookout because the cyclists don't pay attention to the rules of the road. While there are speed limits, there is also speed minimums. Most cyclists can't peddle th speed minimums on the highways. A car going as slow as a cyclist on a hilly backroad is sure to be hit the same way as a cyclist would be.

  11. JackRipper (anonymous) says…

    So essentially you are saying you aren't for alternative options. If you don't want them on the road and there are no trails then that pretty much closes the door. I'd say we slow the speed limits down because if it isn't a bicyclist it could be a deer especially on the backroads you are talking about. I also take those roads and except for times when you get cocky groups who take the entire lane most cyclist I've seen are as close to the side as they can be. People driving cars just don't feel they should have adjust their speed and that can get them in other ways, like the deer. Just like the railroads were taxed to help build the airport infrastructure back in the 40's and 50's and because it can only happen with the government doing it we should it seems stop adding anymore road stock to the inventory and start building the alternatives.

  12. Roundup_Logan (anonymous) says…

    Guess we've moved a little off topic here. Anytime anyone gets hit on the road, it's a tragedy. In this case, it was an officer of the law and a young man. It's too bad there isn't any simple solutions that would make the roads more safe for everyone. Cars have become rolling entertainment centers. Bicyclists have changed the rules from 40 years ago and now compete with high speed traffic. Everyone who cycles on the roads and highways should be aware there is no crash bars, no bumpers, and no airbags that'll deploy if a car hits them. Me personally, I'll stick to the car on the roads and take the bike on the scenic routes where cars aren't allowed until something changes.

  13. Roundup_Logan (anonymous) says…

    JackRipper - it seems that "road stock" is the American way. We need roads for everything we do as Americans. We need them to transport goods and services to our homes. I can't see a subdivision being built without roads leading to the homes. Are you going to pull a car with all your furniture when it comes time to move in? Do you expect the repair man that comes to service your furnance to come riding in on his bicycle with a repair cart behind him? And how about the vehicles it takes just to build the homes themselves? When America decides to give up the suburb way of life and become city dewellers again, then maybe having downtown districts as "Bicycle Only" zones might become viable. Other than that, we have to come up with a compromise for "sharing the road". Making bicyclists take an educational course on riding on public streets, obtain a license to do so, and then adhere to the laws would go a long way in making it a safer place for both to co-exist.

  14. Roundup_Logan (anonymous) says…

    Next up - the special interest of the skate boarders, the soap box derby cars, the scooter riders, the louge riders, the tricycle riders, and the wheelchair riders community will all demand that the motorist beware of them too - for they have the same rights to be on the roads as the bicyclists along with the 80,000 lb semi trucks, the fast moving sports cars, and the big suburban SUV's. After all, these things all have wheels on them too so they're a means of transporting kids and people who don't have drivers license to and from where they want to get to.

  15. JackRipper (anonymous) says…

    Funny, we have licensing for people who drive cars and it doesn't seem to help a whole lot. Yes, thanks to the misguided efforts of the government we have created a monster, well above the needs of basic transportation if we knew how to drive and didn't build subdivisions miles away from anything else.

  16. Roundup_Logan (anonymous) says…

    For all those people that are compelled to ride their bicycles on the highways and hi-speed roads, I say this. Take your children and put them on their tricycles, let them ride down the side of the road where there is speeding cars. You expect it to be safe - so why not put your children out there. You want drivers to beware of all obstacles in the roads that were built for cars. So is this a place where you'd put your children? If the answer is no - then why would you expect it to be any safer for an adult version of the tricycle?

  17. JackRipper (anonymous) says…

    Well first off because you claim being a licensed driver makes you qualified to be on the road so if you were a person could ride safely along the side of the road but as this case shows people aren't interested in driving in the first place, they just want to get somewhere while blabbing on the phone, listening to music, etc so what we really need for all those people is a train or bus so they can let the professional be in charge. And would I let a child drive a car?

  18. Roundup_Logan (anonymous) says…

    JackRipper - case in point. There is no age restrictions on bicylists on the roads. You can be 3 or 90 years old. Doesn't matter. There is no laws that govern it. There are laws that govern behaviour behind the wheel of a car. So if you let a child drive a car, then you'd be breaking the law. Let a child ride their bike on the highway, and you've done nothing wrong. So why not let this little special interest group cowboy up, take a big girl pill, go pass a test, get a license, register their bike and get a tag, show a little responsibility?

  19. JackRipper (anonymous) says…

    Could it be that most also have a driver's license and already know the rules of the road? Again unless you are some kind of authoritarian to gets to determine how people get around shouldn't be advocating a real trail system throughout this country? We already have more then enough roads that we can't maintain because they are so huge so the drivers who have licenses but still can't drive according the the law have more leeway. Again, how about the bus or train being built too? Obviously way to many people only want to get somewhere and driving isn't high on their list of skills.

  20. JackRipper (anonymous) says…

    Well mooch I do have a vehicle, all paid off and properly insured plus I take driving very seriously. But problems aren't solved with a car, generally it only creates more. It is transportation, nothing more, so I can be transported many ways. So if I can get somewhere without the having to deal with a vehicle I'd be fine with that.

  21. Roundup_Logan (anonymous) says…

    So if there was enough support financially by the special interest group of bicyclists, I guess a trail system could be started across country. If there was a big enough public support for it, then the government could step in and assist. The license, registration fees charged to bicyclists could go a long way in maintaining it. Of course the fees would probably have to run in the 10 of thousands of dollars per year for registration because there is little to no support for such a thing. And the special interest group of cyclists only want access with no responsibility. They want to blame the motorist for being distracted, or for vering off center of the road, or for not seeing them. Most cycles I see on the roads don't have brake lights, head lights, reflectors, turn signals, etc. Running lights would be a nice feature to have if you're gonna ride on the public streets.

  22. JackRipper (anonymous) says…

    Oh roundup, when the car was first introduced not only was it a special interest but it was also a wealthy special interest since the majority of people couldn't afford a car. It is moving from the stage of hard heads to a balanced approach. And what about the health benefits from including more exercise instead of just watching other people play? And to make it easier change k-10 so one of the lanes is for car traffic and use the other lane for a train/bike route. And all taxpayer pay for the road and let's not forget all of the money spend maintaining, fire/medical, long term health care for those with serious disabilities from car accidents, the effects of pollution, the effects of sitting in a car and not getting exercise, etc, etc. We need a solution that is bigger then any one special interest group.

  23. Roundup_Logan (anonymous) says…

    Of course the trade off for being a safe cyclist with things like brake lights, head lights, reflectors, turn signals, running lights, etc. would be you would not look "cool" riding your bike. You'd be the poster child for safety. Kinda like wearing the helmet, spandex pants, cleets with bicycle shoes, knee pads, elbow pads, etc. You gotta have the "image" of being a serious rider. The heck with the safety stuff so drivers can see you better, you gotta wear the right gear and have that sleek designed bike to get you where you need to go. I'm sure the helmet and knee pads are just as safe as the running light theory I have.

  24. JackRipper (anonymous) says…

    Guess you haven't figured out yet that I'm not particularly impressed with the weekend spandex crowd who drive their bikes around on their cars. I'm talking about serious bicycle commuting. It is interesting that the places where this is big are in cold areas of the country then we are too. They learn to be adaptable and creative, skills that driving a car stifles.

  25. Roundup_Logan (anonymous) says…

    JackRipper - I smoke 3 packs of Marlboro's a day, pay for my own health care costs ({'m not insured), drive my trucks (I have a fleet of 4) over 300,000 miles a year transporting tools and work crews around the country. My men all smoke, we work hard, and we play hard. The hogwash about more excersise, less pollution, all that garb is just that, garbage. You wanna ride a bike on the street, then make it street legal, follow the laws, and be respectful of drivers. Most everyone has places to be and their time is just as valuable as yours. Roads were built for automobiles. Before there was cars, there was dirt roads. People road their bikes on dirt roads back then.

  26. JackRipper (anonymous) says…

    Ah yes, it comes out that you don't want to allow options. The health care costs over the years for smokers is quite high and taxpayers did get to pay for it, that's the reason the cigarette companies were sued by the states. You want to be allowed to smoke, drive big trucks, and some how think you are a safe driver when you don't realize bikes to have their own laws on lights and things and can be ticketed for not complying. Tell me that you have seen those without them but I see more cars that don't meet the standards set for them. There use to be inspections for cars in Kansas, let's bring it back. And you might consider being respectful to bikers. Just because you drive a big truck doesn't give you rights to disobey the laws and since your truck would cause a lot more harm then a biker that is the reason it has to begin with the cars. Sounds to me like you should be riding the bus.

  27. Roundup_Logan (anonymous) says…

    Jack, Jack, Jack - I don't drive a "big rig" - i drive F150's. They're the staple of my fleet. Did you know that obesity is a higher risk in the country than smoking? And I could go on and on about the anti-smoking camaign but won't. Let's just say OSHA has never set any standards for exposure because it's a farce. Back to the bike issue. I haven't seen ONE bicycle on the road that has a head light, tail light, turn signals, running lights just as required for motorcycles or cars I'm sure a bicycle running down the road with a running tail light would reduce their risk of being hit by a car versus the black spandex crowd with their black bikes, black tires, on a blacktop road.

  28. tvc (anonymous) says…

    Cyclists pay taxes. Why do you care? I am assuming the risk of being on the road whether it is in my car or on my bicycle. I have lights on my bike and signal the same way a motorist does if his lights are out or broken. The reason we wear the clothing we do is because it is designed for people that ride bikes not because we are trying to look more impressive than we are as a rider.

  29. Roundup_Logan (anonymous) says…

    Cyclists pay no taxes for the use of the roads with their bikes. There's no registration, no test to take, no tag to purchase, no restriction. Just look at the picture of the cyclists in the article. They all are wearing black, NONE of them have lights on their bikes. They all are riding out in the center area of the road. And that is the inherent problem with cyclists on busy streets. I'm all for cycling - it's a great American pastime. But you can't blame motorists for getting upset when everyone that rides a bike does nothing to adhere to the laws that govern vehicles on the roads. Slow moving vehicles are not allowed to just run down the open road without some kind of warning device visible to drivers. In days gone by - these riders would be riding into oncoming traffic. That way they'd see the cars and get out of the road to avoid being hit. I think that should be followed today even more. Cyclists would be less inclined to ride in the middle of the road if they were playing chicken with an 85,000 lb truck.

  30. tvc (anonymous) says…

    I pay sales taxes (wasn't question 1 for roads) and property taxes. Why do you want more government and more taxes? It is much safer for us to ride with the flow of traffic not against it. Are you asking combines to go against the flow of traffic so they can go into the ditch if a faster car is coming? Think about when you are making a left hand turn are you going to be looking for a cyclist coming from behind you in the opposite lane? Drivers and cyclists both do dumb things…we are all human. If a cyclist makes a mistake, it will be his life and if a driver makes a mistake, it will be the cyclist’s life. A cyclist can and should be ticketed the same as a driver if they are riding at night without lights. I am never trying to play chicken with a vehicle. I ride as close to the shoulder as is safe. In the picture you can see the white line, and they are not in the middle of the road.

  31. Roundup_Logan (anonymous) says…

    You cannot be serious about comparing a Combine Tractor to a bicyclist . . I do believe there is a size advantage to the Combine and it's easily seen by drivers. Plus Combines have emergency flashers and a large Slow Moving Vehicle reflector mounted on the back of their equipment. Plus I think we both know what the outcome would be if a car hits a Combine. The two cannot even be compared. The Combine is working the fields harvesting crops, the bike rider is out joy riding in traffic, kinda like playing Russian Roulette to me. Riding into oncoming traffic gives the cyclist a little responsibility to stay out of traffic and onto the shoulder. You say it's safer to ride with the traffic? Then why are we even having articles such as this in the newspapers? What you mean is it's easier to ride with the flow of traffic - not safer. Big trucks are easily swayed to the sides of the road with gusts of wind, same as an RV, or a pickup with a camper shell, or even a mid-sized SUV. This is Kansas where the wind blows all the time. Every motorcycle I see on the road always has a headlight on during the day and tail lights. Why would it be so difficult for the bicyclists to adopt something as easy as lights to make them more visible on the road?

  32. Roundup_Logan (anonymous) says…

    Every other means of transportation that's allowed on the streets has to conform to some type of laws except the bike riders during the day. 4 Wheelers have to have lights, dune buggies have to have lights, heck even a golf cart has to have lights - but no not the bike rider. And shame on the motorists for not seeing them. I'm more than willing to "Share the Road" if the bike riders are willing to adhere to some type of rules while they ride on the road. One being make themselves unmistakably visible to ALL drivers with the use of bright LED lights even during he daytime. Stay out of the middle of driving lanes when riding in hilly countryside roads, stop at stop signs, use turn signals to warn drivers, and be courtious by pulling off to the side to allow the normal flow of traffic to get by.

  33. tvc (anonymous) says…

    “unmistakably visible to ALL drivers”-- Why are there still car accidents? I obey the laws for bicycles. If you feel so strongly about this, maybe you should work with your legislators.

  34. Roundup_Logan (anonymous) says…

    You can't compare two car colliding with a bicycle and a car. And at least in a car accident - the chances are greater the drivers will survive because of seat belts, bumpers, built in crash bars in the chasis, air bags, and full surround protection of the vehicle itself. When you've got bicycles and cars competing, the bicyclist will always loose. The best case if for bike riders to make themselves highly visible if they want to ride their bikes in high speed traffic.That would reduce their risk factor.

  35. Roundup_Logan (anonymous) says…

    A car going 10 miles an hour that slams into a bike rider will more than likely kill the bicyclist. A car doing 5 miles an hour could do the same. The shear size of the car over the bike makes it impossible for the bike rider to be protected. So speed is irrelevant on the roads. Unless vehicles are mandated to only go as fast as a bike rider, then to me the only logic thing is to move the cyclists off the road onto the shoulder on designated roads. Not have a free-for-all attitude that puts both the cyclists and the drivers at risk.

  36. cozy (anonymous) says…

    Roundup_logan: "The majority of bike riders I come upon these days have little regard to whats coming up behind them and they ride out in the middle of the road just like a vehicle."I agree with you on this. They ride in a group in the middle of the friggin road! What is so GD hard about at least riding in a line if there are cars around...? You cant tell me that "bicyclists" (half of which probably wouldnt even be doing it if it wasnt made popular by their almighty Savior Lance) dont know that a car is coming and to have any common sense or respect to at least get out of the middle of the effing road! :) Maybe the spandex is too tight to think.

Reply 36 comments from Cozy Roundup_logan Tvc Douglascountysucks Jackripper and 4 others

Top ads RSS

Top jobs · Top rentals · Top transportation

Marketplace

CNN Mobile Pet Salons 785-766-8420

Find more businesses on Marketplace

Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services