# Cyclist killed in Orange county VA.



## prschatt

I know this road, low traffic, country road, hard to miss someone riding a bike.....

A car struck and killed a 15-year-old Orange boy on his bicycle Sunday 
just south of the town of Orange.

According to State Police, Stephen Caleb Smith was eastbound on Monrovia 
Road when he attempted to turn left on Kerby Drive. A 50-year-old woman 
eastbound in a 2003 Chevy Impala struck him from behind around 2:10 p.m.

Sgt. Les Tyler said the driver tried to avoid the teenager by merging 
into the other lane. Smith was pronounced dead at the scene.

Tyler said Smith was wearing headphones and "that may have intervened 
with him hearing the vehicle coming up behind him."

According to Virginia law, it's a violation to wear headphones while 
operating a vehicle - even a bike.

Trooper S. J. Riddle responded to the call. No charges were filed.


----------



## filtersweep

No charges? If the driver says she tried to avoid the cyclist--- even if it was a kid wearing headphones, that means she saw the bike. This blows my mind.




prschatt said:


> I know this road, low traffic, country road, hard to miss someone riding a bike.....
> 
> A car struck and killed a 15-year-old Orange boy on his bicycle Sunday
> just south of the town of Orange.
> 
> According to State Police, Stephen Caleb Smith was eastbound on Monrovia
> Road when he attempted to turn left on Kerby Drive. A 50-year-old woman
> eastbound in a 2003 Chevy Impala struck him from behind around 2:10 p.m.
> 
> Sgt. Les Tyler said the driver tried to avoid the teenager by merging
> into the other lane. Smith was pronounced dead at the scene.
> 
> Tyler said Smith was wearing headphones and "that may have intervened
> with him hearing the vehicle coming up behind him."
> 
> According to Virginia law, it's a violation to wear headphones while
> operating a vehicle - even a bike.
> 
> Trooper S. J. Riddle responded to the call. No charges were filed.


----------



## prschatt

My thoughts as well, especially knowing the area and riding it 4-5 x/week you have a mile visability on most of the road. Scroll a few miles to the right to Monrovia road, it's plain to see it's a straight open road.


----------



## cpark

What a shame.
No matter who's fault that is, it won't bring back the boy.
My heart goes out to the family who have to bury their child....


----------



## California L33

prschatt said:


> My thoughts as well, especially knowing the area and riding it 4-5 x/week you have a mile visability on most of the road. Scroll a few miles to the right to Monrovia road, it's plain to see it's a straight open road.


 If you're from the area you might want to take a few pictures and drop them by the District Attorney's office. Unless the bike swerved in front without giving her any chance to avoid him, it should be prosecuted. My heart goes out to the family, but the idea is to prevent this from happening again. We've got problems with sometimes hostile cops who are all too willing to believe anything the only survivor says. I particularly dislike the driver saying she tried to 'merge' around him, implying that she didn't even use her brakes. In California the law is clear, though often ignored, overtaking vehicle is required to pass safely.


----------



## varoadie

That is is a very sad story and I pray for the child and the childs family. The case needs to be investigated further. I ride the county roads in Virginia and hope that every car that overtakes me sees me and every other cyclist and passes safely. I wear bright clothing and use one of those super bright Planet Bike blinkies and I'm still scared someone won't see me. This is another eye opener. Be safe.


----------



## wim

Below is a slightly different report on this accident. I assume the writer made a mistake when he wrote "oncoming vehicle" in he first sentence.

But what bothers me more about this report is that the statement from the driver is presented as a fact, a reporting pattern I see and hear more and more in the media. Except for the last sentence, the entire second paragraph reads as if state police Sgt. Les Tyler witnessed the accident and is relating a true account of it. But the second paragraph clearly is the _driver's_ account of the accident—which may or may not be true. In my view, it's more than just harmless sloppy writing. It allows the casual reader to immediately shift the blame to the cyclist because "the police said that's what happened." 

_" A 15-year-old Orange County boy was killed Sunday when he turned his bicycle into an oncoming vehicle, state police said. Stephen Caleb Smith was nearing his home on Kerby Drive about 2:10 p.m. when he was struck, state police Sgt. Les Tyler said. The boy was wearing headphones at the time. Tyler said it wasn't clear how much of a role that played in the accident.

Tyler said Stephen was heading east on State Route 612 when a 2003 Chevrolet Impala came up behind him near the intersection of Kerby Drive. Tyler said the driver, a 50-year-old Orange woman, moved to the center of the road preparing to pass the bicyclist. The boy made a sudden left turn in front of the car and was hit. He died at the scene.

The driver will not be charged, Tyler said."_


----------



## fabsroman

I am going to have to agree that the case needs to be investigated further. If it turns out that the kid suddenly turned in front of the car, then the lady shouldn't be charged with anything, plain and simple. Hopefully, there are other witnesses to the accident other than the 50 year old driver. Otherwise, we may never know what actually happened.

I am also going to have to agree that it is one sad day any way you slice it. A 15 year old boy is dead, regardless of who's fault it is.


----------



## bas

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=1745321

Hey, there is a 10 foot rise in the road and no bends!


----------



## fabsroman

Doesn't mean the cyclist didn't make a sudden left turn in front of the vehicle. Before I was born, my father hit a kid on a bike that was trying to cross the DC beltway. Back then, the beltway was nothing like it is now. The way my dad tells the story, 3 kids were trying to cross. The first two got across no problem. The third one didn't know what to do. My dad tried to go behind him, but the kid got off the bike and started retreating back to where he came from and my dad ended up hitting him. My dad spent days in the hospital visiting the kid and felt horrible about the accident. Sometimes, accidents do happen and people die. It is the people that are completely careless and the people that have malicious intent that I want to see rot in jail. I don't want to see a 50 year old lady rot in jail just because she killed a cyclist by accident, even if it was her fault. We all make mistakes and should have to pay for them, but you wouldn't want to spend 20 years in jail if you happened to run a red light by accident and you severely hurt or kileld somebody by accident. Now, if you mashed on the gas and ran that red light fast and clearly red and mowed down a pedestrian, then I think some jail time is in order.

Hell, I just read an article a couple of days ago where a father put his 2 month old baby in a mircowave and turned it on. The baby suffered 2nd and 3rd degree burns and had to have an ear amputated and the jury gave the guy 25 years, and he is eligible for parole in 12 1/2 years.

For me, it all boils down to intent and the level of carelessness.


----------



## bas

fabsroman said:


> Doesn't mean the cyclist didn't make a sudden left turn in front of the vehicle.
> 
> For me, it all boils down to intent and the level of carelessness.


If she slowed up and gave him 3 feet of room, then fine.. she did her duty.


----------



## fabsroman

I'll agree with that. However, how much does a motorist have to slow down from the posted speed limit? I have no issue with the 3 feet of room, just the subjectiveness of the speed.

Again, if he turned into her after she gave him enough room, I don't blame her.

What do you do to the guy that doesn't use a blinker for a lane change that causes a 10 car pile up with signifant injury? Does he go to jail?


----------



## prschatt

Well, knowing the area, and the people that drive that road, she was annoyed that a kid on the bike was there, tried to pass while "merging" into the other lane while he was turning into his road. He was ahead of the driver while turning. Outcome, Family devastated that their child is dead, and an impatient driver has to live with killing a kid. Funny thing is I mostly encounter farmers in trucks that wave, tractors that give a high sign, rarely see a car, and the occasional one that I do encounter is usually in a rush to get into town, with a horn-blow to get you into the dirt.


----------



## trekkie7

Speed kills - she had to be speeding. No mention though. Devastated doesn't begin to cover it...coming from the mom of a 14-year-old. Almost creamed by a truck on I-95 taking her to school this morning. Heart stopping! We all need to be more careful. See lalahsghost post on hostility towards cyclists...very appropriate.


----------



## JohnnyTooBad

By the stated location of the accident, I have to wonder if the kid wasn't taking the lane and started to turn left onto his street. The driver saw some kid on a bike in the middle of the road, went into the left lane to pass. The kid turned left and got smashed. Makes me wonder whether, if the kid had indicated he was turning and had been able to hear a car coming, it might not have turned out this way. If he had headphones on, and assumed there was noone around, he just turned left w/o warning, in front of her as she tried to pass.

Just a WAG, but if something like that were what actually happened, then I would agree that she shouldn't be charged.

however, if he was just riding along, and she was inattentive and hit him, while he was trying to keep tight, then she needs to be punished.

Either way, it sucks.


----------



## filtersweep

Would she have passed a slow car that near an intersection, even if the car was not signaling? Just asking.




JohnnyTooBad said:


> By the stated location of the accident, I have to wonder if the kid wasn't taking the lane and started to turn left onto his street. The driver saw some kid on a bike in the middle of the road, went into the left lane to pass. The kid turned left and got smashed. Makes me wonder whether, if the kid had indicated he was turning and had been able to hear a car coming, it might not have turned out this way. If he had headphones on, and assumed there was noone around, he just turned left w/o warning, in front of her as she tried to pass.
> 
> Just a WAG, but if something like that were what actually happened, then I would agree that she shouldn't be charged.
> 
> however, if he was just riding along, and she was inattentive and hit him, while he was trying to keep tight, then she needs to be punished.
> 
> Either way, it sucks.


----------



## fabsroman

We are doing a bunch of speculation on what the facts were. Sadly, we will probably never know what the actual facts were and who was actually at fault.

All this will do is make us, fellow cyclists, argue about it.


----------



## trekkie7

If you have kids, hug them a little tighter and longer tonight. Don't forget to say I love you. You never know.


----------



## kiwisimon

trekkie7 said:


> If you have kids, hug them a little tighter and longer tonight. Don't forget to say I love you. You never know.


If you have teenagers good luck doing that, but you can still tell them. "Be careful out there"


----------



## homebrew

A sad story to be sure. Is it in fact Va law to give 3 feet when passing a bicycle?


----------



## trekkie7

It's 2 feet, but the more room, the better. See Code of Virginia Online.


----------



## FRODO18

*caleb smith: a very special guy and a really great friend, we will all miss you RIP*

FABSROMAN...that is my friend you are talking about that way and i don't like it...saying you don't blame her for hitting him...i blame her...and your question "what do you do to the guy who doesn't use a blinker for a lane change?...i kno wat you do...wat you do is not hit him or just go around him...you honk the horn to let him kno you are behind him...sure he shouldn't have been wearing earphones while riding his bike, but she could have at least let him kno she was there...she was 50...im pretty sure she has been driving long enough to kno the rules of the road and what to do if that scenario ever came up. so i don't appreciate you talking like that about caleb :mad5: :mad5: :mad5: :mad5: :mad5:


----------



## fabsroman

FRODO18 said:


> FABSROMAN...that is my friend you are talking about that way and i don't like it...saying you don't blame her for hitting him...i blame her...and your question "what do you do to the guy who doesn't use a blinker for a lane change?...i kno wat you do...wat you do is not hit him or just go around him...you honk the horn to let him kno you are behind him...sure he shouldn't have been wearing earphones while riding his bike, but she could have at least let him kno she was there...she was 50...im pretty sure she has been driving long enough to kno the rules of the road and what to do if that scenario ever came up. so i don't appreciate you talking like that about caleb :mad5: :mad5: :mad5: :mad5: :mad5:


Exactly what way was I talking about your friend? Was I putting blame where blame might have been warranted. You might not appreciate it, but if the fact of the matter is that he turned into the vehicle approaching from behind, then that isn't really the 50 year old lady's fault. The report also says she tried to avoid him by merging into another lane. People make mistakes all the time. Sometimes, they get lucky and it isn't a deadly mistake. Sometimes, they don't get lucky. Post the police report and pics of the intersection, and I'll give you my further opinion based on more evidence.

Next, how does an approaching car let somebody know that they are behind him when the rider is wearing headphones? Did you check out his MP3 player right after the collision to see how loud it was set? Was this stated in the police report? Do you even have a copy of the police report?

Your 5 faces of breathing fire aren't doing anything to help your case. Be as mad at me as you want to be. Sometimes, the truth hurts. If you have additional facts to show that this lady was indeed at fault and/or that your friend wasn't at fault, I am all ears.

My training partner from the 80's lost his father to a negligent driver that ran his father over in a merge ramp. So, I know it hurts emotionally. In that case, it was clear cut that the driver was negligent because he was only looking backward for approaching traffic while he was coming down the ramp and trying to merge and never saw my buddy's dad in front of him. Plus, my buddy's dad was riding as far right as possible. I am sorry for your loss. However, that still does not change the facts of the matter or the responsibility.

We all need to be very cautious while we are out riding. Sometimes, I listen to music while out riding, but the left ear bud is cut off from the earphones so I can never be charged with riding with headphoneS on, and more importantly, I can hear approaching traffic out of my left ear.


----------



## MisterC

When something like this happens to someone very close to the victim, people react how they react and you have to try to be a little sensitive to that fact. Objectively, of course, if you step in front of a train it's your fault but it's hard to imagine this scenario could not have been avoided if either party had acted differently in some small way.

Was it her responsibility, under the law, to be more careful, maybe not. Should she suffer in jail because of this accident, probably not. But was it her fault, in part, it almost has to be.

But some sympathy for the driver might also be in order. I don't think I would be able to live with myself if I took a life even if someone ran a red light drunk in front of my car and I killed them. On Rt 100 near me police officers used to step out in the road to point out speeders to pull over until one day a poor girl was changing lanes hit one and killed him. No fault was assigned to her in the accident but she was burned at the stake around the water cooler and I'd imagine it haunts her to this day.

Things like this are gong to happen. Let's just hope the lesson lasts long enough in our minds to save a few lives between them.


----------



## fabsroman

MisterC said:


> When something like this happens to someone very close to the victim, people react how they react and you have to try to be a little sensitive to that fact. Objectively, of course, if you step in front of a train it's your fault but it's hard to imagine this scenario could not have been avoided if either party had acted differently in some small way.
> 
> Was it her responsibility, under the law, to be more careful, maybe not. Should she suffer in jail because of this accident, probably not. *But was it her fault, in part, it almost has to be*.
> 
> But some sympathy for the driver might also be in order. I don't think I would be able to live with myself if I took a life even if someone ran a red light drunk in front of my car and I killed them. On Rt 100 near me police officers used to step out in the road to point out speeders to pull over until one day a poor girl was changing lanes hit one and killed him. No fault was assigned to her in the accident but she was burned at the stake around the water cooler and I'd imagine it haunts her to this day.
> 
> Things like this are gong to happen. Let's just hope the lesson lasts long enough in our minds to save a few lives between them.


That part is about the only part of your post that I disagree with. If she was doing the speed limit, gave the riders ample room to pass the rider, and the rider made an abrupt lane change in front of her, it just isn't her fault. At least not according to legal theory it isn't. Same goes for when a child runs out into the road from between two parked cars where the driver has no chance to see the child until the child is right in front of the car.

Now, if the driver were speeding, inattentive, etc., then the driver would also be at fault. Since the driver in our case merged into another lane in an attempt to avoid the cyclist, it appears that she was paying attention to the road and attempting to pass with care. Without all the facts, it is rather hard to tell anything for sure.

It just sucks that 40,000+ people die on the road every year and their loved ones and friends have to suffer too. We should go back to horses and bikes, but then nobody would be able to attend out of town bike races.


----------



## MisterC

MisterC said:


> When something like this happens to someone very close to the victim, people react how they react and you have to try to be a little sensitive to that fact. Objectively, of course, if you step in front of a train it's your fault but it's hard to imagine this scenario could not have been avoided if either party had acted differently in some small way.
> 
> *Was it her responsibility, under the law, to be more careful, maybe not.* Should she suffer in jail because of this accident, probably not. But was it her fault, in part, it almost has to be.
> 
> But some sympathy for the driver might also be in order. I don't think I would be able to live with myself if I took a life even if someone ran a red light drunk in front of my car and I killed them. On Rt 100 near me police officers used to step out in the road to point out speeders to pull over until one day a poor girl was changing lanes hit one and killed him. No fault was assigned to her in the accident but she was burned at the stake around the water cooler and I'd imagine it haunts her to this day.
> 
> Things like this are gong to happen. Let's just hope the lesson lasts long enough in our minds to save a few lives between them.


I admit, under the law, she might have done nothing wrong. But hitting a cyclist who makes a sudden move is not the same as a child running out in the street except for the fact that someone has been hit by a car. A child is not a vehicle on the road and does not belong there in any capacity. A cyclist does.

What you are alluding to is a subjective understanding of the appropriate way to handle a cyclist on the road.

What I mean is, the incident could have been avoided by the driver. Let's say, to be extreme, that as soon as she saw the cyclist she could have stopped turned around and found another way home.

Now CLEARLY this is extreme and most no one would go to such lengths to avoid an accident. But logically, in any accident where a cyclist is struck from behind, the driver could have avoided the collision by being more cautious around the victim. The fact that most wouldn't go to such a length is exactly why we have certain traffic laws. They are to protect people in the unfortunate incident where negligence meets chance and creates a tragedy. Laws attempt, however poorly, to take subjectivity out of incidents like this for the simple fact that no one can operate in this world obsessed with making sure everyone around them stays safe at all times.


----------



## fabsroman

MisterC said:


> I admit, under the law, she might have done nothing wrong. But hitting a cyclist who makes a sudden move is not the same as a child running out in the street except for the fact that someone has been hit by a car. A child is not a vehicle on the road and does not belong there in any capacity. A cyclist does.
> 
> What you are alluding to is a subjective understanding of the appropriate way to handle a cyclist on the road.
> 
> What I mean is, the incident could have been avoided by the driver. Let's say, to be extreme, that as soon as she saw the cyclist she could have stopped turned around and found another way home.
> 
> Now CLEARLY this is extreme and most no one would go to such lengths to avoid an accident. But logically, in any accident where a cyclist is struck from behind, the driver could have avoided the collision by being more cautious around the victim. The fact that most wouldn't go to such a length is exactly why we have certain traffic laws. They are to protect people in the unfortunate incident where negligence meets chance and creates a tragedy. Laws attempt, however poorly, to take subjectivity out of incidents like this for the simple fact that no one can operate in this world obsessed with making sure everyone around them stays safe at all times.


We shall have to agree to disagree. I am pretty sure that a driver can exercise reasonable care in passing a cyclist without having to stop the car and go home or finding another route that completely avoids the passing of the cyclist.

Then, there are incidents where even though the driver is acting with reasonable care, there is still a collision. For instance, where the drive is in the next lane over, driving below the speed limit, and the cyclist decides to make a quick left without checking if it is clear. The driver's actions come down to 1) where they within the law and 2) would a reasonable person act that way.

I don't think anybody is going to advocate that the driver of a tractor trailer find another way to his/her destination when encountering a compact car on the road, or that the driver of a car find another way to his/her destination when encountering a cyclist or pedestrian on the road.

Again, it all comes down to the facts.


----------



## MisterC

Are you willing to admit that if the driver had never passed the cyclist at all that she would not have killed him? I'm going to assume yes. And if yes, then you don't disagree with me. You just refuse to connect the dots I guess because it opens up the possibility that maybe we should sometimes take responsibility beyond what the law requires.

Everything you said is obvious. Of course, of course, of course. We don't disagree on any of that.

But I promise you, no matter what the facts are, both parties could have avoided the accident and if that is true then there is some amount of responsibility that falls on both their shoulders.

As for my friend who died, I wasn't even there, but I still feel responsible. It is hardly "reasonable" for me to watch the people I care about every minute of every day but knowing that if I had been there I might have been able to stop it some how will haunt me until the very last. The words you use, "reasonable" "pretty sure", these are the grey areas of doubt where our humanity makes us question whether or not we could have done more to protect our fellow man. At least, I hope it does.

I think the reason your point of view bothers me so much is because it makes me think of people who are so sociopathically dedicated to their own infallibility that they routinely rationalize their recklessness and people suffer for it. Even if their recklessness is within the law.

I'd bet this women does feel responsible, even if she won't admit it and the law doesn't dictate it.

And if she doesn't then she is heartless beyond reason.


----------



## fabsroman

MisterC said:


> *Are you willing to admit that if the driver had never passed the cyclist at all that she would not have killed him*? I'm going to assume yes. And if yes, then you don't disagree with me. You just refuse to connect the dots I guess because it opens up the possibility that maybe we should sometimes take responsibility beyond what the law requires.
> 
> Everything you said is obvious. Of course, of course, of course. We don't disagree on any of that.
> 
> But I promise you, no matter what the facts are, both parties could have avoided the accident and if that is true then there is some amount of responsibility that falls on both their shoulders.
> 
> As for my friend who died, I wasn't even there, but I still feel responsible. It is hardly "reasonable" for me to watch the people I care about every minute of every day but knowing that if I had been there I might have been able to stop it some how will haunt me until the very last. The words you use, "reasonable" "pretty sure", these are the grey areas of doubt where our humanity makes us question whether or not we could have done more to protect our fellow man. At least, I hope it does.
> 
> I think the reason your point of view bothers me so much is because it makes me think of people who are so sociopathically dedicated to their own infallibility that they routinely rationalize their recklessness and people suffer for it. Even if their recklessness is within the law.
> 
> I'd bet this women does feel responsible, even if she won't admit it and the law doesn't dictate it.
> 
> And if she doesn't then she is heartless beyond reason.


You probably don't know anything about me, so I'll let you know I am an attorney/CPA. Might help you to understand how I am looking at this.

If the woman had not gotten out of bed that morning, it never would have happened either.

I still take issue with the part in bold. If a pedestrian were to jump in front of a bus doing 50 mph, would you still say that the bus driver killed that person? Me, I would say that the person that jumped in front of the bus, knowing full well that he/she was going to die, was responsible for that. Why would you put the responsibility on the bus driver who had less than a split second to figure anything out, much less stop the bus? Why is it the bus driver's fault at all if he/she is operating that bus within the laws of society? Should he too have stayed in bed such that it never would have happened.

My point is this. If this lady was as careful as reasonably possible, and the cyclist turned abruptly across her path without any warning and there was nothing at that point she could humanly do other than hit the brakes, then why attribute fault to her? Why even hold her remotely responsible since she was acting well within the law, was a cautious as a reasonable person would have been in her circumstance, and but for the actions of the cyclist, there would have been no collision whatsoever?

Yes, under the circumstances I just laid out, I would be completely sick knowing that somebody died. I would be second guessing myself like crazy. What I wouldn't want though is other blaming the heck out of me even though I was as cautious as I possibly could have been. I pass cyclists all the time around here and reduce my speed while doing so. However, I don't honk the horn because I know I get annoyed with that when I am out riding on the road. I also don't slow down to a crawl either when the posted speed limit is 50 mph. Imagine causing an auto/auto accident because I slow down from 50 mph to 20 or less, causing an accordion effect, possibly resulting in somebody swerving into oncoming traffic, and a death resulting from that.

We can debate this all night about who is and who is not responsible. We can set forth hypothetical after hypothetical. Ultimately, until somebody posts the exact facts related to this, which usually takes a trial in a court of law (which doesn't even ensure that all the facts come out), then we shall continue at this all night long.

The outcome definitely sucks, but until I hear more facts that would actually put the lady at fault, beyond merely waking up that morning, I am not willing to burn her at the stake.

Edit to add: Nice touch with the sociopath issue. I'll be the first to admit that I am not perfect and that anybody who says they are perfect is full of it. I also take responsibility for the things I do, good or bad. About the only thing that comes to mind is a Dependent Care contribution that I missed on somebody's 2008 tax return. They received a notice from the IRS with something like $100 in interest and penalties. After preparing their 2009 returns last year, I took $150 off the invoice for my error in the prior year's return. They wouldn't hear of it because I have been advising the husband for 10 years regarding his business and doing their taxes for the same amount of time. He and I go back as far as high school and I do tax returns and provide legal advice to his brothers and sisters too. He actually gave me a $50 tip last year because he said I charge way too little. I tried arguing with him about it for a couple of minutes and then figured what the heck. I just won't bill him for something down the road.

I usually follow the rules of the road. Stop on red before making a right turn. Stop at stop signs (the exception being pulling out of the pedal and actually putting a foot on the ground), and have not been pulled over since 1999.

Ultimately though, I will agree that most people in this country do not want to take responsibility for things. Then, you have their friends in a thread like this that want to heap the responsibility on the driver of a vehicle, when I have yet to see any facts that show she was responsible. *Show me the facts. What am I missing other than the fact that she got out of bed that morning.*


----------



## MisterC

I'm not attributing fault to her legally and I'm not burning her at the stake.

This debate started under the idea that if she isn't legally responsible then she isn't responsible in any capacity. I simply disagree with that notion.

The example of her not getting out of bed in the morning is exactly what I mean regarding irrational versus rational personal responsibility. Working back from that extreme its just an existential question about where we care about our actions and how they affect others and then yes, we can argue all night long about where that overlaps with the law.

Clearly I have a personal experience where I watched people I felt were truly responsible act as though there was nothing they could have done and lives were ruined in the aftermath so I'm sorry if I get a little hostile.

I have no legal background. I work in a bike shop.


----------



## MisterC

Well, other than she got out of bed that morning, she passed a cyclist at a speed sufficient to cause their death. Other than that, I have no idea. I know I can imagine many a scenario I encounter regularly where the law does not overlap with what I would view to be reasonable behavior.

But I also admit that every time I throw my leg over my bike I accept that my eyes are watching god as I ride on the shoulder of a major road. If someone falls asleep, loses track of what they are doing or outright decides they want me dead there is little I can do about it excpet hold my line and hope that people care enough about my life that they pay attention and take care. And if they want to account for wind gusts, pot holes and tire blow outs that might cause my line to take me in to traffic that would be cool. Although I guess they aren't _legally_ obligated.

And don't outright want me dead, of course.

I get what you're saying. You want to know exactly what happened before we pass judgement. But we'll never know what really happened since one of the witnesses can't tell the story of why they did what they did.

As a cyclist, I know what can happen that might throw me in to traffic beyond my control and they are few so chances are that this kid was just being reckless. But I'm the first to admit that this is all speculation.


----------



## fabsroman

MisterC said:


> I'm not attributing fault to her legally and I'm not burning her at the stake.
> 
> This debate started under the idea that if she isn't legally responsible then she isn't responsible in any capacity. I simply disagree with that notion.
> 
> The example of her not getting out of bed in the morning is exactly what I mean regarding irrational versus rational personal responsibility. Working back from that extreme its just an existential question about where we care about our actions and how they affect others and then yes, we can argue all night long about where that overlaps with the law.
> 
> Clearly I have a personal experience where I watched people I felt were truly responsible act as though there was nothing they could have done and lives were ruined in the aftermath so I'm sorry if I get a little hostile.
> 
> I have no legal background. I work in a bike shop.


You think you have watched some crap. Believe me, I have seen plenty of crap where people think they aren't responsible for their actions.

Probably the worst offender, albeit only involving property damage and nobody's life being ruined, was a client of mine that asked to borrow his friends motorcycle and promise to pay him for any damage. Guess what happened? He hit some gravel while riding it and totaled a 2 or 3 year old bike that was $11,000 brand new.

His reasoning for not paying for the damages was:

1) His friend should have had insurance
2) He offered to personally repair the bike after wrecking it, and he isn't a mechanic
3) A month or two later his friend was riding another bike without any tags on it
4) His friend has the money to cover the cost of the bike

The list went on forever. We finally agreed to settle the claim for $5,500 with a payment plan of $150 a month until the balance was paid off. My client didn't make a single payment.

I was just in Court for another case where the defendant owed my client $5,000. My client had actually written him several checks to loan him the money. The reasoning why he didn't owe my client was insane.

If I get into auto accidents and why the defendants aren't responsible, we would be here forever. So, I see the lack of responsibility that our society has, and I pretty much see it on a daily basis.

Thing is, I think responsibility in circumstances such as this boils down to the laws our society passes. Otherwise, it would be survival of the fittest with no laws at all. It is just plain hard to blame somebody if they were following the law and passing with care. They might feel responsible, and it might be tearing them up inside, but ultimately, they aren't.


----------



## fabsroman

MisterC said:


> Well, other than she got out of bed that morning, she passed a cyclist at a speed sufficient to cause their death. Other than that, I have no idea. I know I can imagine many a scenario I encounter regularly where the law does not overlap with what I would view to be reasonable behavior.
> 
> But I also admit that every time I through my leg over my bike I accept that my eyes are watching god as I ride on the shoulder of a major road. If someone falls asleep, loses track of what they are doing or outright decides they want me dead there is little I can do about it excpet hold my line and hope that people care enough about my life that they pay attention and take care. And if they want to account for wind gusts, pot holes and tire blow outs that might cause my line to take me in to traffic that would be cool. Although I guess they aren't _legally_ obligated.
> 
> And don't outright want me dead, of course.


You will get no argument from me on this one. I don't ride when it is really windy or raining. I don't trust people that much. If I have to avoid a pothole, I usually check under my armpit for traffic. I usually ride the same routes and know what the roads are like, so avoiding the potholes is pretty easy most of the time.

Ultimately, we just have to trust the people behind the wheel and in our society. Same goes for being in the car.


----------



## MisterC

fabsroman said:


> Thing is, I think responsibility in circumstances such as this boils down to the laws our society passes. Otherwise, it would be survival of the fittest with no laws at all. It is just plain hard to blame somebody if they were following the law and passing with care. They might feel responsible, and it might be tearing them up inside, but _legally_, they aren't.


FTFY

You're a lawyer? Why would you run to the extreme of anarchy if someone suggests that maybe we can be better than the laws that are currently on the books. New laws are passed for a reason and often that reason is to put legal responsibility on those responsible.

States everywhere are passing laws that forbid talking on cell phones while driving. Was it anarchistic to suggest that maybe people shouldn't talk on their cell phone while driving before it was a law? Searching for your ipod under the drivers seat while holding a latte and a donut and driving though a school zone isn't against the law. Is it anarchistic to suggest that people not do that now?

Do you see the divergence in what you say? Obeying the law and passing with care, two totally different concepts. If I want to go through my day and obey the law, I can do that clearly by knowing the law and it is easily referenced. But if I want to go through my day acting with care, how do I do this? Do I just keep obeying the law, doesn't that make what you said redundant?


----------



## fabsroman

MisterC said:


> FTFY
> 
> You're a lawyer? Why would you run to the extreme of anarchy if someone suggests that maybe we can be better than the laws that are currently on the books. New laws are passed for a reason and often that reason is to put legal responsibility on those responsible.
> 
> States everywhere are passing laws that forbid talking on cell phones while driving. Was it anarchistic to suggest that maybe people shouldn't talk on their cell phone while driving before it was a law? Searching for your ipod under the drivers seat while holding a latte and a donut and driving though a school zone isn't against the law. Is it anarchistic to suggest that people not do that?


If somebody testified in court that they were reaching for their Ipod under the seat while holding a latte and donut in the other hand that they were holding the steering wheel in and they hit somebody, that would be enough for common law negligence to hold them responsible. I believe there is something also on the books known as "failing to pay full time and attention to the road to avoid a collision", but don't quote me on that.

If there isn't something in the law to hold somebody responsible, then why are they responsible? If society doesn't say they are responsible, why should they be?

I'm not for anarchy. What I am saying is that if we did not have laws to shape our society and hold people responsible (e.g., tell us what we expect as a society), then it would be completely alright for somebody to punch somebody else in the face, until our society says that it is not alright.

Responsibility is defined by society. In Nigeria and elsewhere, it is perfectly fine for people to commit internet fraud. How do you hold somebody responsible for doing that when the laws say it is completely alright and their society condones it?

Now, we are getting into philosophy.


----------



## MisterC

Yes, after the fact, in the event of an accident. Cell phone laws are meant to encourage a certain behavior and educate and that is what I am talking about.

Fine, the judge finds that he was negligent for the donut thing. Does that relieve responsibility from the kid darting out in to the street? Legally the blame is on the driver and apprently legal blame can only be in one place.

Yes we have conveniently created loosely defined laws involving negligence and we have judges who get to decide if somoene was truly negligent or the victim of "new car smell". And that is exactly why laws and how they define responsibility are inadequate.

Maybe this woman is legally responsible and maybe she isn't. But just because they don't find her legally responsible doesn't mean she isn't.

I swear its like you are trying to make my points for me.

In the middle east it is perfectly legal to physically abuse women. Clearly encouraging them to, as a society, do less of that is putting them on a straight and narrow path to anarchy. But youre right, I do have a difficult time asking them to not torture people considering their society and laws condone it.

And who said you were for anarchy? Nobody said that. I argue that responsibility outside the law is not akin to anarchy and you acuse me of calling you an anarchist?

I guess I get why a supposed lawyer has a hard time thinking outside of a law book but I don't think its too big a stretch to see that just because something is allowed under the law doesn't make it right and just because society allows a certain behavior doesnt mean its citizens don't know its morally reprehensible.


----------



## fabsroman

MisterC said:


> Yes, after the fact, in the event of an accident. Cell phone laws are meant to encourage a certain behavior and educate and that is what I am talking about.
> 
> Fine, the judge finds that he was negligent for the donut thing. Does that relieve responsibility from the kid darting out in to the street? Legally the blame is on the driver and apprently legal blame can only be in one place.
> 
> Yes we have conveniently created loosely defined laws involving negligence and we have judges who get to decide if somoene was truly negligent or the victim of "new car smell". And that is exactly why laws and how they define responsibility are inadequate.
> 
> Maybe this women is legally responsible and maybe she isn't. But just because they don't find her legally responsible doesn't mean she is.


If the dollar amount in question is high enough, the plaintiff or the defendant can request a jury trial. So, a jury of his/her peers from the area where that person lives, will determine whether he/she was negligent and therefore responsible for the accident.

Then, there is something called contributory negligence and comparative negligence. I wrote a 10+ page paper on this stuff back in law school. Four states in the US still have contributory negligence, which means that if the kid is 1% at fault for the accident, he cannot recover for his damages. Same goes for the driver of the car. If he is 1% responsible for the accident, then he cannot recover for the damages to his car.

To describe comparative negligence would take forever. The short of it is that the trier of fact (i.e., judge or jury) gets to determine how much at fault a party is and then that party has his/her damage recovery reduced by the percentage he/she was at fault. In some states, if the person is over 50% at fault, then there is no recovery whatsoever allowed for that person.

So, in Maryland you had better be really careful about what you are doing, because if you are the slightest bit negligent and contribute to the accident, you get nothing.

When there isn't a law in place to cover something where society feels somebody should be held responsible and is getting off the hook, we usually pass a law. Walk into a law library and take a look at how thick the law books are.


----------



## MisterC

Damn slavery laws, child labor laws and women's rights laws making the books all thick. Who needs em!?

But I'm going to take your legal upheaval to mean that you agree with me. Your obvious disdain for the method by which these decisions are made points to the inadequecy of the system in implementing them.

The fact that the system changes at all is simple proof that you have to at least be able to think outside of the current rule of law in order to make a society better. Laws are a reflection of a society's values, not necessarily, indeed rarely, their actions. 

So, if you request a trial by a jury of your brightest and most thoughtful peers, you get that right? Every time? No matter how new the car that hit you was, right?


----------



## fabsroman

MisterC said:


> Damn slavery laws, child labor laws and women's rights laws making the books all thick. Who needs em!?
> 
> But I'm going to take your legal upheaval to mean that you agree with me. Your obvious disdain for the method by which these decisions are made points to the inadequecy of the system in implementing them.
> 
> The fact that the system changes at all is simple proof that you have to at least be able to think outside of the current rule of law in order to make a society better. Laws are a reflection of a society's values, not necessarily, indeed rarely, their actions.
> 
> So, if you request a trial by a jury of your brightest and most thoughtful peers, you get that right? Every time? No matter how new the car that hit you was, right?


I don't really have any disdain for our system and I think it does the best job keeping our society in check out of all the other systems out there.

The laws are ever changing because society is ever changing. For instance, 100 years ago there was hardly any, if any, laws on the books regarding vehicles, moving violations, compulsory auto insurance, etc., because there were hardly any, if any, vehicles around. 30 years ago there were no laws regarding the internet. Now, there are laws out the wazoo regarding the internet. 100 years ago, nothing regarding airplanes. Now, it is insane. As our society gets more and more complicated, it requires more and more laws. 100 years ago, people hardly knew what a car was, and if you told them that they would eventually be able to take a phone around with them wherever they go, or something like a Blackberry or iPhone, they would think you were nuts. Heck, if you told 10 or 15 years ago that I could have a computer in my pocket wherever I went, I wouldn't have believed you either.

As far as the jury is concerned, you will have the type of jury that your attorney wants. For instance, in most personal injury cases, the plaintiff's attorney wants people that aren't educated and will go with their gut feeling of sympathy toward the plaintiff. That isn't always the case, but most of the time with personal injury cases, especially if liability isn't a given. So, the type of jury you get depends on what you are looking for. Now, if you live in a place where everybody is a moron, chances are you are going to end up with morons on the jury.


----------



## MisterC

Well christ, which side are you on Senator?


----------

