More than two years later, details are starting to come out about the death of Alice Swanson as her mother talks to the media. WUSA 9 has some details about the driver, including the fact that he had had five tickets incidents in the months before her death and another one two months afterward (why was he still driving at that point?). He'd been convicted of drug offenses (plural) and deported. How does he get a commercial driver's license (or a job driving a truck without one)? How does he get to keep driving after getting so many tickets incidents in such a short span? Unfortunately the trucking company, KMG Hauling is not talking.
MPD didn't get back to 9 News either. Swanson's mother is unhappy with them for trying to blame the crash on Alice Swanson and for failing to give the driver a drug test. I think Metro's policy is to always test the driver after a crash, that should be the rule here in any fatality.
The driver, Marco Flores Fuentes, is apparently still driving.
We also learn that the civil case, which was settled for an undisclosed sum, was for $20 million.
Somewhat related, Kate Ryan has some stories on her site that she did for WTOP about the Stanton Miller investigation, but there's nothing really new there.
All of this has led P.J. Orvetti with NBC to talk about safety on the road.
Many cyclists do obey the traffic laws relevant to them, but some do not. And while many drivers respect the right of cyclists to share the road, some do not.
The burden must be placed on the motor vehicle operators, since their mistakes are more likely to lead to fatalities than a cyclist’s error.
Update: In the comments Alice Swanson's mother corrects the WUSA 9 story. The driver did not have 5 tickets but had been in 5 incidents. "To set the record straight, I didn't say the driver was "ticketed" -the driver had 5 "incidents" from 2/22/08 to 6/30/08 in DC. Two were for reckless driving, 3 for at-fault collisions. I don't know whether he was ticketed for any of these."
Given how hard it is to get any ticket for poor driving in the city to rack up 5 in such a short period is a real accomplishment.
It is curious how none of this is in the "accident " report yet it seem to find it pertinent to report on the fashion choices of the cyclist.
I think we all can now put "accident" in quotes now. To have allowed such a demonstrably poor driver to get behind the wheel of a large and dangerous truck is nothing short of manslaughter.
Posted by: JeffB | July 21, 2010 at 07:31 AM
The deported part is interesting. I hope this doesn't turn into a right-wing witch hunt against Latinos, since they get blamed for everything else.
Posted by: Chris | July 21, 2010 at 09:58 AM
@JeffB...
Good point. No word on the long history of shaky driving by the truck operator (leaving aside the drug charges), but MPD made sure to note that Swanson was wearing flip-flops...
Posted by: Dr Pangloss | July 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM
...though I don't think flip-flops are a terribly good idea to be riding with ...
Posted by: Chris | July 21, 2010 at 01:19 PM
"...though I don't think flip-flops are a terribly good idea to be riding with ..."
Not sure why not. Or do you think one shouldn't be allowed to ride the half mile to work unless they're in full protective gear.
You wonder why no one rides a damn bike in this country.
Posted by: Dr Pangloss | July 21, 2010 at 01:22 PM
No, I just think it's safer to be wearing something that grips the pedals better. Sorry if I offended.
Posted by: Chris | July 21, 2010 at 01:32 PM
Chris,
The term "witch-hunt" implies that no witches exist, and thus there is no real problem.
But in this country, there is an actual problem with people who are here sans papiers -- mostly from Mexico -- who think it is no problema to drive without licences, insurance coverage, and on occasion get plastered and run into other cars and pedestrians.
It's a standard cultural practice in Mexico to bribe the state equivalent of the DMV for a license and proof of insurance (or just to do without and bribe the police when caught). Why should we be surprised when they bring the same mentality northwards?
Santa Maria, CA just recently did a checkpoint on one of the busiest streets in town and caught two folks for driving under the influence and 22 vehicles driven by folks without licenses. Twenty-one of the impounded vehicles were driven by illegal aliens. (http://tinyurl.com/24jpzmo)
You can’t solve a problem unless you first identify a problem, and you can’t identify a problem if you are prevented from doing so by the dictates of political correctness. If going after people who could kill me on the road is a "right-wing witch hunt" then call me a member of the Inquisition.
What's the old saying, again? "If it saves just ONE life..."
Posted by: MJS | July 21, 2010 at 02:10 PM
Well, I would not be willing to trade my freedom to save "just one life." "Freedom isn't free" some like to say, and one price of your freedom is that you have to extend it to others.
Posted by: Washcycle | July 21, 2010 at 02:16 PM
Yes. Exactly. Thanks MJS for demonstrating the kind of thing I was referring to. I'm guess I should be grateful that the scapegoat is no longer the gays.
Posted by: Chris | July 21, 2010 at 02:25 PM
Even if your feet had combat boots on them, that's not going to prevent a truck from running into you while you're on a bicycle. People drive cars with flip-flops on. Get them to start wearing something else if shoes are a concern for you.
Posted by: Jan | July 21, 2010 at 03:32 PM
Wow, we're really touchy here about the flip-flops!
Posted by: Chris | July 21, 2010 at 03:44 PM
Flip flops are not a good idea on a bike: if your toe gets caught in the chain you are trouble. This happened to an acquaintance, who lost his big toe. He could not walk without special shoes after that.
Posted by: SJE | July 21, 2010 at 03:50 PM
To set the record straight, I didn't say the driver was "ticketed" -the driver had 5 "incidents" from 2/22/08 to 6/30/08 in DC. Two were for reckless driving, 3 for at-fault collisions. I don't know whether he was ticketed for any of these.
Posted by: Alice's Mom | July 21, 2010 at 04:26 PM
I'm sure the driver *wasn't* ticketed. That's a huge part of the problem. Here he's killed someone through negligence, and he didn't even get a ticket.
So sorry for your loss...
Posted by: Dr Pangloss | July 21, 2010 at 04:35 PM
Its easier to crash stop in shoes than flip-flops by dragging your feet is the point that I think people are trying to make.
If the driver had been deported once for drugs, the only way he was back here was as an illegal.....whats wrong with pointing out that if this country bothered to protect its borders Alice would be alive?
Posted by: think a little | July 21, 2010 at 05:22 PM
FWIW, the police report notes the flip-flops as part of a description, and then says "there was no indication that the unusual choice of footwear impeded the decedent's ability to operate the bicycle."
Posted by: Chris | July 21, 2010 at 05:30 PM
Flip flops: I agree with Chris. MPD mentions flip flops but then states they were not a cause. I have no problem with them asking questions like this as long as they come up with the right answer. I think the flip flops actually undermine their argument that she was riding too fast.
Posted by: washcycle | July 21, 2010 at 06:04 PM
@ think a little. Your logic can also be used to say, "If Alice Swanson had woken up 5 minutes later, she'd still be alive." That's silly. Worry about the hurricane, not the butterfly.
Posted by: Brendan | July 22, 2010 at 11:00 AM
whats wrong with pointing out that if this country bothered to protect its borders Alice would be alive?
It's irrelevant. Alice Swanson didn't die because he was an illegal immigrant. It has as much to do with this as the temperature in Seattle.
Posted by: washcycle | July 22, 2010 at 11:46 AM
You're claiming she died because the "authority" did not do its job and allowed a bad driver on the road.
Im claiming that the "authority" did its job and kept the illegals out then he wouldnt be on the road.
In either case if those in charge had done their jobs, he wouldnt have been on the road. I fail to see the difference.
Posted by: think a little | July 23, 2010 at 12:30 AM
Was the driver an illegal immigrant? I mean, I don't see that in any of the stories.
Posted by: Chris | July 23, 2010 at 07:39 AM
@ Chris=
Ms. Swanson is claiming that the driver was deported for drugs once before. If you get the boot from the US for drugs you are never allowed back. So either he is an illegal or she is making it up.
Posted by: think a little | July 23, 2010 at 08:41 AM
An illegal immigrant kills a cyclist.
Somewhere a talk radio host looks skyward and whispers, "thank you."
Posted by: Contrarian | July 23, 2010 at 09:24 AM
We are assuming that he's an illegal. Think a Little's logic is reasonable, but I don't know if it's true that once deported for drug crimes it's impossible to immigrate legally.
The difference, think a little, is that requiring safe drivers is inherently relevant to road safety. Limiting immigration is not. No one says "we need to control the border to protect cyclists." No one reasonable at least.
If an illegal immigrant had saved someone's life, would that be an argument to not control the border?
Posted by: washcycle | July 23, 2010 at 12:32 PM
@ Contrarian
No, an illegal immigrant killed a hot white chick, the staff at FOX is pissing themselves
@ Wash
Requiring safe drivers is like King Canute and the ocean, some things are never going to happen. As a society we have determined the "transaction cost" in human fatalites we are willing to accept for our convenience is pretty high. We dont accept 55mph speed limits, we dont ban trucks (or metro buses) in cities, and so on.
Until it happens to us.......
Posted by: think a little | July 23, 2010 at 02:26 PM