« Plan for Virginia Avenue after the Tunnel | Main | New Bike Sharrows on Walter Reed »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Very sad.

Watch for the "I did not see him defense".

Terrible. They even rode on the shoulder. How inattentive does a driver have to be to go to jail for killing people? I guess we'll have to wait to find out.

In PG county, the police probably would have beaten Joel Wyman and written in the sworn charging document that he was not cooperating. *sarcasm off*

Very sad and makes me wonder again what we will have to do so that obviously absolutely inattentive and reckless drivers get the message that there will be definite and severe consequences for actions like this.

Excellent point Eric. At what stage do we hold someone responsible?

We hold someone responsible for inattentive driving before they kill someone. The laws passed in MD are weak and any good defense attorney will be able to just swat them away.

On a side note - the other day I pulled up behind a cab at a light in the district. It was a SUV cab - didn't note what taxi company. Looking through the cab I clearly saw, mounted in the center console, a small flat panel TV screen with a basketball game playing!

There is currently a big push to open up bandwidth for mobile TV. When that happens can you imagine the explosion of devices that drivers will be looking at rather than the road?

There is currently a big push to open up bandwidth for mobile TV. When that happens can you imagine the explosion of devices that drivers will be looking at rather than the road?

Don't we already have mobile TV? I mean, you don't have to watch it on the couch.

I'm not really sure what it is myself but I'm starting to see it referenced more and more in technical news pieces that I stumble across. Wikepedia has more.

The gist of it seems to be:

The existing over the air digital transmission (ATSC) of TV is, for some really technical reasons, not well suited for mobile reception.

So TV can be broadcast, instead, over cellular networks (the design of which is to facilitate mobile reception). But since TV eats a lot of bandwidth, for mobile TV to become doable, more bandwidth has to be dedicated to the cellular networks.

Also cellular broadcasts woudn't be limited to just the over-the-air stations. You'll be able to bring your ESPN with you for the drive to work!

Mobile TV is really big in Japan and Korea. Many of the phones sold there support it.

Since justice probably won't be served in the courtroom--for a variety of reasons--how do these cases fare in civil court?

This is a very, very sad situation, for all involved! It is also very sad that folks who were not at the scene when this happened, have already convinced themselves that they know what happened, and who is at fault. They don't know, You don't know, and I don't know, and we probably never really will. It is equally unfortunate and disturbing that anyone assumes that any one of the people involved in this terrible tragedy were 'at fault'. Did someone make a mistake, very possibly. Could there be negligence on the part of one, or all of the parties involved, possibly. Is there really enough room on that road for bicycles and cars at the same time, especially during rush hour? Not in my opinion. But, Don't Try, Convict and Sentence anyone unless you know all of the facts.
My heart and my Prayers go out to all of those involved, and their families and friends!

Robert: I agree that we do not want to be having a media lynching. The people to deterimine guilt, innocence and liability are the judge, jury, and associated people in the legal system.

That said, I think that the discussion here is entirely appropriate. The specifics of the case aside, we need to understand how it is treated and what is says about the direction of policy and enforcement, and what we need to do: especially to avoid the next "accident"

@Robert, the people who've convinced themselves that they know what happened here are the police as demonstrated in their initial investigation. As SJE pointed out, it would be inappropriate to convict anyone without all of the facts and our legal system struggles to prevent that. But there is nothing wrong with talking about what may have happened and who may have been to blame and what the implications of that are. Are you saying that people should never casually speculate about possible crimes until we know EVERYTHING?

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with assuming someone was "at fault." In fact someone was "at fault" or else this wouldn't have happened. The only other alternative is that this was "by design." I don't think this was a suicide and I don't think it was a premeditated murder. Do you?

As to whether or not there is enough room on the road for "bicycles and cars at the same time, especially during rush hour" I would first point out that these bicycles were on the shoulder, not the road. I'd also say that experience elsewhere is that bikes and cars can share space safely. But if you really feel strongly that the roads are too dangerous with both users then you must be advocating banning cars. After all, banning cyclists will, at most, make roads 1% safer. But banning cars will drop road fatalities to near zero numbers, and have public health and environmental benefits as well. It's a radical position to take Robert, but I salute you for your courage.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader