Sad Reminder of the dangers of cycling

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This last paragraph is very whiny.

You simply don't understand the sentiment of the cycling community, and for us it is a very real issue.

Why in the heck did a cop only a few hours into his shift get sleepy? This man was at work and his job requires vigilance. This was a daytime accident.

It seems you're taking a contrarian view just to spite us.

We have several issues here. The rights of cyclists and the demand that police officers be vigilant while on duty. This was not an old cop fatigued by many hours of hard service, but a younger cop who was at the beginning of his shift.

Does that mean his circumstances couldn't be mitigated during sentencing? Of course not, but your persistent attitude that NOT prosecuting him is a possible proper tactic offends the cycling community.

We hope to change the attitude of persons like you that cycling deaths are preventable if drivers are more cautious.

If you're going to argue he shouldn't have been driving while sleepy or should've been more vigiliant ... who do you think is going to argue against that? Me? Him?

This really isn't a cycling community issue, and if you'll pardon me for saying so, you're being selfish turning it into one. The cop could've just have easily killed a pedestrian, or himself for that matter. His driving was fundamentally unsafe, and it just so happened that it was some cyclists (this time) who paid the price for his lack of judgment.

It's apparent now that he wasn't "buzzing" them, "targeting" them, "harrassing" them, or doing anything else that indicates he had a problem with cyclists. You guys are being horribly narcissitic.

But don't let that stop you. Go harpoon your whale, Ahab.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

If you're going to argue he shouldn't have been driving while sleepy or should've been more vigiliant ... who do you think is going to argue against that? Me? Him?

This really isn't a cycling community issue, and if you'll pardon me for saying so, you're being selfish turning it into one. The cop could've just have easily killed a pedestrian, or himself for that matter. His driving was fundamentally unsafe, and it just so happened that it was some cyclists (this time) who paid the price for his lack of judgment.

It's apparent now that he wasn't "buzzing" them, "targeting" them, "harrassing" them, or doing anything else that indicates he had a problem with cyclists. You guys are being horrbily narcissitic.

But don't let that stop you. Go harpoon your whale, Ahab.

Horribly narcissistic, even though it involved cyclists. Yes the issue transcends the cycling community, but it was the cycling community that was most touched by this.

So you don't argue he shouldn't have been cautious, but you still are unwilling to advocate unrestrained prosecution. That opinion in our minds is wrong.

Are we a bit tribal? Certainly, because nobody else cares.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

*Sigh*

I'm really not trying to ratchet up the rhetoric. We're just going in circles here.

Your chief complaint, it seems, is that I won't say the man "should" be prosecuted, no? Because in your mind (and others'), if he isn't, then it's a guarantee that cyclists everywhere will remain in further danger, no one will ever take the problem of cyclists' deaths seriously, and these 2 people who lost their lives will have done so in vain.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that semi-cataclysmic assessment, anymore than I think that Ruvolo's incessant pushing to get Ryan Cushing's sentence/conviction reduced means that teenagers everywhere will be encouraged to toss frozen turkeys off freeway overpasses.

I seriously doubt that the next sleepy person who drives on a road frequented by cyclists, as he is drifting into slumber, will suddenly snap awake thinking, "Wow, I'd better stay awake because of what happened to that cop they prosecuted!" It's folly to think that one case, one prosecution will change millions of drivers. It's folly to think that MANY cases, and MANY prosecutions will change millions of drivers. Look how much effort has been put into anti-drunk driving efforts. Has it stopped, or even substantially reduced drunk driving? I don't know the stats, but I know it remains a HUGE problem, and one much, much bigger than cyclists' deaths.

Does that mean we don't pass laws, enforce it against offenders, and try to correct the problem? Of course not. But the attitude ought to be finding a way to make peoples' lives better--cyclists and drivers alike--not to exact vengeance and/or create show trials to strike fear into the public.

You could make an example of this man. Just like Ruvolo could have made an example of Cushing. Just like bluegrass toyed with the idea of making an example out of that young mother. And maybe you'd accomplish what you think you would (though I doubt it). Maybe seeing this cop strung up by his thumbs would startle people into behaving themselves while driving by cyclists. Was destroying life of that cop worth it? Destroying Cushing's? That young mother's? And their respective families' lives? Who can make that calculation?

One wonders, too, what effect a very public reconciliation might have. What effect might it have on the public to have this cop go on public television with the families of these slain cyclists, and offer tearful apologies and reconciliation. What if this cop became an advocate for more safe driving habits? Would that do more than a mere conviction and some prison time?

And what about the personal cost? Do you think the families of these cyclists who so mourn their loss, will feel relief when this cop is behind bars? Will that give them respite? Justice? Peace?

...

My original involvement in this thread came as a chiding to Mike Waters after he suggested this cop wanted to "take the cyclists out." Even for Mike, that was over the top, and I said so. And now it appears I was right. In passing, I made the parenthetical comment about how remarkable it would be if forgiveness and mercy were extended--transcending the demands of the law.

And in reply to that very innocent comment, I've received the brunt of the anger and vindictiveness that those of you who cycle carry vis-a-vis this issue. You need to look at yourselves seriously and examine just what kind of freakish baggage you carry that causes you to lash out at people in such a way. I am not being unreasonable, nor am I guilty of the severely immature accusations that have been made of me.

Regards.

There have been several times when I have disagreed with you in the past in other threads where you have accused me of not reading very well or some such. I can only conclude that this is true of you here. A couple of key points, after wading through your latest "woe is me" soliloquy:


1. No one said that this prosecution was pivotal in the history of cycling safety. I said, from the beginning, that all such accidents must be prosecuted, including this one, to encourage increased vigilance from drivers.

2. No one has been vindictive, least of all towards you. (You pretend that we have so you can play the victim which, when we are talking about actual people actually dying, is not very attractive.) My problem hasn't been that you have fialed to say we must prosecute, it is that you won't say either way. You won't even say you don't know. My concern is not that you don't want to prosecute, but that you might leave the thought that it isn't important, with which thought I strongly disagree.

3. Most importantly, you keep confusing prosecution with harsh sentences. As I have said many times, mitigating factors can certainly be included in any sentence given. This is about prosecution followed by an appropriate sentence, which can vary from person to person (comparing Bluegoose's young mother vs. the guy in Santa Rosa a few years ago that killed two cyclists when he drove off the road highly inebriated).

You have continued to make lengthy posts about your poor picked on position while ignoring the thoughts that have been developed in the thread. Your self-righteous attitude and self-anointed victim hood status is out of place here. You act surprised that you wade into a topic like this and find that some of us feel so strongly. Maybe RC is right, maybe if you could feel what it is like out there sometimes, you would take this a little more seriously.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Are we a bit tribal? Certainly, because nobody else cares.

Well, one effective way to change minds is to attack people. Best of luck with that.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Well, one effective way to change minds is to attack people. Best of luck with that.

You're certainly an expert at that.

However, I see no attack, only disagreement that you are unduly lenient in a serious public issue.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

Well, one effective way to change minds is to attack people. Best of luck with that.

Are you trying to be ironic?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

There have been several times when I have disagreed with you in the past in other threads where you have accused me of not reading very well or some such. I can only conclude that this is true of you here. A couple of key points, after wading through your latest "woe is me" soliloquy:


1. No one said that this prosecution was pivotal in the history of cycling safety. I said, from the beginning, that all such accidents must be prosecuted, including this one, to encourage increased vigilance from drivers.

2. No one has been vindictive, least of all towards you. (You pretend that we have so you can play the victim which, when we are talking about actual people actually dying, is not very attractive.) My problem hasn't been that you have fialed to say we must prosecute, it is that you won't say either way. You won't even say you don't know. My concern is not that you don't want to prosecute, but that you might leave the thought that it isn't important, with which thought I strongly disagree.

3. Most importantly, you keep confusing prosecution with harsh sentences. As I have said many times, mitigating factors can certainly be included in any sentence given. This is about prosecution followed by an appropriate sentence, which can vary from person to person (comparing Bluegoose's young mother vs. the guy in Santa Rosa a few years ago that killed two cyclists when he drove off the road highly inebriated).

You have continued to make lengthy posts about your poor picked on position while ignoring the thoughts that have been developed in the thread. Your self-righteous attitude and self-anointed victim hood status is out of place here. You act surprised that you wade into a topic like this and find that some of us feel so strongly. Maybe RC is right, maybe if you could feel what it is like out there sometimes, you would take this a little more seriously.

Oh my ... I am not the one being self-righteous here, nor am I playing the victim card. If anyone has been playing the whiny victims here, it's been the "tribal" cyclists posting in this thread. You people are psychotic.

As to the substance of your post, the portion I have bolded is nothing but a fabrication. I used to think you were among the more balanced of the posters here, but for some reason you've chosen to go crazy on me. I suspected you'd lost it as soon as you suggested I might have thought killing one cyclist is ok, as long as it isn't multiple cyclists. You've only descended further into dementia since that point.

That's truly unfortunate.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You're certainly an expert at that.

However, I see no attack, only disagreement that you are unduly lenient in a serious public issue.

Originally Posted by creekster

Are you trying to be ironic?

Is it lost on you that I only "attacked" Mike Waters for assuming the cop targeted those cyclists? Did you even read my first posts?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Oh my ... I am not the one being self-righteous here, nor am I playing the victim card. If anyone has been playing the whiny victims here, it's been the "tribal" cyclists posting in this thread. You people are psychotic.

As to the substance of your post, the portion I have bolded is nothing but a fabrication. I used to think you were among the more balanced of the posters here, but for some reason you've chosen to go crazy on me. I suspected you'd lost it as soon as you suggested I might have thought killing one cyclist is ok, as long as it isn't multiple cyclists. You've only descended further into dementia since that point.

That's truly unfortunate.

Your post is unreasonable.

Maybe you have taken a position and that position is that prosecution isn't important. What is your position?

I don't know is NOT a position. Take a stand for once.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

Is it lost on you that I only "attacked" Mike Waters for assuming the cop targeted those cyclists? Did you even read my first posts?

Just on this page you have accused me of making severely immature accusations against you, of running around with a personal guillotine, of being non-adult (childish?) and of being vindictive. Shall I go on?