BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

completely different situation, and i don't think it's really relevant to any cycling deaths, aside from this:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012885412_enumclaw14m.html

@salty: of course this story is irrelevant to cycling. And that is the point. There is some sentiment expressed on this Board that the DA has a bias in cases involving cars and bikes. The story I cited is intended to demonstrate there are other types of cases where death has occurred, and the DA is uncertain whether to bring charges.

it's 2 friends in a car and one of them accidentally shoots the other - hardly a typical case of manslaughter, murder, gun violence, etc. sure, there can be extenuating circumstances where it's unclear whether charges are warranted, and this (messed up) situation is definitely an example of that. if the guy fired his gun out the window and killed a bystander there wouldn't be any debate about charges being filed. a motorist running over a cyclist or pedestrian is way more like the latter than the former.

The question that bugs me about this is what the heck was the guy doing messing with his gun while riding in a car? The only thing that a gun does is shoot, and shooting from a car, or fiddling with a gun in a car, in any situation at all is completely illegal and dangerous.

RTT - While, apparently, drinking. Genius.

Perhaps he was using the sight to pry the top off his beer bottle.

Not that this would make it any better.

I guess my issue with it is there seems to be a sliding scale for "accidental." It's accidental, but okay, when some friends are out driving, back seat dude can't figure out his gun, shoots front seat guy. No harm no foul, I guess.

And judging on the decisions the DA has made in another case, it's also accidental but okay when a teenager can't figure out his flip-flop, hits a cyclist and kills him. Again, no harm, no foul.

Oh, I guess I should asterisk "harm" and add this qualifier: people are dead as a result of these "accidents."

The point is not the relevancy of the cases, but the similarity of the DAs response. My point in posting this was that the DA is not singling out cyclists when he doesn't bring charges, there are lots of other "accidents" resulting in death that go unpunished.

A kills B.

"Oops, sorry."

Case closed.

All too common.

Maybe the DA is just too jaded, sees too much death, considers it so common and such a standard part of every day existence that he really does think "these things just happen sometimes." I noticed that in Mali, where within 3 months 5 people I knew personally died (and not peacefully in a hospital or bed) compared to two in the previous 20 years, there was a totally different attitude towards death (and misfortune in general). It was so common, society was reluctant to assign blame and demand retribution - not necessarily quick to forgive, but they never saw anything requiring forgiveness. If it was perceived to be a crime (outright theft or intentional murder) it was treated differently (very harshly), but anything hinting of "accident" was remarkably accepted and ignored.

I'm not saying it's acceptable in a DA in Pgh, just wondering if constantly bumping up against the brutality of the life around him has him approaching it with a different perspective than us*.

*yep, I recognize there are med/emergency/other people here who deal with death professionally every day. I'm assuming everybody deals with it differently. I'm totally admitting I could be way wrong and off base. It's just what I'm wondering.

I think it comes down to resources and VOTES. The DA only has so many man-hours available to him to investigate possible crimes, and again limited man-hours to prosecute them. So he can go after flip-flop boy, or stupid friend with a gun in back seat, or other “accidents” and at election time he can announce that he’s being tough-on-stupid-people. Orrrrr… he can spend all his precious time and resources going after kids with a joint or two in their pockets and at election time can say they are being tough-on-drugs. The tough on drugs gets them votes now. I suspect that when the tough on stupidity approach starts generating votes, the DA will be asking for life in prison for being stupid. Which side of the bread is buttered?

marko, i don't see the two being mutually exclusive. there are a lot of stupid people doing stupid things on drugs. not saying drugs are synonymous with stupid, but...

and i'd totally vote for someone who ran on a platform of 'tough on stupid'. the drugs platform - sounds like a pandering idiot, 'cause that's worked SOOOOOO well over the past 30 years.

ej, I'm not saying that they are mutually excusive, I’m just saying that to the card carrying AARP members (i.e the largest voting block in a non-presidential year election), it’s easier to be tough on “them” that’s doing the “real” crimes. We have sympathy for the stupid people because we can see ourselves somewhat in their shoes. That’s why cell phone use while driving will never be punished by our society, because voters can see themselves doing it, even if they are personally against it. As a kid I did lots of stupid stuff behind the wheel. I also had stupid stuff in my pockets. And as the AARP crowd starts getting populated with people who, ahem, partook of the 60’s now we start to see medical marijuana and a push for legalization. Maybe twenty years from now when everybody bikes because gas is $20 a gallon the DA will take flip-flop boy more seriously. And he’ll take it more seriously because he’ll think it will generate more votes.

Pulp fiction. "It was an ACCIDENT, dude."

I'm with Marko.

Except my guess is that $20 gasoline will be quicker than 20 years & higher than $20 at 20 years. Does that make me an optimist or a pessimist?

I'm guessing that before gas is priced out of the market, there will be a period where the cagers are still in the majority -and adament about prosecuting any bicyclists' violations.

OT: "Tough on drugs" is so 20th century. Now, it's "Make sex offenders live in some other state." There are teenagers who had voluntary sex with other teenagers who now need to register for life in PA, and in most other states too.

$20/gal in 2011 dollars or in 2031 dollars?

If the former, I'd say you're pessimistic

If the latter... you might be optimistic

I meant, like, is pessimism saying gas will be too expensive for people to use the way they do now?

Or is that optimism?

I'd like to see gas go up to $20 a gallon - in 2011 dollars - before we start any new US drilling.

Why take it out of the ground if we aren't going to get good cash for it? People would just burn it in SUVs and other grotesqueries. The oil isn't going to decrease in value.