At Baltimore Spokes. Is it me, or does this email from the police sound almost hostile or, at least, annoyed?
Edit:
The Baltimore Sun reports that the cyclist was officially at fault, despite conflicting accounts of whether and when BCPD found the truck and also a statement that the investigation is not over?
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
08.21.09 at 10:24 am
john
Not at all. It sounds like they’re communicating that the truth was distorted, as anyone should.
08.21.09 at 10:34 am
damien
Having not seen the original message that Lt. Bank is responding to, I can only react to the words she wrote.
Her response is clear, concise and direct. She is defending the investigation, probably partly because she felt accused of failing to do so when she read the original letter and partly because it is her job to defend her subordinates work when she believes that it is thorough.
I think you may be misreading the concise but direct language as hostile.
Her statements regarding cyclists having the same rights and obligations under the law as motorists is 100% correct. From the sounds of it, the video (probably traffic CCTV) indicates that Mr. Yates hit the truck, rather than the truck hitting Mr. Yates. Many cyclists have assumed that the truck driver was at fault, but that assumption may not be valid.
We all know this is a huge tragedy.
There are a number of lessons to be learned. One is that both motorists and cyclists have a responsiblity to operate their vehicles within the confines of traffic laws. Another may be that our interpretation of events is subjective and it is important to remain objective as much as possible when viewing news. And finally, when working to address concerns with government officials on any topic it is very important to present the case in a constructive and non-combative message.
Just a few thoughts. I’m gonna duck for cover now.
08.21.09 at 11:03 am
Johnny
The victim’s family’s lawyer viewed the tape and said that it was clear that the driver was at fault, that the truck turned over the cyclist. Who do we believe? A lawyer or the police? (I’m not implying anything about lawyers OR cops — I’m really wondering.)
I can understand the police keeping some things secret as they investigated and looked for the driver. But if they found the driver, what’s the point in the moderately dismissive, “There’s more to it than you folks know,” that this message seems to convey? Unless the police are in the process of preparing a report on what happened and folks like me are just being very impatient. But, in our defense, how are we to know what’s going on? No one’s reported anything on the investigation in a while.
Barry’s right, though. We have no right, then the same right in this statement. Which is it? Maybe the officer meant that we don’t own the road, that we have the same rights/obligations as cars. In that case, as Damien says, that’s the truth. But the only people that have been disputing that fact since this tragedy are the anti-cyclist people on THE SUN‘s website, not cyclists.
And no one says exactly HOW Mr. Yates was “not operating within those parameters.” By all accounts, he was riding his bike down Maryland Avenue when a truck turned in front of him. (Who hit who is irrelevant.) Aside from taking the lane (which we get A LOT of grief for when we do), what else was he supposed to do? Was he breaking traffic laws which, since we have the same rights/responsibilities as cars, would constitute operation outside the parameters of proper vehicular cycling? Unless they BOTH ran a redlight there, what law could he have broken?
A question for legally-minded folks:
Does the legal “definition” of a hit-and-run require that you know you hit someone for the “run” part to matter? It seems like it would and probably does, which makes sense. But I thought I’d ask.
08.21.09 at 1:38 pm
damien
A few more thoughts:
I couldn’t begin to form an opinion about believing the police over the lawyer or vice versa without seeing the tape for myself. That being said, it is the lawyer’s job to defend his/her client in the same way that it is Lt. Bank’s job to defend the investigation.
Some of cyclists have a tendency to come off a bit rabid when they talk about their “rights to the road.” This does a huge disservice to the cycling community because it gives people a negative impression of cyclists.
There are probably more than a handful of motorists who never intended to cut off a cyclist, but who have gotten an “in your face” tongue lashing from a cyclist when they did so by accident. These people were likely left with a bad taste in their mouth for “cyclists rights to the road” after that experience. (There are plenty of motorists who are just plain belligerent in their own right as well.)
I suspect that who hit whom is relevant because it likely makes a difference regarding who is legally at fault. I suspect that it also makes a big difference in terms of whether the motorist is guilty of a a “hit and run” or “fleeing the scene of an accident.” (In either case the motorist is guilty of something.)
As far as media coverage (and I could go on and on about the media) it’s not that uncommon for the media to cover a tragic event for a few days and then not report on it at all ever again. It would be nice if the media kept people informed of ongoing investigations, but media is about selling advertising not reporting news, and tragedy sells. Follow-up, not so much.
(Doesn’t make it right, just the facts of the business.)
Finally, you know I agree with you on the need for better awareness on the part of motorists regarding cyclists and our rights and responsibilities on the road.
-D
08.21.09 at 4:09 pm
Johnny
You’re right about that, my friend!
08.21.09 at 5:14 pm
dukiebiddle
“By all accounts, he was riding his bike down Maryland Avenue when a truck turned in front of him. (Who hit who is irrelevant.) Aside from taking the lane (which we get A LOT of grief for when we do), what else was he supposed to do? ”
I’m not exactly sure how “who hit who is irrelevant.” Regardless of whether the driver in front signals or not, it is the primary responsibility of the driver in the behind vehicle to reduce speed and avoid accident. The consequent charge is “Failure to reduce speed and avoid accident.” Failure to reduce speed simply trumps failure to signal. From the standpoint of establishing fault, who hit who is of primary importance. That’s the rule of law for all road vehicles. It seems the police are convinced beyond a doubt that the cyclist was behind the truck and struck the back of the truck.
With that said, I thought that letter was fairly snotty and unprofessional, although I have not idea what the letter was like she was responding to.
08.21.09 at 7:04 pm
Posts about Baltimore as of August 21, 2009 | baltimorer.com
[...] [...]
08.21.09 at 10:58 pm
Johnny
I think I meant, when I said that whoever hit who was irrelevant, to put less fuel on the fire. Which seems to have had the opposite effect.
I’m just trying to not get publicly angry (again).
I think that this is a terrible tragedy for cycling in Baltimore, and we all want to believe the driver was entirely at fault (which may or may not be the case; none of us have seen the video). We just want it to be true, simply put.
Of course, if the driver is NOT ENTIRELY at fault, that would mean there is something we can do as cyclists to improve the situation and/or prevent this from happening again. But if we say that, we sound like we’re blaming the victim. I certainly don’t want to do that.
If I’m not mistaken (and I very well might be — my degrees are in philosophy, not law, LOL), one’s failure to stop and the subsequent rear-ending of a vehicle gets trumped if one can prove that the vehicle that got hit did something illegal, dangerous or stupid (like suddenly turning without a signal, stopping on I-95, etc.). At least, I know one person who beat a rear-end charge with witnesses who testified that the car in front caused the accident. There’s a video in this case. But if the camera couldn’t get the license number, it might not have picked up something like a turn signal, either.
We’ll probably never know, but I don’t think that makes a lot of us feel better. I don’t feel better.
08.21.09 at 11:10 pm
Johnny
It’s official?
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-city-bicyclist-death0821,0,3966912.story
08.22.09 at 9:15 am
dukiebiddle
I’m not a lawyer either, so I can’t say with any authority, but I think to prove the driver of the front vehicle to be at fault in a collision, one has to show that they wildly blundered in a manner that the rear vehicle driver had no way to compensate against. I honestly don’t know if this situation qualifies, but the police certainly seem to feel that it doesn’t. Although I personally don’t want to see the video AT ALL, I would feel a little more comfortable if the police somehow made the video available to the public.
08.22.09 at 10:31 am
Johnny
“Although I personally don’t want to see the video AT ALL, I would feel a little more comfortable if the police somehow made the video available to the public.”
Or even just to activists who want closure or something. I really don’t have the stones to watch that myself.
08.22.09 at 3:22 pm
damien
I really hate to say it, but the Sun really has turned into a rag.
It appears to me that this article’s headline is largely based upon the email posted at baltimorespokes.org rather than on the official responses from the police department.
08.23.09 at 1:44 pm
rb2rider
If it’s true, as the family lawyer said, that the driver abruptly turned onto Lafayette without signaling, I don’t see how anything resembling a reasonable interpretation of the incident could lay blame on the cyclist. The BPD has done nothing but give the truck driver (and only the truck driver) the benefit of the doubt. I think the video should be released. Can it be obtained via a Maryland PIA request? If so, the fees are pretty steep.