Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Seth Vidal, creator of yum, killed in hit and run accident

durham.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 415 posts

Re: Seth Vidal, creator of yum, killed in hit and run accident

#231

Post by danso »

xanderstrike wrote: post #60
danso wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fatal vehicle accidents are not always vehicular homicide/manslaughter. A standard of negligence (such as being past the DUI limit) has to be established. Hit-and-run also does not necessarily result in a homicide (or assault) charge being filed.

Someone struck him with a car and killed him. I think leaving the scene after killing someone with a vehicle should satisfy any any standard of negligence.

This isn't about what should/shouldn't be, I'm talking about how the legal system views these things. Vehicular homicide has a requirement of negligence, because traditionally the justice system sees a qualitative difference between a grandpa who backs over a grandchild who runs behind the SUV and someone who chooses to drive despite being blind drunk.

In terms of the hit-and-run == negligence...the two things correlate...a drunk driver may be so drunk that they don't realize they've killed someone. Or more maliciously, they do realize it but don't want to take a breathalyzer at the scene of the crime. However, there are cases (which does not seem to apply to the case in question) in which otherwise well-behaved drivers have killed someone unknowingly or for some reason panicked and left. It's still a crime, but it's not "homicide"

Re: Seth Vidal, creator of yum, killed in hit and run accident

#232

Post by oinksoft »

aroch wrote: post #133
oinksoft wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. If I'm a motorist, moving at speed, and I slam my brakes to grab that nifty parking spot, I am liable. Not the person who rear-ends me.

If you're a motorist at speed (and I'll take "at speed" to mean normal street speed); you're almost probably not looking for a parking spot. Further, if you're going "at speed" --25-35mph -- the person behind you should be, at minimum, 2-3 car lengths behind you. If they aren't, they're failing to maintain a safe distance. You're not liable if the person behind you, driving unsafely, rear-ends you.

Clearly you've never driven in the DC area. Seeing cars slam their brakes at 25-30mph to grab a spot on a busy street is laughably commonplace.

Re: Seth Vidal, creator of yum, killed in hit and run accident

#233

Post by sampo »

corin_ wrote: post #178
vanderZwan wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I tend to agree, but I can see both sides. Like I said in the other comment: a bike is never a threat to a car. A car is always a threat to a bike. While your points are valid, saying that that is looking at "both sides" is an inappropriate way of describing the situation.

If you're driving a long and a bike pulls out suddenly in front of you, unless you have the attitude of "fuck it, just run them over" then yes, a bike can still be a massive threat to a car.

Also a pedestrian, or a jogger, might pull out suddenly in front of you. But this is no ground to make transport by foot a privilege.

Re: Seth Vidal, creator of yum, killed in hit and run accident

#234

Post by ineedtosleep »

oinksoft wrote: post #174
caycep wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that sounds illegal - could you have reported his license? Something under assault using a vehicle or attempted manslaughter?

I have had somebody follow me aggressively (in a car) with seeming intent to main before and it is a terrifying experience. They pursued me at 70mph in a 30mph zone. It was my second day driving a manual transmission and I accidentally tapped my horn with an old Ford Explorer behind me (no cars in front) as I was trying to shift into first gear to turn left out of a lot. A man exited the SUV at a red light and I ran…

Honestly, those examples are great reasons why I would support some kind of form of publicly shaming those drivers (via some kind of www.thisiswhycyclistsdie.net blog): Get cyclists to be diligent and record their rides and post the obvious asshole drivers and their plates.

Yes, there's probably giant privacy implications there, but fuck it. They're trying to kill people out there.

Re: Seth Vidal, creator of yum, killed in hit and run accident

#235

Post by alxndr »

dllthomas wrote: post #204
matt__rose wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it can't. Not in any physical sense. If a car swerves and hits a cyclist at 30kph, the cyclist is almost certain to be injured, if not dead. If a bike swerves and hits a car, they might scratch the paint. When will the false equivalences end?

If a car swerves to avoid a cyclist and hits another car...

...both car's passengers are surrounded by a metal cage that is trying to protect lives.

Re: Seth Vidal, creator of yum, killed in hit and run accident

#236

Post by joseph »

ajross wrote: post #191
pdx wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a father of toddlers, (3 and 5), I despise the attitude of many bicyclists on sidewalks and public paths. You think you can't seriously hurt somebody on a bike? It depends on the someone you hit. Slow down when you see a pedestrian, as there might be others that you don't see. Don't ring your little bell at them as you whip past at 20mph, just slow down and show some common courtesy like a real human person.

This doesn't seem to be responsive. Your kids (or mine), no matter how heart-tugging a debate example they may be, will still be hurt less from a collision with a bicycle than the cyclist will be from a collision with my car. To argue otherwise, as Yver did above, is silly and counterproductive.

A bicycle can and occasionally does kill people. An old woman was struck and killed just a couple of blocks from my house. Children would be even more likely to die in a collision I would think.

Re: Seth Vidal, creator of yum, killed in hit and run accident

#237

Post by alxndr »

resu_nimda wrote: post #211
jberryman wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I can see both sides. This isn't a "on the one hand, on the other" issue. Even the most foolish and aggressive cyclist is almost never endangering the safety of drivers around him, even indirectly. Yet all it takes is a nudge, honk, door opening, unsignaled turn, etc. to kill a cyclist. Bicycle etiquette is for all practical purposes not a public safety issue, and IMHO responses of the "but bicyclists can be ru…

> Just because you perceive the public roads as "car roads" and driving as "normal" doesn't make it so Why not? The roads were built for cars. Driving on them isn't just "convenient," it's exactly what was intended to happen. Don't get me wrong, there should absolutely be more bike lanes and other considerations so that cyclists can travel safely. But, the infrastructure in its current state is definitely built aroun…

> The roads were built for cars.

This is untrue.

"The coming of the railways in the 1830s killed off the stage-coach trade; almost all rural roads reverted to low-level local use. Cyclists were the first group in a generation to use roads and were the first to push for high-quality sealed surfaces and were the first to lobby for national funding and leadership for roads. Without cyclists, motorists wouldn't have hit the ground running when it came to places to drive this new form of transport."

http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/

Re: Seth Vidal, creator of yum, killed in hit and run accident

#238

Post by baddox »

vanderZwan wrote: post #151
baddox wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The sad truth is that while bicycles should be respected as vehicles, I tend to agree, but I can see both sides. There is also very little (and, as far as I know, zero required) bicyclist education, and many bicyclists make little attempt to drive predictably and safely either out of boldness or ignorance. Similarly, while stricter rules and enforcement for automobile drivers is warranted, I think the same goes for…

> I tend to agree, but I can see both sides. Like I said in the other comment: a bike is never a threat to a car. A car is always a threat to a bike. While your points are valid, saying that that is looking at "both sides" is an inappropriate way of describing the situation.

By that logic, pedestrians should be able to walk in the middle of roads, since they're not a threat to a car.

Re: Seth Vidal, creator of yum, killed in hit and run accident

#239

Post by mindslight »

lutorm wrote: post #155
malandrew wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upvote for staying near the center of the road, but remember that that is only permitted on 14-15+ ft wide lanes (don't worry, the overwhelming majority of city lanes are not this wide). If the lane is wider than that, you should stay to the right (but you are within your right to stay outside the door zone)

IIRC, CA law says bicyclists should ride as far to the right as practicable . I think it even says bicyclists may be justified in taking the entire lane if conditions so require.

Also, it's prudent to consider one of those conditions to be aggressive behavior from a car behind you (horn, etc). They're proudly boasting of their non-understanding of how to fluidly pass non-lane-width traffic, so it's just safer to take the full lane and ensure they'll either change lanes or wait for a lull in oncoming traffic instead of half-passing then cutting into you.

Re: Seth Vidal, creator of yum, killed in hit and run accident

#240

Post by dllthomas »

koenigdavidmj wrote: post #225
dllthomas wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exception makes "barring interstates" okay but not "barring roads with a speed limit >X"? Not saying I necessarily disagree, just trying to understand your reasoning.

There are places not accessible by roads with bike-accessible speed limits. Those are much more common than places not accessible except by interstate. (Incidentally, biking on the shoulder of the interstate is permissible in my state, with the occasional exception of some cities and bridges without shoulders.)

I'm not sure I follow the thrust of your comment.

I am interested in why sequoia asserts that it's correct (or at least permissible) to prohibit bicycles from interstates but a violation of rights to prohibit them from other roads. The fact that bicycles are not prohibited from all interstates seems somewhat orthogonal...

Post reply on HN