Anyone Have details of the Suburban Cyclist that was Airlifted this AM (4/22)

Either my google skills have weakened or there was no coverage.

 

TV reported it as a child first then changed it to an adult that had to be airlifted from an accident scene.

 

When they changed it to an adult they never went back to covering it. Was on channel 7.

 

Thanks,

gabe

Views: 2167

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Amber K on April 22, 2014 at 11:51am

The cyclist died.  He was only 1/2 mile from his house, and was heading to work 2 miles away.  Apparently he always rode to work when the weather was nice out.  He left behind a wife and 2 babies. It looks as though the driver didn't see him. Police are still trying to figure out if the driver stop at the stop sign or not. 

Permalink Reply by Drewbacca on April 22, 2014 at 3:12pm

It's hard to say based on one photo, but it looks to me that the cyclist got clipped by a turning vehicle that simply wasn't taking a good long look. Assuming that the cyclist was in the correct lane of travel, the sun shouldn't have really been a factor... It was early, I wouldn't be surprised if the driver was half awake with eyes half closed when it happened.  Check out the photo on this link http://www.nbcchicago.com/traffic/transit/bicyclist-hit-by-van-elgi...

Permalink Reply by Julie Aberman (Hochstadter) on April 23, 2014 at 4:57am

Horrible.  May he rest in peace.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on April 23, 2014 at 5:13am

More from  Telemundo.  The cyclist, Efrain Diaz-Torres, was on his way to work when he was hit.  He leaves behind a wife and two small children.  CBS news piece,  including police contact for any witnesses.

Permalink Reply by Brendan Kevenides on April 23, 2014 at 7:05am

I just hate, hate this.  His daughter looks like mine too.  Here's the latest, including the name of the driver:

http://www.mybikeadvocate.com/2014/04/husband-father-of-two-killed-...

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on April 24, 2014 at 4:02am

+1

h' 1.0 said:

In the various media reports about this sad event some issues have arisen that I find troubling.  First, virtually every media outlet has found it necessary emphasize that the driver appears not to have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the crash, as if that somehow abrogates his responsibility to some degree.  It does not.  I am not sure why there has not been more emphasis on the fact that the driver had a stop sign.  Secondly, there has been some speculation (perhaps reasonable speculation) that the sun obscured the driver's vision as he traveled east on Rosemont upon his approach to the intersection.  Let us assume that it did at around 6:10 a.m. yesterday.  The rising sun should not have greatly affected his view left (to the north) and right (to the south).  He should have been able to see Mr. Diaz-Torres despite any glare from the east.  In any event, it is a fundamental rule of the road that a driver who cannot see should not proceed.  Looking and failing to see what should be seen is no defense.  It is an indictment.  - See more at: http://www.mybikeadvocate.com/2014/04/husband-father-of-two-killed-...

 

Bold= strongest possible agreement.

 

Permalink Reply by Julie Aberman (Hochstadter) on April 24, 2014 at 8:23am

Anyone know of a fundraiser set up for his family?

Permalink Reply by dan brown on April 24, 2014 at 9:10am

+2.

when I have to drive; and cannot find the sunglasses and am facing a sun's glare; I become really careful to get some sunglasses and use the visor(s) (the car's and my own on my head) very effectively.

RIP to the victim

Anne Alt said:

+1

h' 1.0 said:

In the various media reports about this sad event some issues have arisen that I find troubling.  First, virtually every media outlet has found it necessary emphasize that the driver appears not to have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the crash, as if that somehow abrogates his responsibility to some degree.  It does not.  I am not sure why there has not been more emphasis on the fact that the driver had a stop sign.  Secondly, there has been some speculation (perhaps reasonable speculation) that the sun obscured the driver's vision as he traveled east on Rosemont upon his approach to the intersection.  Let us assume that it did at around 6:10 a.m. yesterday.  The rising sun should not have greatly affected his view left (to the north) and right (to the south).  He should have been able to see Mr. Diaz-Torres despite any glare from the east.  In any event, it is a fundamental rule of the road that a driver who cannot see should not proceed.  Looking and failing to see what should be seen is no defense.  It is an indictment.  - See more at: http://www.mybikeadvocate.com/2014/04/husband-father-of-two-killed-...

 

Bold= strongest possible agreement.

 

Permalink Reply by Vilda on April 24, 2014 at 11:04am

OHHHHHH, so that's the trick?

Jeff Schneider said:

When sun/darkness makes visibility problematic, I slow down.  This is clearly a secret 'trick', because I almost never see other drivers do it.  Just like the 'trick' of stopping to let pedestrians cross the street...


Permalink Reply by Robert Guico on April 25, 2014 at 4:41am

I grew up in Roselle. Not north of Irving Park Road, but I've been an infrastructure and biking nerd for a long time, including elementary school, so I know this area very well. My parents take my toddler-aged daughter to Turner Park once in a while. (Naturally, they drive there.)

  1. The design of this road is terrible. It is classic STROAD without any of the benefits of "easy" access to businesses. 
  2. It is the second fatality in 20 years (that I know of). That might seem like a long timeframe, but like every other suburban county in the nation, DuPage County has engineered roads to prioritize cars over encouraging walking.
  3. Given that so few people walk, and with the crashes here, even less people will choose to cross the street now. What does that do for property values? Obesity rates? Why would anyone choose to move here? From a traffic volume standpoint, this road isn't even that busy (~18,000 cars per day).

Ironically, the village does have a decent bike route network (on-street paths + random trails in parks). But it's things like this that make owning a car necessary, and by that token, make living in the suburbs just a bit more unaffordable, beneath a certain income level.

Permalink Reply by Alex Z on April 25, 2014 at 5:43am

Brendan, thank you for your strong words on this subject.

I am curious if you have any insights into how "regular people" look at this. A jury of Chainlinkers would obviously agree with your sentiment, but I can imagine that jurors who don't cycle might find it hard not to put themselves in the position of the driver. Hitting and killing someone you didn't see is something of a "worst-possible scenario" for a lot of drivers, I imagine, and I would guess they'd tend to sympathize with the defense of "I looked and I didn't see him."

Brendan Kevenides said:

Looking and failing to see what should be seen is no defense.  It is an indictment.
Permalink Reply by Brendan Kevenides on April 25, 2014 at 5:58am

That, of course, is a challenge in every bike case.  We would deal with those issues during voir dire, picking the jury.  I might ask potential jurors something like the following in order to illicit attitudes that may disqualify them from jury service:

  • People who ride bikes are eccentric and careless; others think

that they're just like any other driver of a vehicle. Mr. ___, which
side do you think you're a little closer to?

  • People who ride bikes are entitled to the road just as much as

any other driver; others think that bikes are a nuisance and should get
out of the way of cars, and if they don't, they get what's coming to
them. Mr. ___, which side do you think you're a little closer to?

The rest is my job during opening and closing statements, and up to the credibility of the witnesses and other evidence.

Alex Z said:

Brendan, thank you for your strong words on this subject.

I am curious if you have any insights into how "regular people" look at this. A jury of Chainlinkers would obviously agree with your sentiment, but I can imagine that jurors who don't cycle might find it hard not to put themselves in the position of the driver. Hitting and killing someone you didn't see is something of a "worst-possible scenario" for a lot of drivers, I imagine, and I would guess they'd tend to sympathize with the defense of "I looked and I didn't see him."

Brendan Kevenides said:

Looking and failing to see what should be seen is no defense.  It is an indictment.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service