What We Don’t Know About the Crash That Killed Aileen Chen
Here are a dozen questions pertaining to the crash that took the life of 16-year-old Stuyvesant H.S. student Aileen Chen as she rode her bicycle last Saturday a block from her home in Borough Park at around 6 p.m.
- How fast was the BMW traveling when Aileen and her bicycle first came into view?
- How fast was the driver going when he struck her?
- How far from the point of first impact did Aileen’s body come to rest?
- Was the 26-year-old driver alone, or were there others in the car?
- Was she hurrying for some reason, or distracted?
- Has the driver’s smartphone been impounded and checked to see if she was phoning or texting at the time of the crash?
- Is the area of Borough Park in which the crash took place residential, as it appears from an Internet view?
- How long and far from the collision might a driver who had been visually scanning the road have seen Aileen?
- Which party was traveling on 21st Avenue, which appears wider and perhaps more prone to fast driving than the cross street, 62nd Street?
- Does the driver have a record of moving violations?
- Whose testimony was the basis of the NYPD statement that Aileen ran a red light?
- Did anyone other than the driver witness the crash? Has the NYPD taken their evidence?
Every one of these questions is answerable, although none were answered in the press accounts, which nevertheless drip with the customary “victim guilty, case closed” quality of articles about bicyclist fatalities. All of these questions, I submit, are relevant to finding fault — a process that, though painful, is essential, as it is in every serious-injury or fatal traffic crash, to the arduous task of reforming traffic engineering, enforcement, jurisprudence and behavior.
The foundation of any meaningful investigation of the crash that killed Aileen is found in the first three questions. Driving faster than 30 mph on ordinary streets such as the two that intersected here is both prohibited by law and a statistical separator between surviving being struck by a car, and not. Higher driving speeds also increase crash likelihood by making visual scanning less effective, shortening drivers’ reaction-time window, lengthening stopping distance, and impeding detection of the vehicle by other road users.
Presumably the NYPD Accident Investigation Squad, the unit charged with analyzing fatal crashes in NYC, has by now measured skid marks, other road markings, damage to the BMW and bicycle, and the locations where Aileen and her clothing, iPod, etc. came to rest. From these metrics, the AIS may have already calculated, at least approximately, the driver’s speeds prior to and during the collision. Yet there is almost zero chance that these data from Aileen’s crash will enter the public record. The NYPD guards AIS reports virtually as state secrets. In 2000, when my organization Right Of Way was researching our “Only Good Cyclist” report on fatal NYC auto-cyclist crashes [PDF], prying loose AIS reports for a mere 14 crashes required multiple iterations of our Freedom of Information request, plus a dozen subsequent calls and letters. Several similar requests proffered later were rejected.
Questions 4 and 5 go to the driver’s state of mind and, while purely circumstantial, may suggest a possible motive to speed or otherwise drive carelessly. Though neither hands-free phoning nor texting while driving is illegal in New York State (the latter is a secondary not primary driving offense), the driver’s quality of attention is still a critical parameter, which justifies Question 6.
Question 7 draws on the legal obligation of drivers to observe a standard of due care. (Section 1146 of the State Vehicle & Traffic Law directs “Drivers [to] exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist, pedestrian or domestic animal upon any roadway.”) By law, then, operating a motor vehicle in a residential neighborhood requires being on alert for people walking, running, playing, cycling, etc. Question 8, another for the Accident Investigation Squad, seeks to determine if a lawful driver (speed limit, due care, etc.) could have averted striking a cyclist who had ridden through a red light.
Questions 9 and 10 return to the subject of the driver’s cognition and conduct, while questions 11 and 12 seek to address the vexing and perhaps unresolvable issue: Who had a green light and who ran a red — Aileen or the driver? I suspect that this question will never be settled. Self-interest requires the driver to claim that he had right of way. And while any eyewitnesses should be tracked down and interviewed, bystander accounts aren’t always reliable, and it’s not unreasonable to worry that cultural biases about drivers and bicyclists could inadvertently color their accounts. At the least, though, if the only reported account is the driver’s, its bias should be acknowledged and its testimony disregarded.
No answers will bring back Aileen, whose tragically abbreviated life was so vibrant and promising. But determining the circumstances of her fatal crash as definitively as possible is important to the public discourse and, ultimately, public policy, that determines whether our streets will be dangerous or livable. Between the Post’s “Tragic teen struck and killed was biking against light: cops” and an alternative headline, “Joyrider in BMW was speeding when he rammed teen on bike,” lies a world of difference. For now, we don’t know which applies. Without data that the NYPD may have but won’t give out, we probably never will.
Thank you Charlie for your powerful analysis and questions. I too hope Aileen’s parents work hard to learn the truth of what happened to their daughter. Aileen’s terrifying death made a big impression on my family of everyday cyclists, especially my daughter, who is about to enter HS, and has been riding in the street since she was six years old.
While your list of questions is thorough and your points are well taken, I would not be so quick to dismiss, if accurate, the conclusion that the cyclist might have avoided this accident if she had taken greater responsibility. There are many facts that we will probably never know about this case, but in the absence of anything to contradict the original news stories, I think the best take-away is that cyclists can keep themselves safe by obeying traffic laws and, when that isn’t enough, wearing a helmet can only help.
I certainly don’t want to blame the victim, but many of the same sorts of questions you ask about the driver could (should?) be asked about the cyclist, too: was she in a hurry? Was she distracted? Wearing headphones? Texting? Did she look both ways before entering traffic? Did she have a record of getting into accidents like this?We all see plenty of reckless behavior by cyclists every day, and I am surprised that there are not more accidents like this taking place.
Totally disagree Christopher.
The critical question in any crash should be “was the motorist speeding?” If you operate a heavy, dangerous piece of machinery in a dense, urban environment, the onus of safety rests on your shoulders, not the most vulnerable.
As someone who every working day runs the risk of being turned into another fake “cyclist killed by his/her own recklessness” article, I have a very deep interest in seeing these things analyzed properly. And my absolute adherence to the law when riding my bike is in no small part my attempt to avoid becoming such a story.
But stacking questions to suggest the driver’s culpability is intellectually dishonest. Do you have any idea how easily half these questions could be turned around and asked of the cyclist? And those are also things we don’t know, things that are quite relevant to any fair-minded analysis of what happened.
You’re not doing this person any service–and you’re certainly not doing cyclists in general any service–by coming up with questions that suggest an alternative narrative that has no basis in what is actually known about this case.
(You can pretend that you’re not using these to suggest an alternative narrative, that you’re just asking questions. And maybe you can live with that. But I’m just asking questions about 9/11, about Obama’s birth certificate, and, yes, about the PPW stats. That’s all. Just questions. Harmless little me. Just trying to be objective. Just want a fair hearing. What’s wrong with that?)
As someone who every working day runs the risk of being turned into another fake “cyclist killed by his/her own recklessness” article, I have a very deep interest in seeing these things analyzed properly. And my absolute adherence to the law when riding my bike is in no small part my attempt to avoid becoming such a story.
But stacking questions to suggest the driver’s culpability is intellectually dishonest. Do you have any idea how easily half these questions could be turned around and asked of the cyclist? And those are also things we don’t know, things that are quite relevant to any fair-minded analysis of what happened.
You’re not doing this person any service–and you’re certainly not doing cyclists in general any service–by coming up with questions that suggest an alternative narrative that has no basis in what is actually known about this case.
(You can pretend that you’re not using these to suggest an alternative narrative, that you’re just asking questions. And maybe you can live with that. But I’m just asking questions about 9/11, about Obama’s birth certificate, and, yes, about the PPW stats. That’s all. Just questions. Harmless little me. Just trying to be objective. Just want a fair hearing. What’s wrong with that?)
As someone who every working day runs the risk of being turned into another fake “cyclist killed by his/her own recklessness” article, I have a very deep interest in seeing these things analyzed properly. And my absolute adherence to the law when riding my bike is in no small part my attempt to avoid becoming such a story.
But stacking questions to suggest the driver’s culpability is intellectually dishonest. Do you have any idea how easily half these questions could be turned around and asked of the cyclist? And those are also things we don’t know, things that are quite relevant to any fair-minded analysis of what happened.
You’re not doing this person any service–and you’re certainly not doing cyclists in general any service–by coming up with questions that suggest an alternative narrative that has no basis in what is actually known about this case.
(You can pretend that you’re not using these to suggest an alternative narrative, that you’re just asking questions. And maybe you can live with that. But I’m just asking questions about 9/11, about Obama’s birth certificate, and, yes, about the PPW stats. That’s all. Just questions. Harmless little me. Just trying to be objective. Just want a fair hearing. What’s wrong with that?)
As someone who every working day runs the risk of being turned into another fake “cyclist killed by his/her own recklessness” article, I have a very deep interest in seeing these things analyzed properly. And my absolute adherence to the law when riding my bike is in no small part my attempt to avoid becoming such a story.
But stacking questions to suggest the driver’s culpability is intellectually dishonest. Do you have any idea how easily half these questions could be turned around and asked of the cyclist? And those are also things we don’t know, things that are quite relevant to any fair-minded analysis of what happened.
You’re not doing this person any service–and you’re certainly not doing cyclists in general any service–by coming up with questions that suggest an alternative narrative that has no basis in what is actually known about this case.
(You can pretend that you’re not using these to suggest an alternative narrative, that you’re just asking questions. And maybe you can live with that. But I’m just asking questions about 9/11, about Obama’s birth certificate, and, yes, about the PPW stats. That’s all. Just questions. Harmless little me. Just trying to be objective. Just want a fair hearing. What’s wrong with that?)
I have a couple of questions… what have the police done to replace ‘skid marks’ as a check on speed? Effectively, there are no more skid marks with anti-lock brakes. Certainly, looking at damage to car and whatever the car struck will give an indication, but I seriously doubt that you could differentiate between 28mph and 32 mph.
My second question is does a motorist have a standard of care (per question 7) to anticipate that drivers, cyclists, whoever, will be running thru traffic control devices? Because if so it would be impossible to drive anywhere.
Jason, sorry, I disagree. To assign all the blame to the driver because he is driving a ‘dangerous piece of machinery’ and none to the vehicle who runs a red light (assuming she did run a red light) is simply not right. All users of the road have some responsibility to each other. While we have a dead teenager, we also have a driver who will have to live with what happened for the rest of his life. Drivers, usually, are humans too.
Are there no circumstances where you can imagine a cyclist’s behavior contributing to an accident? I can easily think of ways that a driver can be safely and responsibly operating a heavy piece of machinery in an dense urban environment and still be unable to avoid hitting a cyclist who is riding recklessly. I’m not saying that’s what happened here, but I think that, absent any issues of criminal intent (driver knows cyclist and tries to kill her), it is fairer to both sides to examine the behavior of both parties. Just because cyclists are the most vulnerable in these situations does not mean that they have no responsibility to act safely. And sorry for the string of negatives in that last sentence.
Sorry, but that’s just not how the law works, Jason. Even if a driver was speeding, a driver is not automatically at fault unless the speeding can be proven to have contributed to a crash.
Other factors are often at work that lead to unavoidable crashes. Even the Vision Zero study shows that pedestrian and cyclist deaths are still weekly occurrences in the most progressive European cities. While drivers do need to be far more careful, they are not always at fault.
Several of these questions are pertinent to any traffic collision; and I don’t know why this particular case merits the extra attention compared to any number of cyclist deaths in/around New York in the last year. As I’ve noted before, additional coverage seems to go the young, pretty and white. Kudos to Streetsblog for covering a minority death!
Totally agree. These “questions” are just bizarre allegations that seem to have no basis in fact. The cycling community does such a bad job of permitting responsibility to lie upon the shoulders of cyclists for anything.
I *somewhat* agree with dporpentine. While I’m not as absolutely law-abiding in the strict sense as he is, I’m totally law-abiding with respect to the spirit of the law, which is that anybody with a green gets the right-of-way, no exceptions. If it’s safe for me to proceed AFTER they do, then I will. If not, I won’t. Nevertheless, it’s incumbent upon cyclists to take responsibility for their own safety. This need not mean being a slave to the law, but it does mean carefully evaluating the situation at each and every intersection, even when you have the green light, because other road users WILL violate your legal right of way at some point, whether intentionally or through simple human error. A red light isn’t a magical force field. If I get in a collision on my bike at an intersection where I have the green, as far as I’m concerned, I’m still partially at fault for not looking for red-light runners.
Assuming the events were as depicted in the newspaper accounts, then the driver still made the fatal mistake of assuming right-of-way. Had they hit a red-light running 18-wheeler instead of a cyclist, the results would not have been as much in their favor. This is why it’s incumbent to proceed through intersections at a speed where you can stop or at least drive around any potential obstacle. Hard to give an exact number, but I’d say 20 mph might be an appropriate speed for auto drivers with limited visability.
If safer streets are really our goal, then long-term it’s incumbent to switch to a system which doesn’t rely heavily on compliance and continued enforcement for safety. If that intersection had been made a roundabout instead of controlled by a traffic signal, Aileen Chen might well be alive today. It’s all too easy to blame the victim, but fact is the system itself is fatally flawed. The reality is no matter what we do, we’ll never get 100% compliance with traffic signals among motorists, never mind pedestrians or cyclists. Once we accept that reality, we can move to alternate systems which are inherently self-enforcing.
Don’t worry. Except in cases where the driver is drunk and/or leaves the scene, the dead cyclist or pedestrian is presumed guilty on the spot. So no one outside our cozy little group here will be asking these horribly dishonest questions about Aileen Chen’s death, or that of tomorrow’s victim, or those who will die next week, etc.
Carry on.
Boy, these comments make me mad!
Poor, poor hypothetical driver—to be be asked some tough questions (or, typically, not) after the DEATH of yet another bicyclist or pedestrian when the DEFAULT setting seems to be “bicyclist must’ve been at fault—probably ran a red light—after all, it’s a bicylist, so let the driver walk away without charges”.
Isn’t the point of Komanoff’s list that these are questions that should be asked of drivers at least MORE OFTEN THAN THEY ROUTINELY ARE? Poor Jason King last fall was smashed to death by a backing up truck, but sorry, Jason, you didn’t hear his beeper because you might’ve been wearing earbuds, so it’s your own damn fault and no culpability to the driver of the multi-ton backing up truck.
Give me a break. A ton or two of metal moving fast in public areas—even if going under the legal limit (yeah, that happens—not) and in the forward direction—has to answer these questions. If bicyclists might have to answer similar questions, Komanoff might agree, in order to get to the bottom of it—if the bicyclist is alive to do so. In the meantime, I think Komanoff’s point is an excellent one.
I can only speak for myself, but this particular case hit me particularly hard because her background is similar to my own. I went to Bronx Science, not Stuyvesant, but the mindset is the same. Anyone from these schools can grow up and become anything they want. The loss of this potential is what hit me hard. She may have grown up to cure cancer or aging but now we’ll never know. And I think how my death at 16 would have affected my family and my classmates. Every death is tragic to be sure, but the death of a promising young person particularly so.
Did the driver’s age and gender appear in the news accounts? As I recall, when we worked on KBA, those were very important factors.
I’ve question some of the people that lives around the area.
1. The driver got her license THIS MONTH, along with a new bmw.
2. Aileen flew up, landed on her head, cracked her neck, blood and brain tissue splattered. Now no helmet would have protected her. (fact- few neighbors even had to clean the street)
3. The police asked the driver’s parents to the scene to drive the car home, and police escorted the driver home. (3 witnesses)
4. Driver is Jewish. Sorry, but around this area, Jewish people gets away with a lot (since they think they own everything- IMO)
We all know what is stated on the news. So no need to remind me that she ran a red or what not. But I feel that a proper investigation should be in account. Forensics!
Although this is all “he said, she said”. I do hope the Chen family will have enough courage to stand and fight this.
Ah. I see. 26, which fits the most common pattern; but apparently female, which doesn’t.
Adding on:
According to Maria Victoria Fernandez, a witness, the driver was the one who passed the red. But what can we do. The driver obviously told her side and ONLY her side of the story to NYPD.
NYPD – such a failure. For not listening to the witnesses.
I agree with #4.
Those Police officers were probably bias.
Does the NYPD have its own checklist for investigators of collisions? If so, it might be instructive to see how it compares to Charles’s.
I’ll go out on a limb and predict that such an internal checklist does exist but is routinely ignored.
Can Streetsblog obtain and publish it?
These questions are important to ask in the current climate where all kinds of people immediately use news reports that Ms. Chen didn’t have the right of way to start scolding cyclists for being dangerous. It’s obviously way easier for all of the officials involved to simply blame the victim and wash their hands of it than it is to open up a huge can of political, ethnic, and investigatory worms, so it is perfectly fair for the public to question a default assignment of guilt to the person who payed the highest price. This story is so tragic, and it has really weighed on my mind since it happened. My heart goes out to the Chen family.
Your pathetic, the diver is Jewish so you think they are self entitled because they think they own everything. Why don’t you just stick to pertinent facts instead anti-semetism.
By the way as a Jew I can confirm that we secretly own all of the media and banking, we grow horns and tails on the Sabbath, we use the blood virgin Christian children to make Matzoh, and and the Chronicles of the Elders of Zion is valid document. Did I miss any other stereotypes.
You may be satisfied with the MSM contention that the cyclist was completely at fault for doing “what cyclists do” and the driver did absolutely nothing to cause the accident. I’m not. There is a point at which one should dig deeper and a point where one should stop, but a promising young life was tragically snuffed out and the news reports are sketchy to the point of caricature. This is a serious public safety issue and these situations are seldom that simple.
By the way what is your source for all of the information you posted. Please provide a link.
Melanie and Jeannie, Please provide the source for witness statements. There are two witness statements in the Post and The Gothamist and all they say was the victim was covered in blood.Really hard to event take what Jeannie L says based on item #4.
It is important to impound the phone of EVERY motor vehicle crash/incident. Why can’t we have a law like that passed? Two days ago I had three incidents of close calls within an hour of drivers swerving towards me/almost hitting me…here’s what each driver was doing. 1) talking on a cell phone, 2) talking on a Nextel walkie talkie 3) a woman who was opening up a bill – looked like it was an electric bill.
This makes me so mad that some day I could be killed riding my bike all because someone had to text someone or open a stupid bill. Human life is worth way more than that.
There’s a place for determining who is at fault after a death. It’s called a court of law. Not one or two cops on the street. Not blog comments. A court. That’s “how the law works”, Chris. Why do you oppose using the judicial process to determine the facts and whether there was fault in this death?
If this is true, it highlights my own bias. I just assumed the driver was male. A foolish assumption in hindsight, but I’m probably not the only one who thought that.
Nathan, you are right. things like this are handled by law. not by sb commenters who seem to pass judgement on whos at fault. immediately, i sense that all drivers are at fault here. it may be that some are and some arent.
the facts have already been stated. whether you choose to accept them or not is up to you. but folks, please dont make things up like the driver is at fault, b/c so and so reasons.
it certainly doesnt help the situation
agree, folks here rush to judgement that its the drivers fault.
but i would like to add that a very attentive driver who is alert and aware of these kinds of situations would less likely crashed and leave one person dead.
im not saying this particular driver is not alert, but the odds are better if you are aware.
Joe R,
This saddens me too. I came from brooklyn tech and i DID have the opportunity to succeed. when i was young, i rode so much more than i do now. my bicycle was my only method of transportation.
now looking back, i did plenty of careless things myself. once i wasnt paying attention and literally crashed into a parked car.
im not blaming aileen for not paying attention. maybe she did, maybe she didnt. maybe she didnt know the rules of the road. but look, it was an accident. its tragic. lets not put blame on any one party.
jeannie, i have no idea whether you state is true or not. but assumming everything is true of what you said is true.
i find item 1 VERY disturbing.
the driver is a NEW driver w/ virtually no experience. what the hell is she doing w/ a brand new car even if she can afford it.
inexperience in a driving enviornment is VERY dangerous. assuming that the driver had right of way, she still needed to be extra cautious b/c she is a new driver.
once you get the experience, im sure it will become second nature to act on your own reflexes fast enough.
i dont blame the driver, i blame their inexperience.
It’s entirely possible that the driver was completely blameless, in which case an investigation would clear her (or him) and possibly help ease the guilt that the driver no doubt feels regardless of fault. But with more New Yorkers killed by automobiles than by guns over the past decade, is it wrong to expect even a modicum of rigor in trying to figure out what really happened? In some countries, the driver would automatically be at fault.
Let me take Mr. Komanoff to task. The list you created still sounds like you hold the driver of the car solely at fault and to be quite frank the lynch mob mentality of some you posters is even more virulent. I never realized that ones ethnic or religious background determined how you drove.
Sine the U.S. legal system is innocent until proven guilty I have a few questions I would like an answer.
1. If Ms. Chen was listening to an I-pod while cycling, do you consider that distracted driving on the equivalent of driving while texting or talking on a cell phone.
2. If Ms. Chen did run a red light is she responsible for creating the accident. Remember cyclists have to follow the same laws as cars.
3. How fast was Ms. Chen going when she ran the red light?
4. Did she come to a complete stop and check to see if the intersection was clear? Or did she just blow through the interection reducing the reaction time of the driver?
5. Will any of the posters reveal their secret sources for witness statements that claim that eyewitnesses saw the cardriver runthe red light?
6. Could you stick to reporting facts, instead of hypothetical conjecture?
I’d really appreciate an article that presents the facts of the case, not hypothetical conjecture. Come back to us when you know what happened. If the driver ran a red light than they are solely at fault and should be charged accordingly. If Ms. Chen ran the red light she made a lapse of judgement that cost her.
eric,
basing on just the reported facts, you would think that aileen made a bad choice and paid a bad price.
it does seem like the posters here hound drivers guilty by default. its almost like getting a fair trial in afghanistan ruled by the taliban.
however, if the unreported facts are true that the driver was a new driver of a month, i can certainly see how there is some driver fault here, even if legally, the driver had right of way. and when i mean fault, i mean inexperience. you dont even need to be speeding in this case to be dangerous.
i will believe that aileen DID run the red, but the outcome may have been different if the driver was more alert, more experienced, slower, etc…
The unreported facts are also unverified, if they are true and verifiable than there may be a case for the driver being at fault. I will agree with you the posters here all assume the driver is immediately at fault and some of the reasons, like the driver being Jewish defy logic.
If Streetsblog wants to continue reporting on this they eed to step back and get facts first. Nor conjecture.
“6. Could you stick to reporting facts, instead of hypothetical conjecture?”
The point is no one knows the facts, but the story was widely reported in the press containing information about the incident that is not necessarily known to be true, making those reports, as you say, hypothetical conjecture.
station44025.
isnt your theory of “not necessarily known to be true” hypothetical conjecture itself?
you are denying anything thats reported b/c you already have a bias against the driver by default. regardless of fact or fiction.
Eric, my post is directed: first and foremost at the NYPD, who almost certainly are in possession of evidence that could clarify the extent of the driver’s responsibility for the crash; second, at the press accounts that validated unverified assertions exculpating the driver; and only third at the driver, who, had she been operating her vehicle commensurate with the residential character of the neighborhood and the responsibilities incumbent upon any driver to exercise due care, very likely could have, in my view, taken sufficient action to avoid striking Aileen at speed.
If Aileen did run the red light then of course she bears considerable responsibility for the crash; that would not exculpate the driver, however, who may have been speeding — something the NYPD/AIS could help determine — and who may well have not exercised due care.
You ask me, “stick to reporting facts, instead of hypothetical conjecture.” My post which begins with a dozen questions, clearly identified as such, is a cri de coeur for the authorities to provide facts or, at least, information that could dispel conjecture (reported as fact) and help Aileen’s family and friends and the larger community find out how and why she died. I’m sorry you didn’t recognize it as such.
Eric, my post is directed: first and foremost at the NYPD, who almost certainly are in possession of evidence that could clarify the extent of the driver’s responsibility for the crash; second, at the press accounts that validated unverified assertions exculpating the driver; and only third at the driver, who, had she been operating her vehicle commensurate with the residential character of the neighborhood and the responsibilities incumbent upon any driver to exercise due care, very likely could have, in my view, taken sufficient action to avoid striking Aileen at speed.
If Aileen did run the red light then of course she bears considerable responsibility for the crash; that would not exculpate the driver, however, who may have been speeding — something the NYPD/AIS could help determine — and who may well have not exercised due care.
You ask me, “stick to reporting facts, instead of hypothetical conjecture.” My post which begins with a dozen questions, clearly identified as such, is a cri de coeur for the authorities to provide facts or, at least, information that could dispel conjecture (reported as fact) and help Aileen’s family and friends and the larger community find out how and why she died. I’m sorry you didn’t recognize it as such.
Eric, my post is directed: first and foremost at the NYPD, who almost certainly are in possession of evidence that could clarify the extent of the driver’s responsibility for the crash; second, at the press accounts that validated unverified assertions exculpating the driver; and only third at the driver, who, had she been operating her vehicle commensurate with the residential character of the neighborhood and the responsibilities incumbent upon any driver to exercise due care, very likely could have, in my view, taken sufficient action to avoid striking Aileen at speed.
If Aileen did run the red light then of course she bears considerable responsibility for the crash; that would not exculpate the driver, however, who may have been speeding — something the NYPD/AIS could help determine — and who may well have not exercised due care.
You ask me, “stick to reporting facts, instead of hypothetical conjecture.” My post which begins with a dozen questions, clearly identified as such, is a cri de coeur for the authorities to provide facts or, at least, information that could dispel conjecture (reported as fact) and help Aileen’s family and friends and the larger community find out how and why she died. I’m sorry you didn’t recognize it as such.
Charles, your questioning does not help the family. It does not bring back their daughter.
That is the only thing that can help the family. Not a bunch of questioning that is leading to is there any fault of driver in this case.
Mr. Komanoff, You and Streetsblog should take a big step back from this story and come back to us when you have facts. Confirmed eyewitness testimony, autopsy and police reports. The fact that two posters have now turned this into anti-semetism with claims that a contributing factor to the accident was due to the fact that the driver of the car is Jewish is repugnant. A clear sign as to how out of control this has become.
Do the responsible thing, report on this story when the facts are in. Instead of encouraging a rush to judgement. Instead of posting your own guidelines for how this accident should be investigated, why don’t you contact the NYPD find out what there guidelines, report that, and then tell us if you would do this differently.
I have one simple question: Would LEO be as quick to believe someone holding a smoking gun that claimed the victim jumped in front of them when he pulled the trigger? Then why take the only survivor of a bike v car wreck as a reliable witness? You know thay are going to spin things in their favor if not outright lie to keep from having to take responsibility.
Courts of law /aren’t/ the place to handle this stuff. This stuff never /gets to/ a court of law, because (a) the police suppress evidence, and (b) the DA won’t file charges.
One of the greatest mistakes in the history of the West has been making the state the victim of all crimes; in America, like in most Western countries, the victim has /no standing in criminal court/. That’s reserved for civil court, where justice is a matter of dollars and percentages.
When we stop relying on courts to do justice, we’ll be back on the road to a free society.
is your hatred for the court system and the police going to bring back aileen?
Would you rather have no police at all? To say we are not a free society is INSULTING to me and im sure most. seriously, if you want a free society w/ no courts and no policing. move to afghanistan
Eric, I think the whole point of this is that the actual known facts are difficult to get from the police. All we have is a reported summation that says the cyclist ran the red light, without any knowledge about how that conclusion came to be.
I’m not an anti driver guy, and I’m not an anti responsibility guy either. If someone walks into the path of a moving car, yes they are responsible for the consequences.
I do however take issue with a conclusion being reported as fact when we don’t know how that conclusion was arrived at. If it was based primarily on the testimony of the driver, then it is right to question the credibility of such evidence.
What has been reported is not so much a fact as it is a conclusion based on facts that seem to be unavailable to the general public. There is a big difference.
Actually, Eric, I wouldn’t say Jewish people in Boro Park think they own everything. But I do think that Hasidic people – whether they’re pedestrians, drivers or cyclists – are some of the most reckless, lawless and downright insane users of the road I’ve ever seen. Seriously, mothers pushing baby carriages out into the road without even looking at what’s coming insane. There are plenty of stupid drivers and cyclists and peds in NYC but going into Hasidic neighborhoods is like entering the wild west of traffic. The only place that’s as bad is probably Chinatown.
An additional problem is the a war on cyclists in Williamsburg – a woman cyclist was recently told by a Jewish driver that he’d love to run her over and kill her when she told him his driving put her in danger. This kind of frothing at the mouth hatred by one group for another is absolutely appalling. That it’s coming from a Jewish person, with their historical experience as an oppressed and hated group, just makes it all the more depressing.