BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2012/09/05/bicyclist-struck-by-hit-and-run-driver/

Hope he's ok too. Will be hard to blame the victim with this one, but I'm sure the post-gazette comments will try to prove me wrong once they get around to reporting some news. Nothing yet.

So we just know that it is a dodge stratus. No color?

@ stefb the driver and car are in custody. News had film of police handcuffing the driver.

Just wondering if it may have matched descriptions of other wanted cars.

Just saw it on the news this morning. I hope the cyclist is OK. I always get ill when I see footage of the damaged bike.

Glad they caught the asshole.

No it was green or dark blue

Does anybody remember if the hit/run law went into effect yet? I can't remember if it was 9/1 or 9/15?

The new Pennsylvania hit-and-run law went into effect yesterday (September 4). You can read more about the details of the law here: http://www.edgarsnyder.com/blog/20120814-pennsylvania-hit-and-run-law.html. I hope the bicyclist is okay...it's devastating that there have been this many accidents recently.

I hope the cyclist is ok, and unless the driver was having medical issues, they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

OMG! So sorry to hear this! Sure hope the victim is ok. AND very happy that they got the driver in this case.

They showed the driver on the news he looked intoxicated. He not only hit the cyclist but several cars, buildings,poles and signs. He was also caught on video.

If the driver was having medical issues, it's likely that they shouldn't have been driving in the first place.

Hope the bicyclist is OK.

On the news car was without left front wheel (when police arrested the driver).

The Trib reported that the 26 year old driver arrested was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Bicyclist in serious condition at hospital with FX vertebrae and lacerations.

I am curious to see how this will be handled by the police. I would think that blood analysis would not be available yet. If collision was caused by a medical condition, does that excuse fleeing the scene?

Here's the Trib story: http://triblive.com/news/2545301-74/police-mccloskey-vehicle-bicyclist-influence-accident-complaint-driving-involving-sign

Police charged Mark McCloskey, 26, of Valencia with an accident involving death or injury, an accident involving damage to a vehicle and reckless driving.... He was taken to the Zone 6 station for a drug evaluation, but was not found to be under the influence, police said.

(Wonder why Zone 6? Isn't that in West End? (Maybe they meant Zone 5, Washington Blvd.))

Interesting that he was not charged with leaving the scene...

They'll pursue this one fully because a car was damaged.

Valencia, that'd be up on the Allegheny-Butler County line, so if this guy hadn't tangled with enough objects to make his car non-functional, he'd've been headed up Route 8, assuming he was headed home.

I'd really like to know the psychological workdown on this guy. If he was that impaired, what motivated him to get in a car and attempt to drive it? That's where the real mistake was made. And not to stop at the first sideswipe?

Do we need billboards that say, "If you can't f'ing drive, get off the damn road!"?

If there were a billboard like that, a car would drive into it and it would be in the "cars hitting things" thread.

PG article: Butler County man accused of hitting Pittsburgh bicyclist with Didge Stratus

Trib update says he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Perhaps simply a tragically shitty driver?

Bizarre.

Grammar police are on the 'Didge' case.

Or, maybe there were meds the driver was supposed to have taken but didn't, as with this Megabus driver?

Is there even a chislett And butler street intersection?

I really do hope that they add the hit and run charge.

Oh look, all of the people who would normally comment about the cyclist are instantly clever enough to notice a misspelled word.

BTW, with all due respect to Mr. Snyder, his link to the new hit and run law leads you to a maze of other links on his website. I couldn't find a link to the actual law there. But it appears we are referring to HB 208, which amended the law with regard to an accident involving death or personal injury, which is the law that Mr. McCloskey was charged under. (Though as I read the law I can't see anything about hit-and-run driving.)

@johnawebb

The main change for the hit-and-run law was the maximum number of years a violator can face in prison. We have another webpage that goes into more detail: http://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/hit-and-run-accidents/pennsylvania-hit-and-run-accident-law.html.

"As of September 4, 2012, Pennsylvania increased the penalties for people convicted of a hit-and-run accident.

According to Pennsylvania law, a driver of any type of vehicle (car, SUV, truck, van, tractor-trailer, or motorcycle) involved in an accident that causes injury or death must stop and stay at the scene of the accident until medical help arrives. Even if no one is injured, a driver is required to give their name and address, and present their registration and license.

Under the new law, drivers caught and convicted of causing a fatal hit-and-run accident will face anywhere from one to 10 years in prison. The crime is now a second-degree felony and carries fines of up to $2,500 as well."

Chislett stops at Witherspoon, skips over Baker and starts again by Butler.

@edgarsnyder, thanks. I guess I have a hard time understanding how HB 208 can change the penalties for hit and run driving when the amendment posted on the state web site doesn't make any mention of hit and run but refers to the sentencing guidelines in case of victim death and what happens if a driver refuses a breathalyzer test.

But I'm not really disputing your interpretation of the law -- just puzzled about it.

@jonawebb

The key word here is fatal hit-and-run accidents. I had my marketing team update the post to make that statement more clear.

Previously, the law made it so that a drunk driver could potentially be punished less if they fled the scene -- 7 years vs. 10 years. A fatal hit-and-run accident was a third-degree felony that carried a mandatory prison term of at least one year, with a maximum sentence of seven years. A fatal accident that involved a drunk driver was a second-degree felony and had a penalty range of 3-10 years in prison.

Now, the maximum time in prison for those convicted of fatal hit-and-run accidents is 10 years...the same as a drunk driver who remains at the scene of a fatal accident.

HB 208, along with many other bills, are indeed confusing.

Hopefully the bicyclist/victim in this case is ok and will not get tortured by the legal system. On the criminal side, postponements routinely occur and really screw up people's schedules. Victims actually get disgusted by delays and stop showing up, On the civil side, (if he chooses to or has to sue), it can drag out, depending on circumstances and the parties involved. If all goes well, he will eventually be up and around on his bicycle, the driver will be held responsible for whatever degree of culpability he has, and there will be no wage loss, unpaid medical bills, or future problems.

oh my.

"Pittsburgh police Sgt. Dan Connolly said Wood, 76, was standing on a sidewalk beside his bicycle by the rear fence gate of his home when he was struck. McCloskey drove onto the curb and hit Wood with the right front fender of his car, Connolly said. Connolly didn’t know if Wood was wearing a helmet." (from the trib story)

Police don't know if the PEDESTRIAN STANDING BEHIND HIS HOUSE was wearing a helmet, because it's irrelevant.

Also, not to beat a dead horse beyond the pulpy mess we've had for years, but why weren't flip-flop boy or Dr. Varicallo's life-ender charged with "an accident causing death or personal injury, a felony." (PG article) Seems to me, the driver of the vehicle clearly in the wrong, in both instances, clearly caused and accident, and in both cases, we have an injury or death resulting.

Just don't get it.

Really hope Mr. Wood heals up fast and fully. Really glad the police seem to be taking this one seriously. Really hope the driver's "lack of impairment" mystery is solved, permanently, before this guy gets behind the wheel again.

story updated. the victim had dismounted and was on the sidewalk about to open the gate to his property when he was struck by the driver.

thanks Scott, I didn't realize that was new informaiton. Still yanks my chain how reporters seem to think anybody within a 50 foot radius of a bicycle's helmet status is vitally important to the story.

@ejwme, We talked about the "flip flop boy" some place else. But last year I was on a Ride of Silence with an assistant DA and at the breakfast afterwards we discussed the case. He'd reviewed the file, planning to prosecute himself if it was justified, and concluded it wasn't. As he put it, sometimes an accident is just an accident. Somebody asked him why he didn't prosecute anyway to make a point and he explained that he was legally bound to prosecute only if he thought he could get a conviction.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, and don't have any opinion on whether this was justified. But please understand that the case was not just dropped. Someone who cared looked into it before deciding not to prosecute.

I'm really surprised he was not intoxicated. The footage of him being arrested made it seem that way. If not intoxicated maybe mental illness? I'm really glad he is off the streets he is a danger to everyone. Bikers, drivers and pedestrians.

yeah, jonah, I've heard that exact information/argument before.

My issue is, who gets to decide "an accident is just an accident" versus "an accident is an accident causing injury or death"? Seems to me, "an accident is just an accident" argument could be made for, well, all accidents. However not all cause injury or death. I wouldn't know personally but I suppose it must be fabulous having psychic insight into hearts and minds, an overwhelmingly brilliant intellect, and Holmes-ian observational skills to be able to tell the difference between "just accidents" and "accidents that cause injury or death".

At least the HP driver is getting charged with something reasonable. I just wish I understood the difference.

Taking your eyes off the road to mess with your shoe and subsequently running someone over and killing them is not an "accident". While I'm fairly sure flip-flop boy didn't intentionally kill Don Parker, he intentionally allowed the two ton object he was supposed to be controlling to continue on its way without guidance. That is inexcusable and he should have been held accountable for the consequences of his extremely poor judgement. Maybe there are cases where "an accident is just an accident" but this sure as hell wasn't one of them.

What I remember Dr. Varacallo's sister saying when we went up to Dubois in 2010 was that the police screwed up, never checked for intoxicants. I'd have to go back to check the threads from then to be sure about whether the driver in that case faced any other charges.

Stu - yep, that's what the story I've heard has been there too. But you don't have to be intoxicated to have caused an "accident involving injury or death".

An "accident is just an accident" could maybe be like if, for example, a flock of large migratory birds decided to descend on and into an open convertible simultaneously while it was traveling at a legal and reasonable speed for the road, resulting in the driver being unable to see the road or anybody on it while the driver attempts to safely come to a stop as soon as possible.

That's "just an accident" and the driver couldn't have done much, other than perhaps not drive a convertible, or not drive on a road in a migratory path, or perhaps spend more time channeling their inner St. Francis.

"Act of God" kind of stuff. Most of the accidents posted on here are acts of inattention, not god.

Most of the accidents posted on here are acts of inattention, not god.

QFT / Roads would be much nicer places if the rest of society understood this distinction

Imagine if these were injuries or deaths caused by being "inattentive" while handing a firearm.

Mark McCloskey is charged with the following offenses:

1 75 § 3742 §§ A F3 ACCIDENTS INVOLVING DEATH OR PERSONAL

INJURY

2 75 § 3743 §§ A M3 ACCIDENT INVOLVING DAMAGE TO ATTENDED

VEHICLE OR

3 75 § 3736 §§ A S RECKLESS DRIVING 09/04/2012

He has some minor traffic related convictions, but he was recently charged with failure to render aid and, in a separate incident, possession of drug paraphernalia.

75 § 3742 §§ A F3 carries the the following penalties applicable to this situation:

(2) If the victim suffers serious bodily injury, any person violating subsection (a) commits a felony of the third degree, and the sentencing court shall order the person to serve a minimum term of imprisonment of not less than 90 days and a mandatory minimum fine of $1,000, notwithstanding any other provision of law.

wonder why he isn't being charged with failure to render aid in this circumstance?

Actually, he is. According to § 3742, a driver has to stop at an accident involving an injury or death:

General rule.--The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury or death of any person shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident or as close thereto as possible but shall then forthwith return to and in every event shall remain at the scene of the accident until he has fulfilled the requirements of section 3744 (relating to duty to give information and render aid). Every stop shall be made without obstructing traffic more than is necessary.

Just happened upon this post from April 2012 about speeding cars on North Euclid.

It's nothing not reported elsewhere, but the Pitt News has this brief story: http://pittnews.com/newsstory/pitt-professor-hit-by-car-in-stable-condition/

KDKA reports McCloskey waived his prelim yesterday and will go to trial. Meanwhile, he's been released from jail this week under orders to "stay away from drugs and alcohol, give up his driver’s license and stay away from the victim and the victim’s family." (Dr Wood is still in the hospital.)