Cyclist injured, driver cited in crash
EUGENE, Ore. - A bicyclist suffered broken bones and a cut scalp in a collision with a car Tuesday morning, police said.
Police cited the driver for failure to yield the right of way to a bicycle.
The crash happened around 7 a.m. on Fox Hollow Road at Sprague Street.
Police said the driver of the car turned left in front of the oncoming bicyclist.
The cyclist, 51-year-old Roger Dale Pettiet, was awake and speaking after the accident, police said. He was taken to the hospital. He was not wearing a helmet.
The driver, 61-year-old Stanley L. Fleming, was cited by police for Failing to Yield Right of Way to a Bicycle in a Bike Lane.
WHY DIDN'T THEY TELL US IF THE DRIVER WAS WEARING HIS SEAT BELT? SURELY THAT IS JUST AS RELEVANT?
 @stuckinoregon The driver wasn't injured, that's why.
 @PleaseBeSmart It's just as relevant to the details of the accident.(meaning not relevant at all). It was the driver's fault. Completely. Why mention either way? I always wear a helmet myself. Always. It's idiotic not to. But accident coverage like this implies that the cyclist was partly at fault. Many readers or listeners will walk away thinking to themselves that the cyclist should have been wearing a helmet & it's all partly his own darn fault.
 @stuckinoregon In no way did it imply the cyclist was at fault, and no reasonable reader would ever assume that wearing a helmet would have protected him from being hit by a driver who failed to yield. Obviously helmets have nothing to do with fault.
What? What does his helmet have to do with anything? Would a helmet have stopped the car from not yielding the bike lane and breaking his bones? No. This is not the cyclists fault, this is the CAR DRIVERS fault. Stop blaming the victim.
 @Dreqan I don't believe that I blamed the cyclists, or even mentioned him! If you wish to know my reasoning, ask nicely and I will be happy to share :)
Â
Just because: My thoughts were that I've seen way to many articles where a cyclists was injured or killed and they didn't have a helmet. Sometimes the helmet might not have helped, but other times it has been stated that the cyclists might still be alive or would have suffered a less injury if only they had a helmet. Just like it isn't the other drivers fault (usually) when someone crashes into their car, it isn't (usually) the cyclists fault when a car crashes into them. However, basic safety measures can help either situation survive with (hopefully) less injuries.
@XoztedMama @Dreqan ---I never wear a helmet, though i know i should, and if my brains get smeared because of it, I must accept "some" of the contributory negligence regardless of the driver's fault.
A dear friend of mine in Japan gave me a really good one, designed to split in half on impact. One time it did its job of preventing a concussion and/or coma and I was unable to wear it again. Thank you so much for saving my life with your generosity Mr. Shimada of Sano City Japan!
Regretfully, my head is so hard I have yet to replace that vital head gear under my own intiative. Do as i say not as I do! Such hypocrazy I know.
But, please for Valentine's Day give your friends or loved ones who don't have one--- a helmet.
Some will wear it ONLY IF you give it to them. Scold and cry out at them whenever they don't.
My deepest sympathy for both the driver and the bicyclist. And, if you won't wear it for yourself. Please wear it for the poor drivers that may have to spend the rest of their life in tear drops because they killed somebody (a fate worse than death for most).Â
@Dreqan @XoztedMama ---the only right of way us bicyclists have in this country (and too many others) is a ticket to the grave. I have almost pulled drivers out of their car and strangled them to death for nearly killing me dozens of times. But, chose not to because, I don't like jail. Does not mean I like their privelege any more than mine.
You seem to confuse what is with the way it should be, at the expense of someone getting killed for an idyllic world that does not exist.
I am sure you are still steamin' from what you saw today. I will get a crow bar and bash the drivers window in more if you think that will change anything.
 @peace  @Dreqan  @XoztedMama Which, I would think we could agree, is absolutely ridiculous. Do we want to be like them, or be like the Dutch where hardly any-one wears a helmet, biking is encouraged and not seen as dangerous, more people bike leading to safety in numbers, and car drivers are expected to drive without hitting bikers? Accidents are far fewer there than here.We need people to see driving as dangerous and a privilege, not harmless and a right.
@Dreqan @XoztedMama ---I must also add one last caveat. Yes, in Japan drivers are so powerless not to run over bikers, that it seems like the drivers there do it on purpose or do everything possible to increase the likelihood that they will. Cops often scold the students with that fact. And, they tell them that the we the police (omawari-sahn) cannot possibly arrest all the bad drivers, but they can force them to wear a helmet. I have heard the lecture many times.
@Dreqan @XoztedMama ---most car accidents happen within a mile or two of one's home. It is not so uncommon for a parent to whack their own child or other kids in the neighborhood. Are you going to scold the parent for insisting that their kids wear a helmet?
I can assure you Dreqan that I share your outrage of all the jackass drivers out there, especially with texting, drunk drivers, and the age-impaired oblivious, etc.--- the list is endless.That is what we agree on too. In fact, if you live near downtown Eugene like me, I will buy you the beers and we will swap stories and blow off some steam from all of our justified rage toward OUR mutual nemesis.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I bicycled in one of the most bicyle UN-friendly countries in the world for 15 years. And, I probably got PTSD from all of the close calls and/or near to death experiences.
That is why in that country, all students (JHS to HS) must wear a helmet or they will be ticketed. Elementary schoolers are normally not even allowed to ride a bike to school. Adults are ticketed too. I avoided tickets because the cops usually could not speak English, and I always pretended not to understand Japanese.
I am on your side Bro! If I am to be critisized, scold me for being a hypocrit!
Â
 @peace  @XoztedMama  @Dreqan Wait, really? Wear a helmet so the poor driver who kills you won't spend the rest of their lives in tears? It's the responsibility of the driver not to hit you, not your responsibility to wear so much armor then when they DO hit you THEY won't have to feel bad. You make it sound like car drivers are powerless to not run over bikers!
 @XoztedMama I see your point, but this cyclist only had a head scrape and his major injuries were broken bones. If anything this article is an argument for why helmets *aren't* needed. I feel that you are blaming the victim because instead of showing outrage against the idiot driver who turned across the biker's path and almost killed him, you show outrage for the cyclist, the victim, not protecting themselves enough from idiot drivers. We need fewer idiot drivers, not more helmets. I wear a helmet when I ride, but that wouldn't have helped me much in a crash like this.
@Dreqan @XoztedMama ---I split my helmet in two from a low hanging metal constuction beam in town that was just in my blind spot because of my height. Bikers do not need helmets just because of cars. There are an infinite number of hazards besides cars. Other bicyclists is an obvious one.
Bicycling is not a contact sport until it is. I think everyone should just wear football helmets.
Because the dead bicyclist is not going to have the mental capacity to care whose fault it is after he is dead.
 @XoztedMama Sorry if I put words into your mouth. It seems like every time a biker is hit the conversation always revolves around helmets and never bad driving. It's similar to rape cases where victims are also blamed. The topic of conversation should not be "don't go out at night" and "wear a helmet," it should be "don't rape," and "don't run over bikers." Bikers only need helmets because of cars. Without cars they wouldn't not be needed except in the case of off-road riding. Look at the Dutch, way more bikers, far fewer cars, and almost no-one wears a helmet.But, again, that's irrelevant. Was IS relevant is that this driver, for some reason or another (maybe texting) turned into the path of a downhill biker, almost killed him, and only got a ticket. They even let him drive away in his car with a busted windshield (I was there.)
 @Dreqan When I posted, the article didn't state the cyclist's injuries. KVAL has since updated with that information. At that time, I was hoping that they were minor. However, the bit about no helmet got me thinking about helmets/safety.
Â
My comment wasn't directed toward the cyclist or the driver... which is why I deliberately did NOT mention either in my statement. I was neither posting against the cyclists nor for the driver. You have put your own personal feelings into my words instead of just reading the words as they were written.
Â
I still think that ALL cyclists should be required to wear a helmet. If you wanted to, you could easily find cases where seatbelts didn't help and use the same argument that they are unnecessary. They will never be helpful 100% all of the time, but the fact that they could help a loved one return to their family and friends makes them a measure well worth using.
Â
Safe cycling to you :)
If seatbelts are mandatory for ANYONE who rides in a vehicle... and the reasoning is that they save lives and prevent more serious injuries from happening... then why aren't helmets the same for EVERYONE on a bicycle and in any sort of bike carrier/hauler? We have a large number of bikers in Eugene, and do a lot to try and make biking as safe as possible (dedicated bike lanes, etc.)... so why has something so basic been overlooked?
@XoztedMama ---ZM you are so kool! i have read your comments, and you are pure genious, because you ask what you do not know. Others only spew like 13-olds-what they do not know and get everything worse off.
Seatbelt law was frowned upon back in the days of horse-wagon and carraige, because some claimed that the seatbelt trapped them to death during and after an accident. The Govt. could be sued if it forced such on the growing pop. even when windshield glass was not yet shatter-proof, and they had to pick tiny little shards of glass out of little girls like shirley temple (whose body guards always made her wear a seatbelt).
When enough children die, then they ((y)our govt.) will make helmets manditory for bicyclists.
Until then, the govt. only balances MSB against MSC and breastfeeds off of utilitarian maximum to sustain itself.
When the govt. can no longer burden the social cost of too much blood in the streets, they will mandate helmets on all bicyclists. Other govts have all ready done so.
But, in the USA, bikers are such a tiny minority of the road, not too much blood will be spilled, if/when they do get smeared.
Basically UNCLE SAM does not care, until we have 100 million motorists with spilt blood. Then SAM says, "WE NEED SEAT BELTS"
When we have a 100 mill bicyclists, then SAM will mandate helmets.
Until that time comes, US bicyclists had better wear one w/o him having to force it on us for our own good.
 @XoztedMama I don't think the government should be forcing personal safety on adult individuals anyway. Helmets, seat belts... not their business.
@PleaseBeSmart @XoztedMama ---so mothers should just be allowed to hold their babies while driving w/o a seatbelt OR just let the babies/tots flop around like fish in the backseat?
@peace ---MP SGT, please stop performing cunnilingus on goats, just because you are more stupid than a goat.
Judas goat is what you are. That is the goat trained to lead all of the other goats to the slaughter house... just because UR rewarded with a handfull of silver (in your case, probably just seaman) does not mean that you need to agree with a heretic that challenges seatbelt law.
Â
@PleaseBeSmart ---Good Morning! I slept very well last night thanks to you.Lol...and a yawn.
No, "'you're' going off on things I did not say". Your whole paragraph of the sentences above prove that.
The news story is about a bicycle & car collision. "You" have chosen not to stay on topic, not me. The next time a news story appears about someone who chops their fingers off with a jigsaw, I may or may not choose to entertain the notion of making them available only to licensed professional.
But, that is for another story, and I am off to new one today.
So long, and Have a Nice Day :)
Â
 @peace Lol. I'm sighing because you're going off on things I did not say. Do you always blame the person in the ambulance? Maybe would should ban alcohol, fast food, and cigarettes, continue the war on drugs, and mandate that everyone maintain clean hands and a reasonable exercise regimen. While we're at it, let's get rid of extreme sports. Anything else we should have the government control so as to cut down on ambulance and emergency room use as much as possible? Having power tools used only by licensed professionals? Shall we require regular exams as a preventative measure?Â
@PleaseBeSmart ---don't sigh just because you are wrong and/or tired of losing our little debate. That's a "cop out" --pun intended. Ambulances risk their lives to rescue you because of YOUR choice not to wear a seat belt, not theirs.
Other people in the emergency room die because you get there before a little baby that was dying from something that could NOT be prevented.
Good night sore loser. Finally, I won against the brilliant PBS.
I shall sleep well tonight.
 @peace *sigh* What is the conversation then? Do I believe in using tax dollars to clean up blood from the road? Of course. Ambulances drive as fast as safely possible in the even of an emergency. They don't endanger others if it's *really* an emergency.. they go, they treat the patient and do the best they can. Not that it even matters, because situation A being legal might possibly lead to situation B which could be a bad thing... isn't in itself a reason to ban situation A. The government fundamentally is not there to play mommy and daddy for me. It's my body, and it should be my choice if I want to participate in dangerous activities.Â
@PleaseBeSmart ---it has everything to do with this conversation. Who will mop up your blood from the road should you choose not to wear a seat belt? (Y)our tax dollars. Not wearing a seatbelt is entirely related to driving behavior and endangering others. Those ambulances will have to get there a lot faster before you bleed to death.
 @peace Feel free to not assume my opinions. Not wearing a seat belt is an issue entirely separate from driving behavior that endangers others. I also didn't say anything about taxes, because that has nothing to do with this conversation.Â
@PleaseBeSmart ---oh now I get it. It is all about you and your own decisions that the govt should not protect you from. And, you should not have to pay taxes for them monitoring your driving behavior and ticketing your decisions when you make a mistake because you are human OR when another person makes a mistake or bad decision because we are all human.
 .
Â
 @peace As adults, of course not. It's not the government's job to protect me from my own decisions.
@PleaseBeSmart "I don't think the government should be forcing personal safety on adult individuals anyway. Helmets, seat belts... not their business"
No comprehension skill deficiency as far as I can read.
Only thing I get is that you don't think that the government should force us to protect ourselves from an inevitable and astronomically, indisputable amount of pain, suffering and death if they did not.Â
 @peace Your comprehension skills suck tonight and I'm not quite sure how to reword it so that you'll get it. =/ An adult should have the right to make their own decision in regards to their own safety. That is not the government's business. Our society has accepted that it is a different situation with minors, and that government can rightfully look out for the bare minimum of their welfare. They don't yet have the right to make their own decisions, yet parents do not have the right to endanger them in certain ways. And nope, sorry to burst your bubble... I never had a child seat. I should have, of course, but I did not. My parents weren't big on basic safety and care.
@PleaseBeSmart ---I said "mother" who is an "adult individual". What is your point, besides your disgust with govt. intrusion, even when such disgust would get too many people killed?
Now, I know why they call it "the 'devil's' advocate".
You are probably still a live today thumpin' on your keyboard, because child seats were invented and made mandatory before you were born CHILD.
 @peace I said adults, not children. As a society we've decided that the government has a bit more leeway in ensuring the safety of minors.Â
 @XoztedMama Because bike Nazis are sacred cows here.