Audi Driver Bloodthirsty for Bikers—and Reparations
by Kate Trainor on March 7, 2008
Since when did cars become more precious than human life? For Basque businessman Tomas Delgado, that day came in 2004 when he hit and killed a 17-year-old cyclist—then sued the deceased teen’s family for $30,000 in damages to his vehicle and for the car he rented to replace his totaled Audi A8. Authorities determined that Delgado had been driving at 100mph in a 55mph zone when his car collided with the boy.
Here’s the report from USA Today:
Tomas Delgado claims that the nighttime crash caused more than $20,000 damage and that a rental car cost him nearly $9,000.
"I’m also a victim in all of this, you can’t fix the lad’s problems, but you can fix mine," Delgado told the paper. He was not charged in the crash that killed 17-year-old Enaitz Iriondo, who was not wearing a helmet or reflective clothing.
Iriondo’s family was awarded nearly $50,000 after Delgado’s insurance company admitted he had been driving too fast.
Traffic fatalities in Spain are a serious problem, according to the European Union’s statistics office. In 2004, Spain recorded 113 traffic fatalities per million inhabitants. In 2006, 3,016 people died on Spain’s unfriendly streets. This story was originally reported in the Spanish newspaper El Pais.
Photo via flickr by felipe_SMIDES & safoocat.
Related posts:
- Audi Driver Bloodthirsty for Bikers—and Reparations
- Poor Prosecution after Driver Kills Albuquerque Cyclist
- C.H.U.N.K 666: Punk-ass Bikers Have More Fun
Audi Driver Bloodthirsty for Bikers—and Reparations
by Joshua Liberles on March 7, 2008
Since when did cars become more precious than human life? For Basque businessman Tomas Delgado, that day came in 2004 when he hit and killed a 17-year-old cyclist—then sued the deceased teen’s family for $30,000 in damages to his vehicle and for the car he rented to replace his totaled Audi A8. Authorities determined that Delgado had been driving at 100mph in a 55mph zone when his car collided with the boy.
Here’s the report from USA Today:
Tomas Delgado claims that the nighttime crash caused more than $20,000 damage and that a rental car cost him nearly $9,000.
"I’m also a victim in all of this, you can’t fix the lad’s problems, but you can fix mine," Delgado told the paper. He was not charged in the crash that killed 17-year-old Enaitz Iriondo, who was not wearing a helmet or reflective clothing.
Iriondo’s family was awarded nearly $50,000 after Delgado’s insurance company admitted he had been driving too fast.
Traffic fatalities in Spain are a serious problem, according to the European Union’s statistics office. In 2004, Spain recorded 113 traffic fatalities per million inhabitants. In 2006, 3,016 people died on Spain’s unfriendly streets. This story was originally reported in the Spanish newspaper El Pais.
Photo via flickr by felipe_SMIDES & safoocat.
Related posts:
- Audi Driver Bloodthirsty for Bikers—and Reparations
- Poor Prosecution after Driver Kills Albuquerque Cyclist
- C.H.U.N.K 666: Punk-ass Bikers Have More Fun
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
I see a “donut effect” in my community (central NJ). A fraction of the working poor live very close to the center of town, in old run down houses where multiple families split the rent. Every porch has 3-4 bikes parked at night. The rest live in Trenton and ride the bus. Everything in the middle is rich suburb, and the handful with safe bike paths into town are the richest. So you have an odd situation where, for the most part, only the poorest and the richest have the option of biking or public transportation.
In my community, CO, the elite have been moving into the city and converting inexpensive housing into high-rise condos. Most reasonable housing is 30 miles away over mountains which are difficult to trek or bike for even the most athletic. Add to this, that most poor families have parents who are working 2 full time jobs each just to get by and that mass transit rarely goes anywhere near the poorer sections of town since the tourist don’t want to have to see them, and you definitely have a green fiasco.
We are a small-ish town/city in the Southeast, population of about 37K (Cleveland, TN). No bike lanes, few sidewalks, and our single “greenway” is in the center of town and more pedestrian-friendly than bike-friendly. The main access to safer low-traffic side-streets, the greenway, and a few sidewalks is within a pricey historic district. The remainder of the population, a good portion lower-income to middle class, is largely a car culture, with a few of us stealthily navigating the no-shoulder roadways and finding ways to circumnavigate the worst of the traffic arteries. The prevailing mantra: drive [i]out[i] to the mall, to the movie theatre, to a restaurant, to your workplace – we have perfected sprawl to its finest. Even living the “good life” out in the country, I sometimes fantasize about how great it might be to live in a location with a more concentrated business/entertainment/shopping core – complete with a network of bike lanes.
Things to consider, the AAA estimates that each vehicle in a household costs more than $8,000 per year to own and operate. Applied to a mortgage, that equals an after-tax value of $10,200 – nearly $900 per month that would afford a family the opportunity to choose $100,000 more home than they would have with that extra vehicle in a more location efficient neighborhood. By location efficient, I mean one where stores, schools and transit are within easy reach by foot or bicycle.
Bicycling in Seattle isn’t the mode of the affluent, but it is the mode of the educated – and we’re sensitive to it’s elitist image. However, the fact is that fewer cars per family are a surer way to wealth than more. It can mean the difference between rent and a mortgage. At its heart it could be the difference between poverty and equity. So, with transportation costing more than food and medicine combined for the poorest quintile of US households, it’s actually clear that the blogger has the whole argument backwards… and that working poor and lower-middle income families CAN not only afford to do trip-making by bicycle – they’ll be better off for it.
I work for a fantastic company that happens to be located in an area near D.C., which is becoming more and more expensive to live in. I live 40 miles away, in Baltimore—much too far for a realistic commute by bicycle.
I’d love to commute to work on a bike. But I literally can’t afford to live any closer, and therefore can’t afford a bicycle commute.
Joe, I don’t know you situation so I’m not presuming that you could afford to live closer to work. However “afford” is a strange word. Sometimes we can afford more than what we realize. But at what cost? Give up a car/suv, give up cable t.v., go back to 1 phone per family. Limit the kids to either baseball or soccer or swim team or gymnastics. Make them choose, but don’t let them do all 4. Not for all people, but many could get rid of some of the minor luxuries and convinces in life and actually afford something more such as a better home closer to work and probably feel less stress because of the “downsized” life. Bottom line, run the numbers, make sure you can or can not afford something you want before making a snap judgment. Weigh the options.