Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Cyclist/Linux Creator Killed in Hit & Run — Parallax Forums

Cyclist/Linux Creator Killed in Hit & Run

ercoerco Posts: 20,256
edited 2013-07-10 14:19 in General Discussion
Just saw this on Facebook:

The driver of the hit-and-run accident that killed Seth Vidal, creator of the yum Linux distro, has turned himself in. He's being charged with his murder and held on $50K bail. Another brilliant contributor to the open source community will be sorely missed. He was only 36.

http://www.heraldsun.com/news/localnews/x177810618/Driver-arrested-in-cyclist-hit-and-run

Comments

  • Duane DegnDuane Degn Posts: 10,588
    edited 2013-07-09 23:25
    That's very sad.
    erco wrote: »
    He's being charged with his murder and held on $50K bail.

    I saw the part about bail and the driver being charged with hit-and-run but I think this would more likely qualify as manslaughter rather than murder. Either way, it's a very cowardly act to drive off after hitting someone.
  • ctwardellctwardell Posts: 1,716
    edited 2013-07-10 04:48
    Duane Degn wrote: »
    Either way, it's a very cowardly act to drive off after hitting someone.

    This is the "Me" generation, it's what we get for stupid things like situational ethics.

    Look at it from the "Me" point of view, "He's probably dead anyway, why should I hang around and get in trouble?"

    Sad to see these things happen, sadder to realize it's just going to keep getting worse.

    C.W.
  • BeanBean Posts: 8,129
    edited 2013-07-10 05:37
    Because the DUI laws are so crazy now, you are going to see a lot more hit and runs.
    If someone has had a drink or two and hits someone, they are going to just leave and then turn themselves in later. Usually claiming "I thought I hit a mailbox".

    I bet a nickel that the driver had been drinking...
  • MicksterMickster Posts: 2,694
    edited 2013-07-10 08:33
    Bean wrote: »
    I bet a nickel that the driver had been drinking...

    Apart from all the obvious reasons not to drive after drinking, that particular state has roadblocks as well. I used to come across them quite a lot. I would never want to live there.

    Regards,

    Mickster
  • kwinnkwinn Posts: 8,697
    edited 2013-07-10 11:24
    Mickster wrote: »
    Apart from all the obvious reasons not to drive after drinking, that particular state has roadblocks as well. I used to come across them quite a lot. I would never want to live there.

    Regards,

    Mickster

    I hope I am misinterpreting what you mean by this, but I am all in favor of the police stopping drivers to see if they have been drinking before hitting the road. As far as I am concerned the police and courts were too lenient with drunk drivers for far too many years. Only in the last decade or so has the punishment for drunk driving come anywhere close to fitting the offence. Prior to that it seemed like being drunk was almost accepted as being an excuse for injuring or killing someone.
  • Dave HeinDave Hein Posts: 6,347
    edited 2013-07-10 11:37
    It's interesting that this discussion has been mostly on DUI even though there is no mention that the driver was intoxicated. There's also no mention of who's fault it was. It's possible that the cyclist could have swerved out into traffic, and the driver couldn't avoid hitting him. And the driver was not charged with murder, but was charged with "felony hit-and-run and driving while his license was revoked". Of course, the obvious assumption is that he drove away because he didn't want to be tested for alcohol or drugs, but we don't know that for a fact.
  • MicksterMickster Posts: 2,694
    edited 2013-07-10 12:18
    kwinn wrote: »
    I hope I am misinterpreting what you mean by this, but I am all in favor of the police stopping drivers to see if they have been drinking before hitting the road. As far as I am concerned the police and courts were too lenient with drunk drivers for far too many years. Only in the last decade or so has the punishment for drunk driving come anywhere close to fitting the offence. Prior to that it seemed like being drunk was almost accepted as being an excuse for injuring or killing someone.

    You want roadblocks at 10am, 2pm, 5pm? I don't want to live in that kind of world.

    http://www.roadblock.org/roadblocks/North Carolina/

    Cheers!

    Mickster

    "Knock-knock"
    "Who's there?"
    "Since the Patriot Act, we don't have to tell you that"
  • kwinnkwinn Posts: 8,697
    edited 2013-07-10 13:32
    @Dave Hein

    Both points you make are valid, however driving away after hitting someone is a pretty despicable act. For all anyone knows the victim may have survived if he had received timely medical help. Just to be clear however, I was responding to Micksters post regarding road blocks, not any of the assumptions that alcohol was involved.

    @Mickster

    Roadblocks at 10am, 2pm, 5pm do seem to be a bit draconian. From the few posts I read after following your link it sounds like they were not much different from the spot checks I have encountered in Ontario. The only difference I could see was that all of mine were encountered in the 7 pm to 3 am time frame. Considering how much these spot checks have reduced drunk driving I am willing to put up with occasionally being required to stop and produce my drivers licence.
  • whickerwhicker Posts: 749
    edited 2013-07-10 14:19
    Vidal, 36, was biking north on Hillandale Road at **8:57 p.m.**

    Well, there's your answer...
    Don't bike in the dusk or dark without being a mini-rave light show.

    Also, without seeing the accident site, but I'd still like to mention how bike-hostile "modern" city layouts are.
    The worst are those winding curvy industrial park type roads with just curb and gutter, but no actual sidewalk or lines painted offset a few feet from the curb.
Sign In or Register to comment.