Disneyland Employee Hit & Killed by Car While Riding Bicycle Home from Work

THE FAMILY SHOULD DEMAND DRUG TESTING ON THIS DRIVER!!!!!!

TO BAD THE DRIVER WASN'T DRUG TESTED!   THIS WOULD HAVE A WHOLE DIFFERENT OUTCOME!!!!!

You know what happens is tourists leave DL late at night after a long day. They don't now where the on ramps are. They make horrible driving decisions where this is. It's common to see cars stop in lanes to change lanes 3 lanes over. 

That being said you know if there was a 3 foot law maybe the car ahead might have given her room alerting this driver that there was something to avoid. Another case where the 3 foot law might have saved a life. Great job Jerry(atric) brown. 

i'm calling it, driving while distracted (texting)

You get the same comment as the LA Times: It does NOT matter if the cyclist was wearing a helmet. Was the driver of the car wearing a helmet? You didn't flippin' mention that, dipstick. Basically, when a mushy-mostly water human is pummeled with 2000+ pounds of metal a helmet means precisely squat. 

Please stop trying to excuse CRIMINAL driving with stupid caveats like implying "well, she deserved it, because she wasn't wearing a helmet."  The driver failed to NOT KILL a cyclist using the roadway legally.  Extenuating circumstances may come out later that mitigate that responsibility, but the bottom line is a driver killed another driver on the roadway.

Basically, when a mushy-mostly water human is pummeled with 2000+ pounds of metal a helmet means precisely squat.

Basically, an impact does things like break bones.  These broken bones can then go into other parts of our body and cause bad things to happen (eg, puncture lungs, kidneys, arteries, etc.).  These bad things can generally repaired, if they are treated quickly enough.

Brains cannot be treated.  If the brain is injured, there's not much that you can do.  Thus, having protection for the brain is a smart thing to do and it may save your life.

Was the driver of the car wearing a helmet?

Most states in America have helmet regulations for motorcyclists because it's pretty much impossible to design a motorcycle that is as safe as a car.  Because the same limitation exists for bicycles, why should bicyclists be any different?

Personally, if I'm riding on the road, I wear a helmet.

Don't get me wrong, though.  This certainly does not excuse the behavior of the driver.  But the whole, "I shouldn't have to wear a helmet because people in cars don't have to" is ridiculous.  The sad part is that no matter how often the media mentions that someone died when they weren't wearing a helmet, it doesn't seem to get through to people like you.

"The sad part is that no matter how often the media mentions that someone died when they weren't wearing a helmet, it doesn't seem to get through to people like you."

A person browsing the comments here, with their critical faculties fully engaged, might point out that correlation does not necessarily equal causation.  They like to mention helmets in the media, and of course they like to report anything that kills someone.  Doesn't mean that everyone who gets killed by an automobile while not wearing a helmet died because of the helmet issue. 

I lean toward believing rear-end collisions with distracted drivers can be avoided in many cases by cyclists using a rear-view mirror.  Wish more helmet safety fanatics would advocate those.  I may or may not ever actually USE the helmet I'm wearing, but keeping an eye on the cars behind me keeps me safer on the road.

ish..I grew up in the 60's..helmuts are absurd after the age of 16...growup.

Yes. You're right. Cars are not dangerous. From now on, all cyclists should wear a bubble wrap suit.

Listen, helmets protect from head injuries in survivable accidents. They do NOT save lives in most cases. Wearing them all the time is simple capitulation to the notion that cars are too dangerous to be driven safely. 

If you want to wear a helmet, by all means, do so. Just don't pretend like that will protect you from accidents like this.

A cyclist has the same rights and responsibilities to share the road with 2-ton vehicles. Not exercise your right to share the road with 2-ton vehicles will protect you from accidents like this, especially in Orange County where the roads are very much engineered for cars and not for cyclists.

This is a lot like saying water fountains are engineered for white people.

Nobody is a criminal until the investigation is concluded and a judge or jury makes that determination.

When you get rear-ended, it's pretty much always the other driver's fault.

Being "at fault" in a car accident does not make one a criminal.

Agreed, but if someone dies and it's your fault, it does make you a killer, as in one who has killed.  Maybe it's not murder, but it ain't a kiss on the cheek either.

True...I've just always been terrified of striking someone and can't imagine the grief on either side - if the driver was negligent she'll face the "criminal" label but if some other circumstances (mechanical failure, blowout, etc)  were present that this short article or the P-T article doesn't include then I'm sure the grief of knowing you killed another human being is enough punishment without facing the pitchforks.  It may turn out to be negligent vehicular manslaughter.  It may not.

While strictly true, the driver was involved in the death of another driver. The surviving driver should be processed for suspected manslaughter no matter what. THEN the judge, jury and the rest of the system gets it's chance. 

The odds are against such charges ever being brought. The odds are that the driver drove that killer truck home last night after the "investigation" was complete, if she wasn't too shaken up by it.

I'm sure the survivor wasn't trying to kill anyone, but the problem we have is that since ALL of us drive, we want to make sure that the status quo puts the onus of responsibility on those most likely to be injured, simply for the convenience of not having to take any extra care or caution when we are near them.

Manslaughter would apply if the driver acted recklessly. Accidents are a common occurrence on city streets, whether they are with other vehicles or cyclists. It's not the fault of the driver that a cyclist chose a vehicle that offers less protection.

Yeah a helmet probably doesn't help when you're hit so hard you're thrown 60 feet.

That's terrible, drivers need to be alert.

:( At least the driver has the moral fortitude to stick around and not flee the scene like most cowardly motorists do.

Most motorists who get into an accident flee the scene?

Far too many.  If we're splitting Ezra's hairs let's just say that most "cowardly" motorists flee the scene which is how he phrased it.  The ones with integrity always stick around.