By CAROLYN SZCZEPANSKI
Photos courtesy Denise Henning
The scene at the intersection of 12th Street and Grand Boulevard on the afternoon of June 9, 2006, was grisly. A mangled red bike lay against the curb at the end of a long streak of blood. Its rider, 65-year-old John Triggs, was a block away, pinned under the rear wheels of a massive concrete mixer.
Just before 4 p.m., Triggs had started across the street on a green light when an industrial truck struck and dragged him to his ultimate death.
The driver, Jason Driskell, told police he didn’t see Triggs and didn’t get so much as a traffic ticket. The company, Fordyce Concrete Company, wasn’t held liable for the fatal accident, either.
So last year, Triggs’ wife and two sons filed a wrongful death suit against Driskell and the Overland Park-based business.
This month, just a few days before the trial was to begin, Fordyce and the family reached a $2 million settlement.
In their May 2007 petition, Triggs’ family alleged that Driskell had acted negligently in not spotting the cyclist and lawfully yielding to him in the crosswalk. The suit also alleged that Fordyce had not properly trained Driskell to operate the cement mixer, especially on the heavily trafficked streets of downtown Kansas City.
According to court documents, Fordyce rejected any responsibility, claiming instead that it was Triggs who was at fault for riding in a careless manner and initiating contact with the truck.
Denise Henning, the Triggs family attorney, says the company wasn’t willing to acknowledge any fault. “They fought us tooth and nail the entire case,” she says.
But the prospect of a jury trial, complete with photos of a well-loved community philanthropist under the tires of the truck, may have brought the company to the table, Henning says. (A manager for Fordyce and the company’s attorney, Dan Church, did not return messages from The Pitch.)
On Wednesday, Jackson County Judge Michael Manners signed an order approving a $2 million settlement for the Triggs. The company did not admit fault, Henning says, but it still was a victory for the Triggs’ family and the cycling community.
“The family was looking to make Fordyce Concrete responsible for what they did,” she says. “The second thing was to raise awareness in Kansas City about bike safety. We’re not friendly to bicyclists. We’re often hostile, as drivers, to cyclists.”
Surely John Triggs, who spent a lifetime exploring the country on his bike, would hope that this settlement will send a message worth millions.
Showing 1-28 of 28
"you might have enough muscle mass to actually be able to take a hit from a car"
How can any person say something so cruel? How can you be so callous?
I suppose I don't understand, Trevor, how it is that you have so easily ignored the fact that the victim was a person. Who honestly gives a damn whether hi family is suing? In the end, it's just money. The man had a family and you're talking about his being "scraped off the undercarriage" as if he were a squirrel running across the street.
No Trevor, that must have been some other guy's thought pattern you were illustrating in your recent post, not mine.
Notice I never mentioned the law suit. I have no firm opinion of ruling, as I was not a jury member nor an eyewitness. I am so sorry for both parties and I wish them both well. I abhor frivolous law suits.
But I also abhor road rage. I find both to be selfish and despicable.
Your tone, Trevor, is that of a schoolyard bully. I was hoping you would take the hint and ratchet it down a notch. Having a discussion about personal responsibility, in a scenario like this news story provided, is a worthy exercise and I'm disappointed that there was not more rational, adult interaction going on throughout the comments.
(You were not alone. Sorry if I'm picking on you here, but you were the loudest, and certainly the most recurring voice of contention in the crowd.)
I hope in the future my tax money will provide us with more bike paths, safer sidewalks and curbs, and wider roads. In the interim, I think we could all do a better job at being safer riders/drivers and, pipe dreamer that I am, treating each other with respect...
Ok, Liz, let's continue your thought pattern.
(the) Trevor as Liz:
I love America!
I love that I have the freedom to sue people who ran over my kids as I brought them home from school.
I love that it is not my fault that putting my kids on a busy street on a bike isn't my fault.
I love that my tax dollars pay for courts that allow me to obtain "victory", and more importantly money, even if there is no fault.
Here in America, we can discriminate against certain vehicles for "safety reasons" yet allow more unsafe vehicles free access under the premise that when the lack of safety causes injury or death, we can sue!
I love America!
P.S.
Don't give in to reason, Liz!
That leads to court systems that can focus on crime!
I love America!
I love the freedom I have to get from point A to point B in whatever manner I choose. I love being able to use my hard earned tax money as I ride my bicycle (on the street) with my kids to and from school each day. Golly I'd love to take the sidewalk, but there's only a smattering of sidewalk here and there, and it's so broken up it's more hazardous than riding in the street. A quiet, low traffic suburban street, I might add.
Here in America, we do what works. We don't conform to people, especially bullies, who demand we do it their way or not at all.
I love America!
P.S.
Don't give into hate, Trevor!
That leads to the dark side of the force!
Lets see here for people who cant seem to understand this. The truck and the bike were east bound on 12th street at the SAME light. The truck was turning south on the GREEN light onto grand when Triggs rode into the street that the truck was already making the corner.
"Triggs had started across the street on a green light when an industrial truck struck and dragged him to his ultimate death."
Which part of "green light" sounds like he did not have the right of way? Why is the truck driver getting so much sympathy for running a red?
You should get both sides of the story before you start to talk about things like this. Since this tragic accident happened everything I read or watch has all been from the family side. Why don't we hear anything from the police, the company, or from anyone else. It seems like the police did there job and did it very well, in your article you wrote "At the time, police could not determine who was at fault." Are you trying to say the police have determined it now or are you just reporting on what the family and there lawyers have to say? Whatever happened to when the news and the reporters actually took pride in their jobs and took the time to report the entire story and not just part of it? I guess it is just easier to do your job half #### and pick up your paycheck and not worry about the fact that you could be harming people. Here is one last question, if the truck struck him then how come there was no impact on the front of the truck just the side, and how come he was the only one out of all the people standing on the corner that entered the street? Maybe he was the one not paying attention and was in a hurry and didn't look both ways. I guess we can keep spilling hot coffee in our laps and use our court sytem to get something we don't deserve.
You should get both sides of the story before you start to talk about things like this. Since this tragic accident happened everything I read or watch has all been from the family side. Why don't we hear anything from the police, the company, or from anyone else. It seems like the police did there job and did it very well, in your article you wrote "At the time, police could not determine who was at fault." Are you trying to say the police have determined it now or are you just reporting on what the family and there lawyers have to say? Whatever happened to when the news and the reporters actually took pride in their jobs and took the time to report the entire story and not just part of it? I guess it is just easier to do your job half #### and pick up your paycheck and not worry about the fact that you could be harming people. Here is one last question, if the truck struck him then how come there was no impact on the front of the truck just the side, and how come he was the only one out of all the people standing on the corner that entered the street? Maybe he was the one not paying attention and was in a hurry and didn't look both ways. I guess we can keep spilling hot coffee in our laps and use our court sytem to get something we don't deserve.
You should get both sides of the story before you start to talk about things like this. Since this tragic accident happened everything I read or watch has all been from the family side. Why don't we hear anything from the police, the company, or from anyone else. It seems like the police did there job and did it very well, in your article you wrote "At the time, police could not determine who was at fault." Are you trying to say the police have determined it now or are you just reporting on what the family and there lawyers have to say? Whatever happened to when the news and the reporters actually took pride in their jobs and took the time to report the entire story and not just part of it? I guess it is just easier to do your job half #### and pick up your paycheck and not worry about the fact that you could be harming people. Here is one last question, if the truck struck him then how come there was no impact on the front of the truck just the side, and how come he was the only one out of all the people standing on the corner that entered the street? Maybe he was the one not paying attention and was in a hurry and didn't look both ways. I guess we can keep spilling hot coffee in our laps and use our court sytem to get something we don't deserve.
Did he really say lawn mowers aren't vehicles? Methinks John Deere may want to whip his ass. So, what constitutes a vehicle if it isn't wheels that carry folks around?
Did he really say "everyone is allowed to move freely...except those...incarcerated"? How do those folks move about when shanking each other?
Bruce, bikers live in a horrible loophole in the law. If we would simply criminalize it, as it deserves, you too could actually determine the true amount of mobility in our prisons.
It seems Trevor is alone on this list. I bike to work. I am a "ultra right wing conservative christian republican" I find the label "hippies want to save the animals and ferns" offensive. I drive a car for recreation. I ride a bike for transportation, my health, and my budget. My main problem with Trevor is that his vitriol is tantamount to threats of violence against anyone on a bike. Points in favor of mowing, and "how are you going to do that when you are unable to save yourselves?" for example. "I have no problem with you attempting to look like an overstuffed lumpy sausage in spandex casing, I have no problem with your exercising, and I have no problem with your desire to lodge a triangular butt plug where the good Lord split you. However, can�t you do this on a stationary bike in your own home?" This works OK, except that I ride for transportation, and the stationary just doesn't get me there.
"Here we go with �rights�. Ok, let�s review. The rights of scooters, lawnmowers, and various other sub standard vehicles are nonexistent on the roads for safety reasons. How bikes have a loophole is unclear. What is clear is that the loophole needs to be closed." This compares nicely to the following that I stole from MODOT: "MoDOT works with planning partners to create transportation facilities that work for all users because we value bicycle and pedestrian travel." If you travel through the Ozarks, you may see horse drawn carriages on the road. They are allowed because they are vehicles, even if they are slow. Motorscooters are allowed on the roads because they are vehicles. Bicycles are allowed on the roads because they are vehicles, as Trevor himself states. "Also, please do call the police. What we REALLY need is yet another wheeled vehicle on the roads with the driver on the phone instead of paying attention." (in case he forgot) Lawn mowers are not vehicles. Not everyone can drive. Money may be prohibitive. Legal constraints may be prohibitive. Ability may be prohibitive. In the United States, everyone is allowed to move freely to the extent of their ability, except those individuals who are incarcerated. The only way to move freely is on the roads, with a car or other means of transportation, or on foot; unless of course Trevor would rather have us go through the back yard. Yes we have rights. Yes we have responsibilities. Trevor also has responsibilities as a driver. He also has rights as a driver. Dictating how I live my life is not one of either his rights or responsibilities.
Here we go with �rights�. Ok, let�s review. The rights of scooters, lawnmowers, and various other sub standard vehicles are nonexistent on the roads for safety reasons. How bikes have a loophole is unclear. What is clear is that the loophole needs to be closed. The existing laws are simply broke and we have means of fixing it while making a majority of people happy, while saving the minority from untimely death.
As far as dealing with you at a light�I would rather do that than have to scrape your ass off my undercarriage and pay money for something for which I am not at fault, as is apparently the case with Fordyce.
Also, please do call the police. What we REALLY need is yet another wheeled vehicle on the roads with the driver on the phone instead of paying attention. Plus, the police hate your decisions too�they are sick of scraping your asses off of things.
Plus, get it straight; I do not hate YOU, I hate you being on the roads when the necessity is not there and you endanger yourselves so senselessly. All you hippies want to save the animals and ferns; how are you going to do that when you are unable to save yourselves?
Triggs started across the street on a green light and was struck and killed by Driskell(who must have had a red light) who didn't see him and got no ticket. Did I read that right? Laws must have changed since I ran my last red light. Negligent homicide must be OK too.
Triggs started across the street on a green light and was struck and killed by Driskell(who must have had a red light) who didn't see him and got no ticket. Did I read that right? Laws must have changed since I ran my last red light. Negligent homicide must be OK too.
good god, all this intelligent discussion that recognizes the real faults on both sides AND actually reccomends changes in behavior . . . this is a banner day for the internet. good job
I am an avid cyclist, a member of the League of American Cyclists and have taken several safety training courses. Why are so many motorist are so adamantly against bicyclist? We are here to stay so not sure why all the kickback and guess i don't really care about the single minded opinions of the Trevor's of the world. the reality is that the state governments of both Kansas and Missouri have clearly stated that a bicycle has the same RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITIES as a motor vehicle. If you ride a bike get off the sidewalk, sidewalks are for pedestrians. Wear a damn helmet! it costs $20.00 and your hair doesn't look that good in the first place. You are required to obey the traffic laws
Bicylist's -
1. You must stop at all stop signs and lights, and you must maintain your place in traffic (no sneaking up on the right)
2. You must signal!
3. You must ride in a single file line to the right side of the lane so as not to obstruct the normal flow of traffic.
4. If you are using the crosswalk, you must act as a pedestrian and follow all signals and WALK your bike across (you don't get to choose which one at your convenience!)
Motorists-
1. Don't surprise a cyclist (the horn is not funny) and yelling out the window will isn't cute (karma states that the light will turn red and you then get to deal with me!)
2. Cutting off cyclist, following too close, running them off the road is road rage and we will call the police!
3. Hold the cyclist accountable for their actions! if they break the law call the police!
We are all in this together, I don't like your huge SUV that screams ultra right wing conservative christian republican without a clue on board any more that you like my bike. but it's your choice and i respect that, so deal with my choices and get on with whats really important, helping make our city a better city (no matter what side you live on!)
I commute by bike as much as possible to save gas, and wear/tear on my car. And it keeps the �overstuffed sausage effect� from taking over my body.
Trevor (and the �99+%� of motorists out there), please understand the �99+%� of cyclists commuting on the road are not there to burden your short fuses when it comes to patience behind the wheel. Yes, PATIENCE! Sounds like if cyclists aren�t slowing you down then it�ll be something else you�ll be complaining about. What most motorists (yes I�m including myself here when I�m not riding) need to realize... brief delays like those occasionally created by cyclists are usually short lived. That 3~5 second delay is not going to make you that late or get you fired. And if you�re on time then why speed??? If you�re late then blame yourself, slow down, and keep other people alive!
On the other hand, cyclists need to take their full share of responsibility if they want respect on the road! Commuting by bike doesn�t give cyclists the right to disregard their responsibilities as a motorist; it actually demands better judgment! Like it or not we ARE sometimes hard to see no matter how many reflectors and lights we use. In the case of Triggs, the golden rule should have been, if you can�t see the driver then they most likely CAN�T see you! Just because you have the right to cross first doesn�t mean you can�t use common sense and make an exception when the situation demands it. Like it or not cyclists are the "little guys", so OPEN YOUR EYES, BE MORE VIGILENT AND PREDICTABLE! That kind of body language will be heard much better by motorists and will be respected!!! Riding, just like driving, is more a privilege than a right and should always be respected more so if you choose to share the road.
Don�t ever ask the question, �Can�t we all just get along?�, if you�re the one offending others!!!!!!
To answer your question, Anonymous, I believe the way the accident happened was a misunderstanding.
The truck was waiting to turn right on red. The bicyclist was waiting to cross the street. The bicyclist thought that the truck was waiting for him to go, so the bicyclist proceeded. However, the truck had not seen the bicyclist, and had not been signaling for the bicyclist to go. So the truck proceeded to turn right on red.
Trucks like that have a large high open space between their front and back wheels. Another cyclist was killed that way shortly after this incident, out in Lee's Summit. A gasoline truck was turning in to a convenience store and I believe clipped the bicycle which didn't have time to get out of the way of the back wheels. I am not sure a truck can see a bicycle that is in that position relative to the truck. Buses have a low side flank down there and probably would have nudged or scooted the bicyclist out of the way (not sure.) Those trucks with the open space before the back wheels are pretty dangerous from what I have read.
There are three anti-biker points here that support mowing, and only one is ignoring traffic laws. The key difference is a SUV can take a Smartcar or your Escape and you will be battered and bruised, but you will probably live, at least until it backs up and finishes the job. Also, without question, bicyclists break traffic laws much more regularly than the four wheeled�well, except speed limits. And that is only because the huffer on the Huffy can�t generate velocities equal to the speed limit.
One of my favorite things in the world is when drivers pretend that they never blow off stop signs, so they can point their pointer-fingers of disapprobation at cyclists. Sanctimonious douchebags. Seriously, fuckers, I see you shoot through red lights, cut off little old ladies on the highway, drive above the speed limit and turn without signaling all the fucking time, so please, let's find a new argument about why it's OK to mow down cyclists. Because the old one is bullshit.
I rarely see bike riders stop at stop signs. I guess they are for the cars only.
Maybe if riders obeyed the rules of the road like they want car drivers to do, more respect would be given.
Seriously, bikers, your hubris is beyond pissing us off. You are a burden to the streets because you do increase traffic due to your inability to travel at posted speed limits. You are a burden to the environment because the other 99-plus percent of us need to hit our brakes and then accelerate, which increases carbon footprint. You are a burden to public safety because you whimsically ignore traffic regulations. What�s more, try enjoying a walk on a wooded path with a child in a stroller and you find yourself assailed with, �ON YOUR RIGHT�.
I have no problem with you attempting to look like an overstuffed lumpy sausage in spandex casing, I have no problem with your exercising, and I have no problem with your desire to lodge a triangular butt plug where the good Lord split you. However, can�t you do this on a stationary bike in your own home? Further, if you spent half as much energy biking as you do whining about your undeterminable right to be on the roads, you might have enough muscle mass to actually be able to take a hit from a car.
Burden. Thats rich, a comment made by an idiot or someone just trying to rile people up... Bikes are better for the environm... oh wait. That wont fly with someone like you. Ok. The more bikes, mean less cars in front of you on YOUR streets, the less cars taking up YOUR parking spots, the less demand for gas, thus reducing the price of YOUR gas, more healthy riders thus being less burden on YOUR healthcare system... less pollution in the air YOU breath... less wear and tear on YOUR roads... etc. You are right. Cyclists are obviously a burden.
To see how much the family did this for justice and for the biking community, and public awareness, lets see them donate the proceeds of the settlement to charity.
Then I'll believe they didn't have dollar signs in their eyes. Was the guy walking his bike in the crosswalk or riding it and obeying traffic?
Cyclists a burden on streets, environment, and public safety? What have you been smoking, Trevor?
John Triggs' death is hardly a victory for anyone, but it's good to see his killer held liable for his negligence. "I didn't see him" isn't an acceptable excuse for killing someone.
like
dislike
