So many disingenuous trolls in this thread, you make me sick.

We know for a fact that Howrey was not over the speed limit at this intersection. Anyone suggesting Howrey's speed was a contributor is either willfully ignorant or deliberately lying, no doubt about it. It is right there in the article, his cyclocomputer confirms it, and it was affirmed in the court proceedings.

We know for a fact that to make this turn *safely*, you pull up NEXT TO AND EVEN SLIGHTLY PAST the tree, prepared to stop, as you look to see if the road is clear. Look at the picture posted above - it really is very obvious, and if you have driven or ridden there you know this too. If you a) don't cut the corner and b) slow down enough to check the road ahead, then the tree is not even in the line of sight. if Loven was driving safely, the tree would not be a factor.

We know for a fact that this intersection can be navigated safely, without killing anyone - tree or not. It is not inherent a dangerous intersection, let alone a murderous one. Thousands of drivers and cyclists do it every week, before the tree was removed and since. Anyone arguing the tree was at fault should have their license revoked immediately because they are reckless and unsafe drivers who should be nowhere near the wheel of a vehicle.

We know for a fact that Loven did not stop at the intersection before turning. You simply do not lay down skid marks if you stop (next to the tree) before making that turn, no matter how hard to subsequently brake. He has admitted it, and the court record reflects it. When he was doing 18-22mph on that stretch in a large truck-and-trailer, it actually seems most likely that he did not even slow down before charging into the intersection.

We know for a fact that Loven did not have the right of way, and that Howrey did have the right of way. There is neither circumstance nor evidence in this case that anyone or anything could negate this essential rule of law.

We know for a fact that Loven did not navigate this intersection safely. He killed someone who had the right of way on the opposite side of the road while turning across it. Clearly this was unsafe. QED.

And for anyone arguing the tree is the fault - if the tree was a factor at all, then it is because Loven was negligent in its presence. Remember, Loven lives in the area and knows that intersection very well. He knows cyclists (and cars) come downhill quickly. He knows that you need to take that corner safely to ensure you have the visibility you need to make a legal turn against oncoming traffic, even when they are doing the speed limit.

Loven is clearly 100% at fault here. Not the tree, not the county, and most certainly not Howrey. Any other finding will be a complete travesty. Anyone arguing that Howrey bears even one iota of the blame is a horrible and nasty person who sickens me to my core.

If you still don't think Loven bears responsibility, ask yourself - if you were driving your car and Loven turned across you and totaled your vehicle, sending you to hospital, would you give him a pass? How about if it were your husband, wife, son or daughter who was driving, and he had killed them at that intersection? Still all the tree's fault? A bike with someone you don't know on it has as much right to that road as a car with your loved ones in it.

Perhaps Loven's prior history of naked and criminal aggression isirrelevant to this case - though I tend to disagree ("goes to motive, you honor"). Even if so, then it absolutely should be brought out for sentencing. This man should never be allowed to menace Boulder cyclists again as he has done in the past; he should never be allowed to kill Boulder cyclists as he has also done. Our community should be permanently saved from his violence, aggression, and deadly actions.

The Camera should not just act as a PR agency for such horribly biased and seriously suspect propaganda. This drivel is just pandering to the unconscionable funding for the illegitimate 'war on drugs'.

And where is the link to the review? Has the writer even seen it? Why can't we see it for ourselves? Is the anti-drug agency scared we might find gaping holes, and reveal the lies in this 'report'?

So to start with, this is a sloppy, lazy article.

To the substance, such as it is, how do the anti-MMJ crusaders distinguish between medical MJ and illegal MJ? Do they take the word of a drug runner? A dealer in Commerce City? A 14 year old? Not like these people would have any incentive to lie about their source, maybe to hide their illegal suppliers or grow-ops, right? *facepalm*

Seems like they just decided to put the word 'medical' in front of all their marijuana busts, and blame MMJ for all the demand for pot. Is there any evidence at all that this was really MMJ?

This whole article just disgusts me. The systemic dishonesty, the easy propaganda, the sloppy journalism, the obvious bias, the legitimization of lies ...

Ugh.

No, you are factually wrong. Many roads are built for both cars and bicycles. It's right there in the laws of the state of Colorado.

If you cannot deal with that fact, in a way that the law requires, then you should stop driving. It's entirely your choice.

Not Happy Comcast!

Visiting Qwest soon enough.
http://qwest.com

Done in one. Thanks.

This.

I don't mountain bike at all. Or walk the trails. So, I didn't get anything. Nice try.

But FWIW - saying mt bikers got a bike park is like telling hikers they got a treadmill. So different as to be a non-sequitur. Your arguments in this thread are really quite non-sensical.

Reading their website, and the reportage here in the Camera, it seems to me that SOS Boulder is just lying.

Outright, bald-faced, self-serving lies.

Appalling and selfish behavior from some appalling and selfish people.

What horrible people.

Just because you buy some boots doesn't turn you into some kind of protected minority.

And people piss and moan about cyclists being a problem on the roads!?

BAN ALL CARS!! THEY ARE A MENACE ON THE ROADS!!