> How is it unclear?

The article posted sucks as a reference. I read a few different accounts, which added little but confusion. Anyway I answered your question above. People on bikes have the rights of pedestrians and vehicles. Around here the laws are ambiguous at best. The history of the broader US is that bicycle laws are overwhelmingly ambiguous or non existent, and bicyclists are treated with contempt by many. You may be one of them, I don’t know.

> If I am on the road in my car, on my motorcycle or in a bicycle, tricycle or even a scooter I follow the same rules.

Again, at issue is what rules to follow.

>Motorcycle law allows them to go thru a red light after 45 seconds of wait time if the intersection is clear. That someone wants to see ambiguity is a different story.

Have not heard that one before. In Oregon I read motor vehicles can ignore a stop sign if making a right turn. But wrt ambiguity, there as here, bicyclists are indiscriminately granted access to routes for both motor vehicles and pedestrians. You can’t blame someone for using that capability to an advantage. Well, I suppose you can try but it would be an empty gesture….

> According to the prosecutor, he ran 3 red lights

First, according to another account, he ran stop signs and not lights. But more to the point that is absolutely irrelevant. At best it goes to support a perception of character. Maybe he didn’t shave for a couple of days either. That too would also support a perception of character. But neither have anything to do with the fact that he hit someone. He confessed to doing so. Admitting that was probably his biggest mistake.

>Entering the yellow light situation, you are responsible for being sure it is safe

This is a good point, but still arguable based on circumstance. One can safely enter an intersection. Someone else may make the same decision at about the same time and thereby make for an unavoidable conflict. Nearly everyone has seen this. How do you ascribe blame?

> Did he run a yellow?

You tell me:

> Framed by whom?

As stated before, if people entered the cross walk against a wait sign, they were all jaywalking. If true, he was inappropriately blamed for the mis-deeds of a crowd.

Heck, go a step further and speculate: if a police man directed the pedestrian traffic to enter the roadway while the perp was rolling through, then we have a framing and massive cover up. For all we know from the article, the guy on the bike could have been thrown under the proverbial bus to protect an inattentive LEO, who was just 3 months from retirement. The account is sketchy and there are too few facts to work with.

>both should be charged.

That’s my fantasy too.

The key details about this article, and I guess everyone missed it is that it’s the first “conviction” of a bicycle rider for vehicular homicide. The article states the perp would not have gotten jail time had the case been gone through a trial. It wasn’t even really a conviction but rather a weak kneed plea deal. Was the perp even guilty of anything or did he just cave due to a mis-guided supposition?

Perhaps the perp’s lawyer was a moron or perhaps the perp himself was a moron by not keeping his mouth shut. We don’t know.

The video above, even tho unrelated, tells the story...